Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[Greg Bernhardt]

Attention: These rules are deprecated as of 6/9/2014

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.

Please refer to this page by NASA for information
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

 

[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]

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!

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]

. . . . , but I have to admit I'm disappointed in this decision.

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.

 

[drizzle]

... 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]

Can we still talk about local warming ?

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...

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.

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.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2522542&postcount=31
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2491086&postcount=24
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2519363&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]

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.

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]

This new poster to Earth, Mauri S. Pelto, claims to have published and done peer review for peer reviewed articles.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2522542&postcount=31
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2491086&postcount=24
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2519363&postcount=10

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

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]

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 him to sources of information.

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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

Uh, well, prior to about 20 years ago ... all of them.

To us old codgers, climate change is very new. Yet we still managed to somehow fill our days with Earth science stuff.

 

[Kurdt]

I'm not sure there are enough people that are interested in discussing climate change to warrant moderating it. There aren't a great deal of members that discuss it actively and regularly. Thats before the fact that its incredibly difficult to moderate anyway. The whole subject seems set up to create perpetual arguments.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The problem is that there are two equally legitimate camps within climate science.

At least, that is the fallacy that has been perpetuated here.

I would rather lose the topic than see it continually compromised from an academic perspective.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The problem is that there are two equally legitimate camps within climate science.

Is there any good survey information on this? I remember being surprised by the "P vs. NP" poll in TCS that showed a significant minority are unsure of the resolution of the problem.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is that there are two equally legitimate camps within climate science.

At least, that is the fallacy that has been perpetuated here.

You feel that there is really only one correct side of the issue. If I may ask: which side?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

You feel that there is really only one correct side of the issue. If I may ask: which side?

This thread will not be turned into a debate. Comments and suggestions about the policy please.

 

[sylas]

You feel that there is really only one correct side of the issue. If I may ask: which side?

I agree with Ivan, because I think there are MANY sides, and they are not equally legitimate.

In particular, many of the most contentious issues in public debate have no credible scientific basis at all. However, since Greg has said -- rightly -- this thread is not for debating the science questions, I won't list any of them.

Suffice to say that before anyone could answer "which side", we'd have to say "which question?". Some questions have three or four sides of comparable legitimacy or have no good solutions available as yet. Some questions are resolved insofar as science can resolve anything. Others fall along a spectrum of confidence between these extremes.

I don't believe the problem of climate discussion is unmanageable at all; but on the other hand, there are two things Greg has made clear and which I shall accept.

• The new policy is regrettable, and he hopes it will be temporary. I agree on both points. (No time limit is given, so the closure should be taken as indefinite for the time being.)
• The new policy is not up for debate. (... or is it? ...)

I'm glad to have the chance to comment, and I can accept this closure with regret, and with the understanding that I for one will be continuing to explore ways that the topic can be managed better when and if it is ever open again.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[DaveC426913]

This thread will not be turned into a debate. Comments and suggestions about the policy please.

Fair enough. (But for the record, it was not a loaded question, nor do I have any agenda in asking. I actually have no idea what camp he's in.)

 

[sylas]

... Comments and suggestions about the policy please.

FWIW... I had a couple of suggestions a while ago, which might have been better raised in a different thread. But in any case, if and when this topic is ever reopened, I think it would be sensible to identify plainly in the forum guidelines some particular viewpoints that are not open to debate. These should be claims that are widely recognized as nonsense, even by people who consider themselves a climate skeptic on other matters.

At present, the guidelines thread has a closed topics list as [post=2269439]msg #2[/post], and this could be extended to include some specific closed topics with respect to climate, if the complete ban is removed at any future date; analogous to other close topics in cosmology and so on.

Given that the staff are not all of one mind we probably can't have a sweeping endorsement of a tightly defined perspective, and we certainly want to remain open to the questions that are debated seriously in the science literature. But I think it should be possible to agree that the following ought to be "closed topics"

• Claims that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist at all, or violates thermodynamics.
• Claims that human activity has only a small effect on atmospheric carbon levels.
• Claims that atmospheric carbon levels are unimportant to climate.

We could add a few to this list; but not too many.

I also think it would be useful to keep much tighter control on focus. A thread is best to have a specific topic, and we don't want every thread to evolve into a reprise of the whole global warming discussion.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[mugaliens]

I found your post, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2522834&postcount=12", to be exceptionally well put, sylas, and as a long time (2+ decades) forum administrator myself, I'm perplexed that a better solution hasn't been found. I do understand the mentors' dilemma, though, and respect their decision. Hopefully, a more ameniable solution can soon be found.

 

[Evo]

Is there any good survey information on this? I remember being surprised by the "P vs. NP" poll in TCS that showed a significant minority are unsure of the resolution of the problem.

Yes there is, but this thread is not to be used for debate.

 

[Dale]

I agree with the decision. Unfortunately, it has proven effectively impossible to divorce the political aspects of the topic from the scientific aspects here. That is why I have largely avoided the discussions despite my personal interest in the subject matter.

 

[DaveC426913]

While I grant the decision has already been made, I'm assuming that, since the thread is still open, there's an opportunity to discuss.

It seems that the problem as defined is these two camps, one based on accepted research and one that refutes it.

Is this not identical to the Standard Cosmological Model in physics? Would it not be sufficient to deal with it the same way? To say, in the rules: "this forum has accepted the 'standard' model of climate change and will not be entertaining fringe theories not based on well-documented studies"?


It seems to me that if it works for Physics, it should work the ame for Earth Sciences. Yes, it would take a long time to convince people to stop challenging it.


That way, PF would be proactive in becoming a leader in CW issues rather than rejecting it to remain in the 20th century on the issue.



Oh, I see the problem. As mentioned, it comes down to requiring a Moderator and attracting authorities on the subject.

 

[billiards]

Considering that about three quarters of the topics on the first page of the Earth forum concern GW, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a major blow for the community.

 

[Redbelly98]

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.

 

[Evo]

And we're talking about a forum with only 4-6 active members posting on a consistant basis requiring a tremendous amount of moderation.

 

[Moonbear]

It's sad it's had to come to this, but given the long history of a very few members creating an awful lot of moderation hassle because they CANNOT stick to the science (how often have you seen peer-reviewed journals being cited accurately and in context in any of the debates on climate change?), but rather the crank sites, political sources, blogs, popular press, and other sources that simply are a distraction from the actual science, I understand fully where this has come from and support the decision. The reality is that in recent times, I don't even think someone could start a thread on meteorology without it being hijacked into a global warming thread in short time.

Having been a mentor, I understand that when one issue, discussed actively by only a few members, ends up being a huge effort on the part of the mentors to moderate, it distracts them from being helpful in a lot of other areas and just makes the forum look bad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What most concerns me is that PF not be a part of the problem of mythmaking. Honestly, I don't agree with this decision. I think this has always been a manageable problem. But given the apparent viable alternatives, no better options exist. Politics is the art of what's possible.

For the record, I don't think this is necessary.

Hopefully Greg will find a legitmate climate scientist to help moderate.

 

[Xnn]

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.

Whoa!

There is main stream science and the other side.

The main stream scientist are professionals, teach courses and publish peer reviewed papers.
Every few years, there is an International meeting where all the papers are skeptically reviewed. After debate, the current state of the scientific understanding of climate change is published. Levels of low understanding are identified and further work is encouraged to refine the understanding. It is recognized as an ongoing process.

Then there is the other side. I won't attack the other side, because I'm not sure I understand it. However, I find it disheartening that the other side is considered to be perfectly legitimate. How can that be?


Evo;

Can you explain to us why you consider the other side to be perfectly legitimate?


All other Mentors;

Do you feel there are 2 perfectly legitimate sides to global warming/climate change?


Thank-you for your reply.

 

[Astronuc]

This thread is for discussion the new policy, not for debating the merits or GW/CC or the validity of one side or the other in the debate.

 

[Evo]

Whoa!

There is main stream science and the other side.

The main stream scientist are professionals, teach courses and publish peer reviewed papers.
Every few years, there is an International meeting where all the papers are skeptically reviewed. After debate, the current state of the scientific understanding of climate change is published. Levels of low understanding are identified and further work is encouraged to refine the understanding. It is recognized as an ongoing process.

Then there is the other side. I won't attack the other side, because I'm not sure I understand it. However, I find it disheartening that the other side is considered to be perfectly legitimate. How can that be?


Evo;

Can you explain to us why you consider the other side to be perfectly legitimate?


All other Mentors;

Do you feel there are 2 perfectly legitimate sides to global warming/climate change?


Thank-you for your reply.

We're not discussing it here Xnn. You can look up MIT's Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Richard Lindzen as one example of a highly respected climate scientist that believes there are problems with the models and the results.

Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS. He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Many agree that there are problems with the claims that are being made and they are very well known and respected climate scientists. There is not one correct side, that is why there is a dispute amongst the top scientists in the field.

 

[Wallace]

I see the problem now. I thought this was an issue of it being a nightmare for the staff keeping the barbarians out of the gates and agreed with the decision. Unfortunately it looks like they're already inside, and have access to the keys.

Even when Greg and other staff have pointed out that this thread is about the policy, not the so called scientific debate, looks like that can be ignored by one of the staff, who sounds instrumental in PF not being able to understand its own purpose and goals.

I've never played an active role (or even a passive one) in the Earth sciences forum, but this whole think now feels to me like a betrayal of everything that to me makes PF a place worth spending time at.

This is a crucial issue, and one where good clear science education is so important yet so lacking. It's a pity PF has had to retreat from playing any role because it's own staff couldn't get their house in order.

I have the utmost respect for all the staff and certainly couldn't claim I'd do a better job, but this is very disappointing. Not the decisions itself, which I initially accepted, but because of the very sad reasons why it has to be taken, which it appears is not quite how it was originally portrayed.

 

[Xnn]

Thanks Evo;

Now I understand better and agree that within the scientific arena, there can be areas where there is legitimate debate. This generally occurs where the level of understanding is low. However, there are many areas within science where our level of understanding is high and there really is no other legitimate side. The IPCC physical science basis document is the best source for that information. Individual scientist that disagree with the current science basis are free to publish. Their work will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.

The real problem with Climate Science is that there is also a heated political debate occurring about what to do about it. This is for good reason as the cost and consequences are enormous and global by nature. The world economy basically runs on carbon fuels, so there is not cheap way to stop emissions. However, long term consequence of climate change are dire.

So, it should not be surprising that there are many who wish to distort and confuse the science. Theirs is not a legitimate side. However, there is a lot that we already know very well. There is also a lot of work going on to improve our understanding of the science. Most everyone should agree that we really need to get this one right.

I would like to hope that the Physic Forum will help with furthering our level of understanding by clarifying what we know and don't know in a scientific sense. Some of us on the Earth Science forum strive to do that as well as we can. However, most of us are just interested amateurs and none of us are perfect.

Anyhow, getting off my soapbox; if you all need help I believe Sylas would make an excellent mentor. I'd volunteer myself too, but he's smarter and more careful than me.

 

[Evo]

Thanks Evo;

Now I understand better and agree that within the scientific arena, there can be areas where there is legitimate debate. This generally occurs where the level of understanding is low. However, there are many areas within science where our level of understanding is high and there really is no other legitimate side. The IPCC physical science basis document is the best source for that information. Individual scientist that disagree with the current science basis are free to publish. Their work will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.

The real problem with Climate Science is that there is also a heated political debate occurring about what to do about it. This is for good reason as the cost and consequences are enormous and global by nature. The world economy basically runs on carbon fuels, so there is not cheap way to stop emissions. However, long term consequence of climate change are dire.

So, it should not be surprising that there are many who wish to distort and confuse the science. Theirs is not a legitimate side. However, there is a lot that we already know very well. There is also a lot of work going on to improve our understanding of the science. Most everyone should agree that we really need to get this one right.

I would like to hope that the Physic Forum will help with furthering our level of understanding by clarifying what we know and don't know in a scientific sense. Some of us on the Earth Science forum strive to do that as well as we can. However, most of us are just interested amateurs and none of us are perfect.

Anyhow, getting off my soapbox; if you all need help I believe Sylas would make an excellent mentor. I'd volunteer myself too, but he's smarter and more careful than me.

You've always been a great poster XNN. Yes the problem is not the debate between the scientists, but the problem in moderating what falls inside that debate.

 

[Skyhunter]

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

All of which are related to climate.

Uh, well, prior to about 20 years ago ... all of them.

To us old codgers, climate change is very new. Yet we still managed to somehow fill our days with Earth science stuff.

Just because you only noticed it 20 years ago does mean that it did not exist before. The same geophysics that applied before 1988 are still applicable today. Climate change is currently the hottest topic in Earth sciences and will continue to be for the next decade, if not longer. My advice... get used to it.

Citing moderator inadequacy, or even more absurd, claiming there is a pro AGW and anti AGW camp in the scientific community, therefore only a certified climatologist is qualified to interpret the published literature is weak. I have learned more from discussions on this forum than anywhere, other than RealClimate. And yes I know it is a blog, therefore not a legitimate reference in the Earth forum, however it is a blog that is run by the very type of people that you are looking for to moderate here, climate scientists actively engaged in cutting edge climate research.

Just a guess here, but I'll bet that the moderator's discussion ended in a stalemate, just like most CC/AGW discussions do.

This is the best forum on the net to learn the nuances of the science, the rules and guidelines, enforced by the moderators filter out the political bias and allow us to get into the nuts and bolts of the underlying physics without all the hyperbolic absurdity that permeates the rest of the web. The dialogue is at an intermediate level, which means the layperson can participate. If there is not a single moderator, out of all the scientists here at PF, who can read and interpret the published literature accurately... then my estimation of PF is overblown.

Should prove interesting to watch this new policy enforced.

 

[Evo]

All of which are related to climate.

They can be discussed without dragging climate change into the discussion.

claiming there is a pro AGW and anti AGW camp in the scientific community,

No one has claimed that.

 

[sylas]

... This is the best forum on the net to learn the nuances of the science, the rules and guidelines, enforced by the moderators filter out the political bias and allow us to get into the nuts and bolts of the underlying physics without all the hyperbolic absurdity that permeates the rest of the web. ...

I want to endorse this. It's been true for the climate discussions, and its been true for a lot of other discussions as well. I've gained a heck of a lot here from cosmology discussions in particular, and (tossing humility to the winds) I believe I have given a heck of a lot as well, in climate and also in other areas. I've been highly appreciative of receiving the "science advisor" award; it is a genuine honour. But don't have any false humility about it; I believe I've earned it.

The SAs are not all equal. I'm not a patch on some of the others here, not even close. No false humility there either; I won't name names but there are SAs here who are astounding in their ability and their patience. I am an egg.

But I'm also a good choice to join those illustrious ranks, and I am determined to live up to a high standard set by those who have make physicsforums such a terrific site. I honestly have not seen anything better than this on the web for helping interested students, at all levels, get to grips with the wonderful world of modern physics, and I'm pleased as punch to be part of it. I'll continue to be part of it, no matter what happens with the climate debate.

I've had feedback from a number of regular posters as well, by PM, expressing appreciation of the site and of some threads where I've been able to give a bit of a help... not only in climate.

That's why this decision is such a terrible disappointment to me.

Even given the problems that undoubtedly exist, there's no other site quite like this one for the climate discussion, which has captured such wide popular interest and where so many people want to understand the issues better. There are plenty of advocacy sites, that exist to try and explain the majority viewpoint (which frankly I share without reservation). There are plenty of advocacy sites that exist to give a critique of the mainstream climate perspective. There are plenty of sites in which all kinds of people are able to express views with very little constraint.

Nowhere else, that I have seen, has there been a place quite like this, where the divergent views that do exist in working climate science have been able to be discussed, in a context where the merely absurd tend to get (mostly) reigned in and contained.

Obviously there have been problems. Clearly it has been a real strain for the mentors and for Greg as the owner of the site. But I think the problems are not actually that managing the discussion is over taxing. I think you've done extraordinarily well, and I fervently hope that sometime you will do so again.

For climate, I honestly think that I have been one of the most informed and knowledgeable of the regular contributors. I can think of at least one other active contributor who probably knows more, but has not been quite as regular, and (unfortunately, perhaps) has not been quite so... diplomatic. There may be others who have kept out of it; I don't know.

I have worked hard to be a positive contributor, consistent with the guidelines, welcoming and respectful of divergent viewpoints consistent with the guidelines and politely firm with viewpoints that are not consistent with the guidelines. I've clashed with other active and valued contributors once or twice, and that doesn't bother me. I've tried to reach out in those cases and find a way to continue to work well with them.

If anyone reading this thinks they might be in that category -- take it to heart. I don't mind disagreements at all. I respect people who can engage them positively. I'll always try to do the same myself, and will very much welcome any private communication to try and get us together again in a spirit of cooperation as we work through matters of incompatible difference.

I am not a professional expert, but I do have enough background to be a positive input and to recognize most of the various topics, and to quickly identify the different views that have been considered in the literature. It would be great to have a real honest to goodness working climate scientist as part of the discussions; but as I've said before, I don't think that's your biggest need.

It's been noted that there are a range of views on climate. That's obvious; but it is less obvious specifically which questions are credibly open to a range of resolutions, and which ones are all but resolved and contrary opinions are pretty much based on lack of understanding.

To be honest, I think a presumption of equal legitimacy is extraordinarily naive, and quite unlike the usual physicsforums approach. Perhaps I read to much into Evo's remark in [post=2522867]msg #17[/post]. But that doesn't matter. The point is that there are different views on the various questions of climate science, and the existing guidelines give a solid framework for looking those views which have at least some working scientific support, and allowing for a constructive and informative interaction between contributors who have differing views on which are more plausible.

I hope that with a bit of a break, the team will be able to manage this once more. I don't presume that; but there seems to be enough of a desire to find some workable solution that we can at least hope that one day this topic can be discussed once more.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[DaveC426913]

And we're talking about a forum with only 4-6 active members posting on a consistant basis requiring a tremendous amount of moderation.

I assume you've considered, and rejected, the idea of "deputizing" one of those 4-6 members?

 

[Bill Illis]

I've only spent a few weeks here and I certainly feel like I have gained a much greater understanding. I came here because the science was being discussed dispassionately and objectively (unlike "everywhere" else) and there were enough knowledgeable people around to correct any confusion. I broke a rule here or there (and made some rather dumb mistakes) but this field has areas which are still open to discussion, aspects that haven't been fully examined yet.

Is there a specialty of physics or of science that is more important than this at the current time? That is debateable but it is certainly important enough.

Anyway, I just want to say thanks to sylas, Xnn, Evo, Andre and others and the moderators.

 

[Skyhunter]

They can be discussed without dragging climate change into the discussion.

Hi. Come on in. Yes, I know there is an elephant in the living room but we don't talk about it. What's that smell?
Well, since it came from the elephant we can't discuss it. Just ignore it.

No one has claimed that.

Then what exactly does this mean?

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

 

[Xnn]

Anyhow, this thread is not for debating.

It is for comments and suggestions while a search is underway for the proper experts.

So, could somebody explain what would be required of and expected of that person?

I would like to help in the search.

 

[Mark24]

I'm very sad to see this post. As someone who has mainly lurked on the PF forums, I've found the Earth forum - specifically the discussion on global warming - to be one of the best resources for understandable and unbiased science on the issue.

I've been a skeptic of AGW, mainly because I've found that those in the climate field have chosen to so completely ignore skeptical inquiries into their work that it has left the impression that there is far less credible evidence for AGW than there truly is. From an outside observer who is not privy to the nitty gritty details, and thanks in part to the stonewalling by many in the climate field in response to skeptical inquiries into their work, much in the field of climate science, particularly the models, have appeared to largely involve hand waving rather than real science to the outside observer.

I think there is a big difference between this forum and elsewhere that sets it apart. I am someone who has a limited knowledge about climate, having only taken one course even somewhat related to the subject, and that is Thermodynamics. I could go to RealClimate and mention a concern of mine that might be perfectly valid, but to the experts in the field who have spent their life studying climate, it may seem like such an elementary issue that they choose to ignore it. Or even worse, they see any dissenters as 'denialists' and simply write everyone including me off as unworthy of a reply when I am genuinely interested and have a legitimate inquiry.

But here, once I started browsing threads on global warming in the Earth section of the PF, I found a great number of my skeptical questions that I had not yet asked answered by the patient responses of the contributors. (especially sylas) These are genuine and legitimate inquiries that the average person who hasn't spent their life devoted to climate science might have, explained in full enough detail that those interested in science can understand. I haven't found another place on the internet like that, so it is very unfortunate that the decision has been made to ban GW discussion here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hi. Come on in. Yes, I know there is an elephant in the living room but we don't talk about it. What's that smell?
Well, since it came from the elephant we can't discuss it. Just ignore it.

Pre-Big Bang discussion is also against PF rules. Do you think there can be no meaningful discussion of the current 13.7Gy-old universe without discussing how it got here in the first place?