Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[Evo]

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

• 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

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.

Cheers -- sylas

Chris Colose the student at Hudson Valley Community College that runs that blog?

 

[sylas]

Chris Colose [...who...] runs that blog?

Yes, that is correct.

I suspect 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.

Can I suggest we edit out his school? If he chooses to release than information, then it would okay. Until then, not.

Chris is a student of this subject, not a professional. He's a very good one, IMO. He has not ever claimed special status; his ability should be judged on its own merits and his posts have been excellent for substance and understanding of the subject matter, and for good use of valid references.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Evo]

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

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.

It's public knowledge Sylas. If he had registered anonymously that would be an entirely different story. We would never divulge a member's hidden identity.

We are looking for actual climate scientists, not just people that enjoy it as a hobby.

 

[sylas]

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.

All sorts of things are online for people who want to hunt it down. I do not think we should encourage posting of contact information like this in an open thread if the user has not chosen to make it available themselves at physicsforums.

For myself, I have given enough about myself here that someone could google for more if they really want. But I would be angry if someone found personal information about me online and published it in the threads. I'll choose what to tell people here about my own personal background, thanks. It is probable that Chris cares a bit less about his privacy than I do; but we should not presume that, and I think it would be better not to post what you find out about him by googling without his permission, particularly when it gets that specific about his location.

As for our discussion by PM, let's just note that we did not agree. I think the demand for professional credentials is ad hominem. It is insufficient to establish sanity or competence, and it is not necessary for competence.

I most DEFINITELY did not agree about anyone not having "sufficient" background.

None of us has sufficient standing to be a recognized authority just by looking over a CV. But several of us have sufficient background to make substantive and informative contributions on matters relating to climate. Chris most definitely does. You don't find this in a CV; you find it by checking the quality of information and sourcing in his posts -- and his blog as linked from his contact information.

I have simply listed some new posters who have improved the technical level of discussion in this topic over the last year. I have not proposed ANY of us as a standard reference point; and I have not proposed anyone as a working professional. Chris stands out, in my opinion, for ability and background knowledge. He has made some useful contributions to the discussions here. I believe that the level of discussion over the last year has improved and that overall the forum has been doing well at helping many users gets to grips with learning some background on climate science. This is endorsed by a number of members, despite not actually agreeing on all the issues pertaining to climate.

What we need, I suggest, is a focus on substance, more even than we need an authority figure.

Yes, Chris is a student. So what? A good student is frequently in an excellent position to provide helpful and substantive posts. Chris interacts regularly with working scientists on this topic and he is active in learning about it. He knows climate science very well. It is NOT just a hobby; that's really low. Being a student is no hobby. I am not proposing him as a mentor or as a standard reference point.

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.

There are also open questions in climate science. I've been active myself in trying to pull up the supporters of AGW who get some detail incorrect or overstate the confidence in some matter. (I've done this to Xnn a fair bit, but I am sure he has appreciated it, and he remains -- as we both agree -- one of the really excellent posters here.) Open questions can be addressed already by simply looking at the different papers that present alternative ideas. Many newcomers to the topic are unaware of just how open the IPCC reports and the scientific literature are about the subjects where there is significant uncertainty. Many newcomers to the topic are unaware of how some discoveries are now so strongly supported by a consilience of evidence that they are basic background for the whole field.

We are looking for actual climate scientists, not just people that enjoy it as a hobby.

What we are actually doing in this thread is looking for suggestions and comments on this new policy.

Finding a working scientist is just one of the suggestions. I think that would be great, but I think it is more important that we do a couple of other things as well.

• We should not defer to one authority figure, but continue to have discussion based on the whole body of working climate science. Science thrives on diverse views.
• We should not be tolerant of posts that just make dismissive remarks about widely applied scientific ideas, without having their own references for criticism of those ideas within the ferment of active scientific investigation. The diversity of viewpoints within working science is less that the diversity with the general popularion.
• We should be stronger about keeping threads focused on topic, rather that diverging into every other question about climate.

I believe that the forum has been working well as far as regular users are concerned, and that over this last year it has gone a long way to helping people learn more about the background of climate science as it is actually practiced.

I appreciate that there are divisions within the staff, and that it is time to take a breather.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[story645]

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?

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.

 

[cristo]

Furthermore, I do know it has been very hard on mentors, and I support the idea of taking a break. But I think that

• 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

it is legitimate to hope that the ban might be temporary and that some solution might eventually be tried and the topic reopened.

I think it should be made clear that the threads on GW in the Earth forum have not been working pretty well, otherwise this action would never have been taken. It has also been mentioned by several mentors that the primary reason things have not been working well is that we do not have a person qualified to take a moderation decision when one is needed-- I think vanesch sums this up clearly in his post above.

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.

I can't speak for her, but I'm sure Evo did not mean to dismiss someone's contributions simply because they are a student. PF relies on all sorts of people to make it a success, and students (of different stages in their education) make up a huge proportion of our member base.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

Here's an issue that has occurred repeatedly, and not just in the Earth forum.

A member cites respected, well-published papers. However,

(i) it doesn't mean that he/she understood the science content of the paper
(ii) he/she actually misused or misinterpret the content of the paper

Being able to cite and "explain" such content has nothing to do with presenting valid arguments. I can show you many physics posts that cited several published papers, but bastardized them into unrecognizable ways. How many times have you seen misguided people cited Thermo's 2nd Law (which is a valid principle) as the basis to argue that evolution is impossible? Only someone who has a knowledge of classical thermodynamics can see why such an argument is full of holes.

My original point still stand. Unless we have someone who is an expert in this area, there is no way for any of us to know the intricate details and, as importantly, the limitations, of many of these "evidence". We are deluding ourselves if we think we can look at a set of data and be able to draw up a comprehensive conclusion while being ignorant of (i) how they are taken (ii) what are the limitations (iii) etc. As an experimentalist, I know this is the case in practically ALL of experimental and observational work. It is why when I referee a paper, I can question someone when they have gone beyond the capability of what their experiment can do. These are information and knowledge that non-experts are IGNORANT of!

If we are talking about some "benign" topic of discussion, then I'd say that even students majoring in that field, or even keen amateurs would suffice. After all, PF started off with plenty of those in the early (dark?) years. But this is an incendiary topic that creates very heated discussion and passion. We have tried it, and it didn't work. I got utterly FED UP with our own time and effort spent behind the scenes in moderating this particular topic. If this forum is called "Global Warming Forum", then yes, I don't mind that a large portion of the administrative issues being done is related to this topic. But it isn't! The amount of effort we had to put in is NOT COMMENSURATE with the fact that this is a MINOR part of PF!

I won't miss it if it never comes back. Anyone asking for MY opinion on this would get something like this : "Find your own Global Warming equivalent of a Greg Bernhardt".

Zz.

 

[Redbelly98]

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.

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.

An in-depth familiarity with the science and current literature is needed. And there's the complication that the current moderators need to have concrete verification of the person's qualifications, lacking that in-depth knowledge ourselves.

 

[D H]

Another problem is the process by which people become moderators (mentors) here. Take Redbelly98, for example. He won that mentor medal by making several thousand posts that displayed both technical expertise and social skills. Bring in a newcomer to server as a moderator would seem to be a circumvention of the normal progression at this site.

 

[Count Iblis]

Sylas:

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.

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.

The whole idea that you have to be a big expert in the field to moderate the discussion is complete nonsense and it can actually be the source of problems.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Sorry!]

I must admit, I've seen this coming having been part of a couple GW discussions and probably one of the 'problem' posters. I must say though that most of the problems with my posts arose when I contradicted a moderators opinion, regardless of data and science behind it. I know this because when I was responding to a particular person with data/my opinion on what they had said and I received an infraction or warning etc. about the post I would PM the person I was discussing this with and they would say that
a) They did not report me.
and
b) They did not mind what I was posting. (Even though sometimes I came off hostile and yes I can see being warned about being rude or hostile but when posting in a Politics forum why can't you be the slightest bit hostile? It IS a place of arguements...)

Regardless I don't agree with this ban and I don't see why people can still discuss plate tectonics and such without proper experts, GW is basically a bunch of different Earth sciences combined. Besides I recall when i posted about 'climatologist' it was met with laughter and ridicule at the idea of such a person. Now PF is actively seeking out these people... thought they didn't exist.

Anyways there are a few people on these forums that I can see who could take the place moderating GW discussions why not just choose one of them? I mean like sylas is a really great guy I'm not exactly sure what his background is, I'm thinking mathematics, but he knows a great deal about not only the science published but using the data and the models. I've seen Xnn make some really well informed posts... Andre definitely knows a great deal about the skeptical side of the science and the models etc. however his use of the word groupthink annoys me to no-end and I don't know about his academic background. There's a new prof. on the forums who I'm pretty sure teaches GW courses and has written some published peer-reviewed papers on the topic. (since I've dropped out of the GW threads so I don't get in MORE trouble I don't really know this person)... but like we already seem to have a nice group of people who could be able to moderate the discussion in hopefully a non-biased way. I respect all these people (aside from Andre's use of the word groupthink... I actually hate that word now and it makes me want to smash things.) and I have learned a great deal more than what I originally knew (prior to climategate lol). Before climatgate I would have thought that I had more knowledge on the data and models than your lay-person but these people have definitely broadened that knowledge.

As for 'how can I know if this knowledge is correct,' how can I know any knowledge on these forums is correct? If I find something out in the cosmology forums the people explaining it normally post references. If I get enough people showing me references to support their own ideas then I'm certain I can come to a conclusion on my own (I guess I assume we're all intelligent, critical thinking people but who cares... this is a PHYSICSforum right?) Since this a 'newer' science (it's actually quite old it's just been in the public spotlight recently so people THINK it's new) it is a tad bit harder, I don't see why physicsforums should back down from that however.

They could also lay down topics which are up for discussion and not up for discussion, just like exists in the cosmology etc. forums.

 

[Count Iblis]

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.

Redbelly made this statement:

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.

He has access to the forums where you and the other Moderators discuss moderating this forum.

 

[Evo]

I don't see why people can still discuss plate tectonics and such without proper experts,

That is something that is being looked at. Right now we get an occasional question which can be easily answered. If that becomes a problem, we may unfortunately have to rethink leaving the remaining topics up for discussion.

 

[sylas]

There is disagreement between mentors here, of course. I agree with Count Iblis that it is disagreements within staff that are biggest reason for difficulties.

I think this should be allowed as a legitimate input into this thread, which is asking for comment after all. It doesn't mean Count Iblis or I are disloyal or trying to pick fights with anyone. A number of contributors here are interested in seeing how the problem might be fixed. Some other people don't want it fixed other than by being closed indefinitely. Both are legitimate inputs into this thread, and we don't need to get into a fight about contrasting perspectives on the problem.

I continue to support this closure, because I think a divided mentor team is making it internally disruptive. But (like Greg, I think?) I also hope that this will be temporary and that Greg and the mentors will be able to open it up again sometime. (The sooner the better, IMO, but subject to mentors being broadly agreed on how to manage it.)

This is a terrific site, and I am pretty sure we all want what is best for the forum, even if we don't agree with what it is. We should be able to do that collegially. I presume no one actually thinks the site is perfect. I'll be continuing active engagement in other topics here.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[ZapperZ]

Redbelly made this statement:
He has access to the forums where you and the other Moderators discuss moderating this forum.

So? How does the fact that the Moderators don't quite agree on how to moderate the forum, has somehow given you the connection to say this silly thing:

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.

That made NO SENSE! You have faulty logic where you jumped from A to B with no apparent logical connection! And that doesn't bother you at all? Many of us are involved in the decisions in ALL aspects of PF, even in the ones we do not moderate or have not participated. You have somehow come to the conclusion that ALL of us, somehow, have an agenda with regards to global warming, and that Sylas presence have somehow threatened that. My earlier post on the NAS study has totally falsified your faulty deduction on us. the fact that you do not realize your own faulty thinking should be of a serious concern to you.

Zz.

 

[Xnn]

I really don't understand why there are no current mentors that feel confident enough to moderate GW/CC discussions.

It's not rocket science and there are plenty of resources. Climate science is mostly Physics along with a little bit of Math.

Also, the IPCC publishes a comprehensive assessment of the current physical science basis. All one has to do is to read the 2007 report and you'll understand where the science was as of mid 2006. Of course, there have been some papers since then, but it shouldn't be that hard to figure them out.

Most of the debating concerning climate change has already been carried out.
The areas where our level of understanding is low or high have already been identified.

True, the science may not be what every mentor wants to believe. However, all we are supposed to be posting about is the science and not the politics or what to do about it.

 

[Borek]

I hate to speak for someone but as far as I can tell - and English being my second language I can be wrong - Count Iblis never stated ALL Moderators, he just stated "Moderators" - and I read it as "some of them". But I can miss some subtlety.

(ducks back under the chair)

 

[Skyhunter]

The answer is simple.

Make Sylas an Earth forum moderator.

If he will accept of course

IMO he has met all the criteria for moderator except for the title climatologist.

Great communication skills. His posts very well written, on topic, and informative. His manner, especially when addressing someone he disagrees with is always polite.

He understands the guidelines and how they should be enforced.

His academic background and native intelligence are evident in the way he can get to the root of a question and explain not only the concept/theory, but also the math and how it is used.

Climate science for me is a hobby. I have been reading and discussing it online for years now. Sylas is the most informed, talented, and polite poster I have met in all those years. It is his posts I will miss the most if this policy becomes permanent.

 

[Count Iblis]

Borek is right, I didn't mean to say that all moderators are sceptics. It is simply that the way the whole of PF is moderated has a flaw which does not usually cause problems on most other forums, but on Earth Science this flaw is more or less fatal.


If the discussion about moderation were only about what reliable sources are acceptable, then I don't think it would have come to this. It is a fact that there are people who are "climate sceptics" in the sense of distrusting the integrity of scientists or worse the whole scientific establishment (rather than just sceptical in the usual meaning of the word). These voices would not be acceptable in any other forums. They are tolerated to some limited degree on the Earth Forum, simply because there exist a few Mentors here who have similar ideas (to some extent at least, I cite Evo as an example). This combined with the fact that these mentors can moderate the Earth science forum and be involved in the discussions there is a recipe for disaster.

Compare this with the forum on scepticism/debunking forum. One of the Mentors there happens to be a believer in paranormal phenomena (to some degree at least). He also happens to post there quite often. Last year, there was a heated discussion there and I felt that he was moving the goalpost on what constitutes a paranormal phenomena. So, I jokingly wrote that if he changes his position just a little more, the fact that I can move my finger at will would be a case of telekinesis. He was not amused and hit me with 2 infraction points that will never expire for "insulting another member". I note that the fact that he was moving the goalpost had been noted by a few others.

Now, this was not the first time such a thing happened to me. But you can clearly see that what happened was not correct, regardless of wheter or not what I wrote went a bit over the line (I would have no problems whatsoever taking my words back and making the statemnt in a different way, no insult was meant by me). These flaws are usually never acknowledged to be problems. Then I think you can just wait until this inherent flaw simply explodes.

 

[Sorry!]

The answer is simple.

Make Sylas an Earth forum moderator.

If he will accept of course

IMO he has met all the criteria for moderator except for the title climatologist.

Great communication skills. His posts very well written, on topic, and informative. His manner, especially when addressing someone he disagrees with is always polite.

He understands the guidelines and how they should be enforced.

His academic background and native intelligence are evident in the way he can get to the root of a question and explain not only the concept/theory, but also the math and how it is used.

Climate science for me is a hobby. I have been reading and discussing it online for years now. Sylas is the most informed, talented, and polite poster I have met in all those years. It is his posts I will miss the most if this policy becomes permanent.

I agree sylas has definitely already sent me more than one PM about my 'method' of discussing topics with others and he seems most qualified on the website by far. (Not because of his position but because of work he has already done)

Besides I don't see where the proble is arising anyways. Since I've joined PF a few years ago the policy has been that only mainstream science is discussed. GW has it's own mainstream ideas that are accepted by the scientific community, people just either don't want to believe them or don't trust it. Who cares? Why does that give them the right to post 'non-mainstream' science?

It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the science being put forward either, it has to do with the MAINSTREAMness, which is what PF strives on. For instance no matter how legitimate some theories are you can't discuss them in the astrophysics forums, why? because it's non-mainstream... why doesn't the same rule apply to GW? It's not hard to grab a copy of the IPCC and read it understand it read a few papers here and there BAM you have 'mainstream' general understanding of where climate science is currently. If skeptics want to post their ideas or say that mainstream is wrong... well there's other forums right? (That's what always comes up when people discuss non-mainstream ideas)

 

[Astronuc]

Mentors are only human, and we're trying to do the best we can.

Thanks for the feedback.

Please be patient while we work something out.

 

[ZapperZ]

It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the science being put forward either, it has to do with the MAINSTREAMness, which is what PF strives on. For instance no matter how legitimate some theories are you can't discuss them in the astrophysics forums, why? because it's non-mainstream...

This is not true.

As long as the idea has been published in reputable journals, that idea is open for discussion. The same policy applies throughout PF. Now there have been plenty of instances where, as the discussion evolves, other dubious sources and ideas were brought in, resulting in the thread either being locked or deleted. But that has nothing to do with the original idea.

Zz.

 

[Xnn]

I also recommend that Sylas be a Mentor/Moderator.

As I understand it, Sylas has very recently been instrumental in unraveling a flawed paper on climate science that somehow got thru the "peer" review process at the Geophysical Researh Letter (GRL) journal.

First, the paper did not have obvious flaws that should have been identified by the peer review process. However, it used a flawed analysis that was not robust. So, it really is to his credit that he was able to identify the problem.

While there may be Climate Scientist with more grey hairs and longer laurels, I doubt we will easily find a more qualified person interested enough to both fairly and actively mentor the Earth Climate forum on such an important topic.

 

[story645]

It's not rocket science and there are plenty of resources. Climate science is mostly Physics along with a little bit of Math.

Sort of, though I think this is the sort of attitude that the moderators are actively discouraging. Climate data is a confusing mess of stuff, and it's really not good enough to know some physics and math to understand it all. You actually do need domain knowledge.

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.

I'm actually not recommending that he be a mentor on this topic, 'cause if pf wants experts more power to it. It's just the wording in the post bugged me, 'cause it made it seem like being a student automatically meant it was a hobby and the guy didn't know anything. Same with mention of his school, which is even sillier considering that a lot of good climate research is being doing at public schools. The reasoning behind the seeming disqualification bugged me more than the disqual.

 

[sylas]

As long as the idea has been published in reputable journals, that idea is open for discussion. The same policy applies throughout PF. Now there have been plenty of instances where, as the discussion evolves, other dubious sources and ideas were brought in, resulting in the thread either being locked or deleted. But that has nothing to do with the original idea.

On this, I strongly agree with ZapperZ. Minority ideas are a crucial part of how science works in practice; and the main thing in PF, as I understand it, is learning about the actual practice of science. Being able to discuss disagreements within scientific work has been a strength of the forum.

In my opinion (and this might be where we differ) this a problem with picking one person as a designated expert. It would require that person to be accepted by all staff as fair and impartial for giving due recognition of legitimate scientific ideas they didn't happen to share. If doubt that any designated expert, however pure in heart, could ever get the trust of the entire staff to treat all published ideas fairly.

Moderating is quite different from deciding what position is correct. It does, however, involve deciding what position is at least sensible -- and the lack of strong staff expertise in this topic was handled by simply making a policy at the start of 2009, that published support was needed for controversial claims. That has helped a lot, even though enforcement has been erratic.

IMO we are actually BETTER to focus on the current guideline of using valid references. It won't stop all the nonsense, but it kills most of it -- or would, if we were consistent about it. The other thing that has happened since the start of 2009 is a number of new posters, who together have enough familiarity of the ideas to pick up distortions or abuse of references, and keep the engagement at a productive level where members really are starting to get a better appreciation of the various ideas being considered within practicing climate science.

In that sense, the forum really and truly HAS been working, even though there remain other problems behind the scenes that have given rise to this suspension of the topic.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Skyhunter]

I also agree with Zapperz and Sylas regarding minority views. I would even go so far as to allow some discussion of the common misunderstandings.

Many people have been introduced to climate science thru the political debate. Learning is primarily the goal here at PF, and as often is the case, in order to learn one must first unlearn, or at least open themselves to the possibility of other explanations.

I never would have learned why Knut Angstrom was wrong about CO₂ saturation if Andre had not proposed the saturation argument. I also gained a much deeper understanding of how the adiabat works by following the discussion between Andre, Vanesch, and Sylas.

Just being directed to read a stale old thread is not always going to help someone understand what is wrong with their idea. Active dialogue can help people identify their misconceptions to further enhance their learning experience. And the process often leads to a better understanding by all those involved.

I do understand the perspective of the moderators, it takes a lot of time to moderate such a heated topic. Hope you find a solution soon. Flawed as it is, this is/was the most informative forum on the internet for GW/CC dialogue.

 

[Sorry!]

This is not true.

As long as the idea has been published in reputable journals, that idea is open for discussion. The same policy applies throughout PF. Now there have been plenty of instances where, as the discussion evolves, other dubious sources and ideas were brought in, resulting in the thread either being locked or deleted. But that has nothing to do with the original idea.

Zz.

For something to be published into a reputable journal implies that it has entered 'mainstream' science does it not? Even though it's not the 'mainstream' idea that is followed no?

The majority of 'skeptical' information I read regarding GW isn't published in reputable journals. They are just ideas that go on runaway trains. I put skeptical in quotations because it's not really being skeptical, it's mostly being a crackpot. --That's not to say that there are 0 skeptics in 'mainstream' science, only that their ideas and published papers are saying nothing close to what a lot of skeptics of GW are saying. These skeptics in mainstream science are being 'true skeptics' in a scientific sense.

But then again it's been a month or so since I've participate in a GW discussion on PF so who knows, maybe the skeptics on these forums are being more scientific?

The reason I talk about legitimacy is because there are a CRAPLOAD of 'legitimate' ideas on everything, the purpose of using 'mainstream' science on PF is to make the discussion more specific. Isn't it?