Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[ZapperZ]

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?

Definitely NOT!

Publication is only the first of what can easily be a LONG step towards being verified. There are many things that have been published that have later on been shown to not be valid. Publication is where we publish new results and new insights, and the beginning of the process where others will try to verify or falsify! So no, your concept of how science works is not correct.

Zz.

 

[Sorry!]

Definitely NOT!

Publication is only the first of what can easily be a LONG step towards being verified. There are many things that have been published that have later on been shown to not be valid. Publication is where we publish new results and new insights, and the beginning of the process where others will try to verify or falsify! So no, your concept of how science works is not correct.

Zz.

'It's entered mainstream science'

--How exactly would one 'verify' a proposed idea by mainstream scientists unless it enters the realm of mainstream science? I'm not a scientists myself and I know you are Zapper, I highly doubt that scientists sit around looking through all ideas that contradict their work and go through dismissing them... Only the ones that they think are 'worthy' of their time to dismiss would they do this on.

 

[ZapperZ]

'It's entered mainstream science'

--How exactly would one 'verify' a proposed idea by mainstream scientists unless it enters the realm of mainstream science? I'm not a scientists myself and I know you are Zapper, I highly doubt that scientists sit around looking through all ideas that contradict their work and go through dismissing them... Only the ones that they think are 'worthy' of their time to dismiss would they do this on.

Huh?

Nothing enters mainstream science until it has been accepted as being valid. This means that experiments must be independently duplicated and verified, and theories must have enough supporting experimental verifications to ensure that it is a valid theory. For that to occur, it must be published FIRST, which is a necessary but NOT sufficient criteria to be accepted as valid.

The Podkletnov effect was published in one of the Physica journal. Did it enter mainstream science? Nope! Why? It never got verified. The same thing with the bubble fusion paper by Teleyarkhan that got published in, of all places, Science no less!

Maybe we have a differing definition of "mainsteam", but we tend to use mainsteam science as that we accept as valid and often found in textbooks.

Regardless of how we call it, our Rules require that such a thing must be published first. It doesn't have to be mainstream, textbooks science for it to be discussed on here.

Zz.

 

[sylas]

I think this is simply a matter of two ways the word can be used. The PF guidelines speak of "mainstream" as follows:

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

Used in this sense, "mainstream idea" means an idea that is part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion; to be contrasted with ideas scientists don't bother about in their professional scientific work.

This wider understanding also includes ideas not yet validated or even tested, but which have been formally published. Formal publication, as ZapperZ notes, is only the start of a long road to science being accepted as as valid to a good degree of confidence. Sometimes mainstream is used more narrowly, to mean what we accept as valid, or at least reliable, for application and teaching.

I don't think anyone really disagrees here. Everyone is on board with requiring that ideas discussed at PF must be published first.

 

[Astronuc]

Behind the requirement of peer-reviewed journal citations is the expectation that other scientists knowledgeable in the subject have given the paper an 'independent' review with respect to accuracy and conformity to certain standards including sound scientific principles. This is well above standards for the mass media, personal blogs, Wikipedia and papers uploaded on to ArXiV.

 

[ZapperZ]

What Astonuc has mentioned here has two very important points. The first is that independent experts in the same field have looked at it, and see no obvious flaws or errors. The second part is what I talked about earlier on why having an expert a particular field is necessary. Someone can easily submit a paper that contains discrepancies that only an expert can detect. I would like to point out that in the Schon debacle from a few years ago, while everyone was trying to discredit the scientific process that let him published several dubious papers, it was a couple of experts in that field of study, not some amateur, that finally showed evidence on where things simply just do not make any sense, or where they are unlikely to occur. No amateur could have comprehended any of those data or under what conditions they were obtained! So the claim that everyone just simply want to see the data and can draw up their own conclusion, to me, is self-delusional! To paraphrase an infamous line, you can't handle the data!

Zz.

 

[Xnn]

How about the Lindzen debacle?

It's current and relevant to GW/CC.

He has been pointed out as representive of a "legitimate" couterpoint to the mainstream science of global warming. He also put out paper just last year that purported to show a negative feedback mechanism in the atmosphere. The paper was in a "peer reviewed" science journal. However, upon closer scrutiny a number of flaws were found. He's a smart and experienced expert and took an interesting approach to assessing climate sensitivity. However, his approach was not robust and he may have cherry picked some data.

He has also been politically active in voicing his doubts about global warming.

Now, my concern is that some PF Mentors still think he represents a "legitimate" counterpoint to mainstream science. However, I believe that the better climate scientist would not agree.

 

[ZapperZ]

How about the Lindzen debacle?

It's current and relevant to GW/CC.

He has been pointed out as representive of a "legitimate" couterpoint to the mainstream science of global warming. He also put out paper just last year that purported to show a negative feedback mechanism in the atmosphere. The paper was in a "peer reviewed" science journal. However, upon closer scrutiny a number of flaws were found. He's a smart and experienced expert and took an interesting approach to assessing climate sensitivity. However, his approach was not robust and he may have cherry picked some data.

He has also been politically active in voicing his doubts about global warming.

Now, my concern is that some PF Mentors still think he represents a "legitimate" counterpoint to mainstream science. However, I believe that the better climate scientist would not agree.

This is EXACTLY the reason why we need an expert.

Because the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it qualifies for a discussion, or to be used as a reference, on PF. Without someone who knows what's going on, and has an intimate detail not only of the science content, but also statistical analysis and the body of literature on the subject matter, such questions on the validity of the analysis will go undetected, or unmentioned.

An "expert" just does not have the expertise in the subject area. He/she also has the awareness of the literature and the state of knowledge of that area.

And this also the reason why we require complete citations to any peer-reviewed sources. This allows many of us to do a quick citation index and see if such a paper has been cited. It will reveal if that paper is held in high regards, or if it has had several contradictory responses.

Zz.

 

[sylas]

How about the Lindzen debacle?

It's current and relevant to GW/CC.

He has been pointed out as representive of a "legitimate" couterpoint to the mainstream science of global warming. He also put out paper just last year that purported to show a negative feedback mechanism in the atmosphere. The paper was in a "peer reviewed" science journal. However, upon closer scrutiny a number of flaws were found. He's a smart and experienced expert and took an interesting approach to assessing climate sensitivity. However, his approach was not robust and he may have cherry picked some data.

He has also been politically active in voicing his doubts about global warming.

Now, my concern is that some PF Mentors still think he represents a "legitimate" counterpoint to mainstream science. However, I believe that the better climate scientist would not agree.

Not a bad example to consider... but I draw a very different set of lessons.

Richard Lindzen is a part of mainstream science, because he is active and publishing. He's a climate scientist. It is not up to mentors to decide that he's not "legitimate". He's legitimate as far as reviewers were concerned, and that makes him legitimate by the guidelines, and also for me.

Even at the time Lindzen and Choi (2009) came out, it was in conflict with Gregory and Forster (2006) which was using the same data but obtaining different results. They are both part of the mainstream, and we had already started discussing both of them, without ranker, in the appropriate thread.

The best possible contribution by an expert into the physicsforums discussions -- and any regular member can do this -- is to explain the differences in comprehensible terms, so that members can get a better idea of what data is used and how, and why different results were being obtained.

The rebuttal by Trenberth et al (2010) which came out a couple of days ago is a third paper, not an end to the topic. Lindzen has privately acknowledged the validity of some of the corrections, but he may revise his conclusions appropriately and publish again. No problem... he's still legitimate and still part of the mainstream, in the PF sense.

Someone who never makes a mistake probably will never make a major new advance either. Mistakes in papers are not unusual. Major new advances are less common; the point is making a mistake does not rule out your continuing to engage.

Moral of the story? Same as always. We should stick to the guidelines. If it is published, then we can discuss it.

The earlier example of the Schon debacle has the same implication. We DON'T need mentors who are so expert that they could have picked up the problems with Schon's work in advance. We leave that to the scientists. We need a good level of familiarity with the state of the field, and to stick with the existing guidelines, and good people skills as well.

I am not sure, but I think a lot of the problem here would be managed better if we accepted it is NOT the job of mentors to decide which one of two published ideas should be legitimate. Other than that, conflicting ideas are not a problem, and if published they can be used in the forums.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. I have deliberately not said anything on the content of the papers. That would be a discussion for the science forum. For more context, search the names, or look at the thread with title [thread=360877]"The AGW climate discussion thread"[/thread].

 

[Wallace]

There has been a lot said in this thread, but that last comment from Sylas I think has been the most useful. I strongly agree.

 

[Saul]

I do not understand the motivation for censorship. If the facts support the assertion there is no need for censorship.

The discussions concerning Earth science in this forum were not emotional. The problem concerning the climate discussion has nothing to do with its emotional content.

There is some other issue which is not being discussed.

Science changes based on the facts and analysis.

I do not support censorship. It is irrational.

(Moderator's note: quotes from climate change articles have been deleted, in keeping with new policy.)

 

[sylas]

It isn't really "censorship" as such. I've also objected to this new policy, in the sense of adding my own vote to the community viewpoints; but since it is a community I'm working with the new policy anyway.

More to the point... discussion of climate itself is not appropriate here. Only the policy.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Saul]

I do not understand the motivation for censorship. If the facts support the assertion there is no need for censorship.

The discussions concerning Earth science in this forum were not emotional. The problem concerning the climate discussion has nothing to do with its emotional content.

There is some other issue which is not being discussed.

Science changes based on the facts and analysis.

I do not support censorship. It is irrational.

(Moderator's note: quotes from climate change articles have been deleted, in keeping with new policy.)

The paper I quoted was published January 19, 2010 in a peer reviewed journal. The paper I quoted supports my position that the ban to discuss climate change is censorship.

The paper I quoted was not an article. The issue it raised was fundamental to the science and to this specific discussion. I did not link to a blog. The problem with the paper I quoted was not its complexity. It was unambiguous.

Censorship is not part of the scientific process.

This is a scientific forum not a politic forum.

Could the moderator that deleted my paper reference please explain what is scientifically incorrect with that specific paper or the discussion of scientific subjects in a scientific forum.

 

[Xnn]

Emotions are not bad, it is just a part of being human.
In fact, there are positives to being emotional as it tends to be motivational.
However, they can also cloud ones reasoning. So, it helps to exhale once in while and think carefully about the subject and situation.

Is the new policy a type of censorship?

I feel it is.

Is that getting emotional?

Well, it probably is, but I don't see much wrong with such a view.
Now, of course we could go on adnausum on exactly what type of censorship it is
but there is likely to be little benefit to such discussion.
However, more to the point is who exactly benefits from this new policy?

Obviously, it is not all the people that are curious about the subject and would like to learn more.

Physics Forums is after all a Science Education site. There are forums for all of the major subjects and like it or not, climate change is a fully legitimate subject that will have a significant impact on this planet.

Now, I understand that some people may wish to deny or distort the science behind climate change. However, that is nothing to be proud of and I don't see how such actions could ever be a long term benefit to our civilization.

So, again; who benefits from this new policy??

 

[Borek]

Could the moderator that deleted my paper reference please explain what is scientifically incorrect with that specific paper or the discussion of scientific subjects in a scientific forum.

I am not a moderator, but I can tell you that it was off topic - this is not a thread for discussion of science & scientific papers.

 

[cristo]

Just to echo what Borek says, please do not attempt to discuss science in this thread. Otherwise, we will be forced to close this discussion thread.

 

[Redbelly98]

Could the moderator that deleted my paper reference please explain what is scientifically incorrect with that specific paper or the discussion of scientific subjects in a scientific forum.

Okay.

It was a technical paper about climate change. Posting it is a violation of our new policy, as of two weeks ago, "https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2520887&postcount=1"." Being scientifically correct, or appearing in a peer-reviewed journal, is not relevant.

 

[Saul]

Okay.

It was a technical paper about climate change. Posting it is a violation of our new policy, as of two weeks ago, "https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2520887&postcount=1"." Being scientifically correct, or appearing in a peer-reviewed journal, is not relevant.

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.

The logic for the ban on climate change discussion is that "PF does not have the experts to understand the topic."

I presented a link to a paper that was unambiguous. There was no problem understanding the science that it discussed. It was by a group of authors in a peer reviewed journal.

There is no logical reason for censorship in the scientific process.

Censorship becomes necessary when logic and data no longer supports a position. That appears to be the issue. Not that PF lacks the technical experts to effectively moderate the issue.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The logic for the ban on climate change discussion is that "PF does not have the experts to understand the topic."

I presented a link to a paper that was unambiguous. There was no problem understanding the science that it discussed. It was by a group of authors in a peer reviewed journal.

There is no logical reason for censorship in the scientific process.

Censorship becomes necessary when logic and data no longer supports a position. That appears to be the issue. Not that PF lacks the technical experts to effectively moderate the issue.

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

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

How much time have you spent here addressing the topic?

I don't think we had to close this topic either, but I agree with the action based on the history of the subject here and various staff limitations [make me the king and I'll fix it, but that isn't how PF works]. How much do you know about the history of the subject here? Have you been privy to the six years of staff debates, many of which were heated to say the least.

How many hours a week should the staff be required to spend debunking crackpots? PF is a volunteer effort and people have real lives as well. Do you intend to pay us for our time? Several years ago, I essentially gave up on the climate debates because I just don't have the time. In fact, something around five years ago, I spent at least a few nights [all night] trying to follow endless links and references that had been posted in Earth Sciences, many of which were somewhere between flakey and bogus. It took a lot of work to figure that out; far more work than it took to post them. It takes perhaps an hour to slap up enough links to keep the moderator busy for days.

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

 

[Xnn]

I agree that there is no good reason for censorship within the scientific process and really there ought not to be censorship in a Science Education forum either. So it's really sad that Physic Forum Mentors have become nothing more than censors.

However, recent publication of a paper in a science journal is not enough to guarantee that a particular paper is correct. This is because not all science journals apply a high standard of rigor to their review process. Some journals will literally just rubber stamp a paper.

There was such a paper by Robert Lindzen that happened to get published just last year in a respectable journal. We were actually reviewing that paper in the Earth Science forum just before the new policy went into effect. It took a while, but just a few weeks ago, Lindzen's paper was formally debunked. Not sure if it was in the same journal or not. However, the point is that there are people in lofty academic positions that are fully capable of getting totally erroneous papers into respectable journals.

Unfortunately, this puts the typical Physic Forum Mentor in a terrible position. They can't tell if a paper is junk or not and they get all types of hate mail from people who get overly emotional about this stuff.

 

[Saul]

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

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

How much time have you spent here addressing the topic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bans and censorship seem to me to be irrational.

 

[Astronuc]

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

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

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

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

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

Bans and censorship seem to me to be irrational.

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

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

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

 

[chemisttree]

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

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

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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

 

[sylas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bans and censorship seem to me to be irrational.

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

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

 

[sylas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

 

[sylas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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