Is it possible to discuss Climate Change?

[Rustynailer]

Russ mate, I think the MOD thread is a different kettle of fish, because during the winter time

it becomes very busy, and the discussion moves along at a fast pace.

Believe me, the Netweather team members look for ways that they can improve the forum

every day. One of the main reasons Netweather is the successful site it is, is because

it strives to make everyone feel welcome regardless of their knowledge.

I concur GMG. A much more complex issue than I at first thought.

Good luck guys

[Iceberg]

I hope the moding and forum goes well. I would suggest keeping an eye open for baiting as well as those taking the bait.

A fresh start again Monday morning.

[SnowBear]

Agreed Iceberg, a nice new start to beat the Monday blues!

[Chris Knight]

Just to wind everybody up , perhaps it is not possible to debate (discuss) climate change.

Surely, most of the climate change debate is centred on speculation (scientific, polemical or emotive), and very, very little based on definite, incontrovertible evidence that what is being experienced today has not happened in the past.

Except, of course that we humans "know" that we "must" be having a deleterious effect on the environment that did not exist before we became so populous and ubiquitous, and we naturally feel guilty to a greater or lesser extent on an individual or societal basis.

Hence the polarisation of viewpoint, and the heated argument.

Fortunately, here, we can always moan about the weather instead

[Gray-Wolf]

Just to wind everybody up , perhaps it is not possible to debate (discuss) climate change.

Surely, most of the climate change debate is centred on speculation (scientific, polemical or emotive), and very, very little based on definite, incontrovertible evidence that what is being experienced today has not happened in the past.

Except, of course that we humans "know" that we "must" be having a deleterious effect on the environment that did not exist before we became so populous and ubiquitous, and we naturally feel guilty to a greater or lesser extent on an individual or societal basis.

Hence the polarisation of viewpoint, and the heated argument.

Fortunately, here, we can always moan about the weather instead

Indeed Chris. I've just opened a thread dealing (in a roundabout way) with these issues as ,to me at least, the past 10 years or so have seen the arrival of science dedicated to measuring the changes and their impacts. If we look at the number of 'new' satellites now observing specific areas of change you'll get a flavour of what I mean. The new flux of data would appear to fare much better in the models when hind casting so maybe we can ,now, start to put more trust in our abilities to measure both our impacts and the changes they force.

[Roo]

Just to wind everybody up , perhaps it is not possible to debate (discuss) climate change.

I think the trouble is that we are looking at different groups of debaters....

Group 1 : There are accepted, peer reviewed, methods of investigation and evidence which are used within academic/educated circles to show/critique/investigate current thought and methods.

Group 2 : There are hunches based on logic which the group 1s need to investigate to see whether there is any basis in the hunch

Group 3 : There are websites/thoughts/newspaper articles, etc, etc which are nothing more than gut reaction/opinion and are not related to evidence or either of the above groups and which, to be honest, have no place in debate.

All too often here on Net Weather the three groups try to debate with no joy. The problems start when, let's be honest, 'evidence' meets 'unsubstantiated thought': Group one meets group 3. Although, they may have an opinion, if a group 3 debater's points cannot be verified with accepted evidence, then the debate stalls, the group one'rs get frustrated, and the problems start.

To be absolutely honest, what I would really like to see is less opinion and more evidence: A lot less group 3 and loads more 1 & 2.

Like it or not, there are some scientific truths which society/we all hold to be true (e.g. basic scientific theory). If we accept this (and until such time as we can PROVE otherwise, we have to) then we also have to accept and use group 1 evidence, until we can SHOW why it is wrong, using accepted evidence.

In some ways, I do think NW has to find a way to accept (and moderate) that there are certain, factual, things which are wrong, and which do need correcting/omitting to halt a pointless direction of discussion (a lot of problems come when someone e.g. won't accept a basic scientific principle, no matter what evidence is shown to the contrary), and that it is reasonable for someone to point out, in the strongest terms, why something is absolutely not right.

No personal stuff, fair enough: but there should be a place for saying something is wrong if it can be shown to be, by accepted scientific data.

In truth, when talking about science, not every opinion is valid. Debate is also not about opinion, it is about showing why you can demonstrate something to be true/likely, using evidence. If we do not do that then we are not debating but are having nothing more than an unregulated conversation of nonsense, which does nothing to help/educate/enlighten anyone. It should be moved into the cafe, if that is the case.

Maybe people want that, but I for one would like to learn more about this and I don't feel I will do that by listening to unsubstantiated opinion based on gut reaction. I also think we are scaring off some educated sciency types in the membership who cannot be bothered to share their valuable knowledge in this type of chat.

Please NW, don't get rid of the climate area as it is a fascinating place, but equally, please don't let it get bogged down in nonsense as it will be better gone than turn into that.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Roo

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Roo

To remove the 'personal stuff', aye that's the rub!

As you point out there are folk who appear unwilling to accept basic scientific facts/principles and we do need to highlight why they should reconsider their positions with the relevant info to back up our own stance.

Their are others who seem to view the discussion as a 'competition' and become disgruntled if their position is undermined by scientific 'understanding' and so we go back to the issue of 'personalities' within the forum.

We cannot 'moderate' personality types, we cannot moderate personal interpretations, we cannot moderate the wish for some to 'take offence' when none is offered.

The subject matter in climate change is scary.

We have to expect a certain amount of 'denialism' from some personality types when the warnings of the consequences of our global tinkerings become too upsetting to handle (as I've mentioned on here before).

I've also mooted before that some folk seem to be within the recognised stages of behereavement in their dealing with climate change(for their planet/lifestlye/life) with irrational denial being the first stage. Just wait until those folk work through to the 'blame' stage

To me this is what makes this section difficult to maintain in good order and no amount of moderation is going to alter things. We cannot remove elements just to 'improve' the temperament of the board as this would just leave the debates more impoverished/less informed in their content.

You can moderate folk being nasty and warn /sin bin them but you cannot shoot the messenger surely?

Edited June 23, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think the absolute bottom line, no matter what the subject matter being debated, is that if we want a civil discussion then we all have to be civil to each other.

As I mentioned earlier, the distance between the posters, the faceless monotony of the written word and the preconceptions of the reader can make a perfectly rational discussion into a steaming argument, which is why it is so crucial that people choose their words carefully.

Climate Change is an emotive subject, and if we are to discuss the subject rationally then it is in everyone's best interests to think carefully about what they write, how it is worded and how it can be interpreted.

The word "Skeptic" (or Sceptic, if you prefer the other spelling!) is generally accepted as being fairly neutral these days, as opposed to the word "Denialist" or "Denier", so why not use the word skeptic instead of denier?

Similarly the word "Environazi" is absolutely loaded with scorn, so why use it when one could use a word like "Pro" or "AGW-er" (if you like making up words!). I think "Pro" is probably the most neutral shorthand term that can be used, but I don't know for sure how "Pros" view it - does being called a "Pro" offend people? (Genuine question, BTW.)

If we could all just agree on acceptable terminology and stick to it, and if we could check over all our posts before posting them, then I'm sure we would all have a much more pleasant experience regardless of people's degree of knowledge or the quality of their sources.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe we should do just that C-Bob and introduce a list of acceptable terms and unacceptable terms to be used here in the forum.

Once decided upon the 'no,no's' could be entered into the swear filter so as to render them unusable.

It ,to me at least, is becoming overly apparent that many 'innocent' posts are being wrongly interpreted and this in turn leads to the person so 'offended' forming a negative opinion of the original poster and seeking some form of redress later if they hold grudges that is .

By removing negative/unacceptable terminology from posts we are less likely to then misinterpret the written words by our wrongly preconceived opinions of the poster's tone.

I have had reason to reassure both management and mods ,on occasion, that I mean no harm nor offence in my postings but the fact that I find myself in the position of 'reassuring them' would seem to confirm that both harm and offence have been taken by some poor soul.

[Mr Sleet]

Hi

OK some straight talking.

If the mods were a bit tougher and kicked people off for provocative and downright insulting comments (it's only one or maybe two) then there wouldn't be a problem. I say shut it down. Some people seem to be on the site every waking hour, it may be kinder to close it and let them get a sense of perspective back. I say this with a compassionate tone as I worry for some contributors.

Mark ( Mr Sleet)

Edited June 23, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[SnowBear]

But, why does any "group", "party" or otherwise have to be mentioned at all?? Why does there have to be any "putting people in pigeon holes"?

I did a poll on here a while back, all would do well to look at it, it shows a lot more people "sit on the fence" then we are lead to believe in these threads. I have held off on doing the next one for now as I don't want it to be a poll which is about "pros and antis". I want it to be a valuable snapshot on how we see this subject progressing at particular times and with new data available how we feel it effects the outcomes later.

Why can it not be just the research and subjects which are discussed rather than who is in what group or what side of the fence they stand or if the sit squarely on top of it?

I thought this area was to discuss climate and the changes occurring?

I will admit I have been drawn into the crap regarding pro/anti groups a while back on here, no more, all I am interested in is the research, ideas, evidence, new data, and the general progress of the whole subject. There is lots to discuss, lots to discover, lots to learn without the crap we have seen on here previously. Surely that's achievable, if it isn't, then its a sorry state of affairs all together.

And surely its not that hard to know what is respectable, polite discussion/debate without personal comments and labelling and what is not?

Are the rules really that hard to follow?

All comes down to respect, politeness and just a little thought being put into posts before hitting that Add Reply.

I used to be in support for a well known chat system some time ago, and we used to deal with folks who would use bad language and rudenss to other members, and they would say, "Sorry, I didn't mean to, it just slipped out"...rubbish, you have to physically type each letter and then press Send, its not like speech, where a slip of the tongue can happen in a split second, this is different, you also have the advantage of being able to recheck before "saying". We held a no excuse policy as there isn't one.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Maybe we should do just that C-Bob and introduce a list of acceptable terms and unacceptable terms to be used here in the forum.

Once decided upon the 'no,no's' could be entered into the swear filter so as to render them unusable.

I was thinking of something a little less rigid than that, which would rely on people self-censoring their posts, but if the mods are up for entering a few terms into the swear filter then it might be a good way of enforcing civility (at least until some smarty-pants comes up with the idea of writing things like ƐΠviЯ0Ѝa$i or something!)

Nice to finally find something we agree on, GW!

CB

Just saw Mr Sleet's and Snowbear's responses there. I agree with you both to some extent. With regards to pigeon-holing people with "Pro" or "Anti" labels, I think there is sometimes the need, in the interests of brevity, to label the opposing viewpoint. If one group of people accept a statement of fact and another group of people disagree with that statement, for whatever reason, then it is a quite natural thing to say "you accept this but I/we do not," but to remove the personal feel to the comment to reword it, "Pros accept this but Antis do not."

I agree that there should be no need to add words to the swear filter, but the main problem we have on these boards (and indeed the main problem on any internet board) is that sometimes people can't self-edit. For whatever reason they simply can't hold themselves back. I don't see that there should ever be an excuse for this, but in reality it does happen. If we could agree on terminology that people weren't offended by and all tried to stick to it then we could do a trial run of the boards without the enforced censorship, but if that failed then maybe certain words could be banned.

...

In a perfect example of why we should re-read our posts before hitting the Send button, I have just realised what I have just written, and what a bad idea the use of the swear filter is. It was using the words "Censorship" and "Banned" that did it for me! Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If we could all just try to get along, and if those who can't be civil were rooted out, then we'd have no need of censorship.

...

Edited June 23, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

I think the absolute bottom line, no matter what the subject matter being debated, is that if we want a civil discussion then we all have to be civil to each other.

As I mentioned earlier, the distance between the posters, the faceless monotony of the written word and the preconceptions of the reader can make a perfectly rational discussion into a steaming argument, which is why it is so crucial that people choose their words carefully.

Climate Change is an emotive subject, and if we are to discuss the subject rationally then it is in everyone's best interests to think carefully about what they write, how it is worded and how it can be interpreted.

The word "Skeptic" (or Sceptic, if you prefer the other spelling!) is generally accepted as being fairly neutral these days, as opposed to the word "Denialist" or "Denier", so why not use the word skeptic instead of denier?

Similarly the word "Environazi" is absolutely loaded with scorn, so why use it when one could use a word like "Pro" or "AGW-er" (if you like making up words!). I think "Pro" is probably the most neutral shorthand term that can be used, but I don't know for sure how "Pros" view it - does being called a "Pro" offend people? (Genuine question, BTW.)

If we could all just agree on acceptable terminology and stick to it, and if we could check over all our posts before posting them, then I'm sure we would all have a much more pleasant experience regardless of people's degree of knowledge or the quality of their sources.

CB

Agree with most of that.

I don't think I ever use the word denier. I do see the problem with 'sceptic' but it's used because the alternative ('those with various levels of doubt about the existence of AGW or it's significant magnitude or that it's a problem worth tackling'? or part of?) is a bit labourious to type out. Otoh, I'm not sure there is single word that describes my view, the shortest phrase is perhaps 'AGW consensus accepter' or 'one happy with the IPPC reports' or 'one who has for long accepts the finding of peer reviewed science and would try to reduce humanities impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations' - but none of them are exactly advertising slogans either...

As to 'environazi' - I absolutely hate it, as I do people being labelled commies, or lefties or even socialists - they're just name calling distractions (at best).

More generally (not specifically wrt NW, but to put my views in context) I also detest it when one scientist is refered to by his surname ('Hansen' being the best example, 'Gore' another, a past one been the terribly derided 'Mann') but favoured scientist become (say) Dr Roy Spencer. I can refer to people in a consistent manner and I don't see why others can't. I've also seen more than a lifetimes worth of references to fraud or or scientific wrongdoing of some sort or another - attempts to discredit (ad hom) a specific person - it's something else I can't stand, again, I can refrain from such accusations and I don't see why others can't.

Like other contributors I'd ban some words (fraud, lair, lying etc) and try to keep the overt politics out of it - though, if we are to discuss solutions that's not at all easy.

I do think the way the conduct parliament is a worthy example. You can get (if you wish) your retaliation in, but it's done in a non inflammatory way. It seems to work.

None of this is rocket science and I'm sure it's pretty much what mods here try to do. Finally, I'm also not a 'banner'. I'd much rather people were edited than banned.

[Gray-Wolf]

and so then we get back into the real world of 'costs'. Of course we would be better with offencive/ambiguous statements being edited but then you end up in the 'slow watch' scenario of organisations committing manpower to a non-profit area and the added problem of a few posters then taking on the 'mods' in some kind of warped game.

I salute those who believe we live in a land of 'free speech' but I personally fear the reality lies somewhere behind the notion.

I would also love to feel we lived in a world where we can all be trusted to get along and play nice but we are a society of mixed ability/aspirations/disabilities and ,as in the real world, certain sections of our society do (IMHO) need guidance/enforcement to 'help' them act in a manner that is acceptable to the many. As in the real world there are those who will seek to set themselves up as mediators and those who will seek to become vigilantes when they fear the proper authorities are not being effective in their elective roles.

So, full circle again (for me at least) with individual 'personalities' being the root of any problem that either the authorities or the majority (and occasionally both ) take issue with and how, pray tell, do you deal, effectively, with one of those?

I do not go along with the 'sweep it under the rug' notion of closing the section, are we really to pretend none of this is happening and will go away if we bounce the section? I tend to feel that the issues would then migrate throughout the board and we would not have the enviro section to point them towards. In a 'weather site' how can you extricate Global warming??????

Vive Le Difference!

[VillagePlank]

I've been following this thread with some interest.

I agree that we've all got to be civil, but, as an example of a completely neutral post, taken the wrong way, and blown out of all proportion, consider the following:

'one who has for long accepts the finding of peer reviewed science and would try to reduce humanities impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations'

It would be very easy to reply ....

You what? Are you implying that I don't accept the findings of peer reviewed science? How dare you suggest that I think that we should continue polluting the atmosphere

That's the problem at hand isn't it. Dev's post isn't insulting in the slightest, but it would only take someone to misread, misconstrue, and misinterpret the post to start a complete and utter row that would end up with people getting really personal, and, quite probably, really upset.

This example is a bit ( a lot !! ) extreme, but you can see it going on in lesser ways all over the place - and I've no idea how one can moderate the lack of gesture and body language to prevent it.

Hope you don't mind me using part of your post, Dev. It's only for demonstration.

EDIT: so the calls for self-moderation seem to be the best way forward. Some sort of genuine code-of-practice, perhaps only allow, say, 5 posts/day in certain trouble areas, which should mean that posts are better thought out, because it would be pointless wasting them on ad-hominems etc etc.

Edited June 23, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

You may have a point with 5 posts a day V.P but such a move may also lead to volumes being posted at once which would kinda' interrupt the flow somewhat!!

Not an easy nut to crack at all!

Personally I had no problem with the forum before things became so 'authoritarian' (unless, of course, 'I' was part of the problem ), I guess some other members were not as able to be as 'robust' in their acceptance of some of the rot that got thrown around and so here we are!

Lazy me can't be assed to trawl back but the "Here be Dragons" suggestion would at least clear the mods from permanently nit picking through posts that could/may be offencive to some . Full on character assainations are one thing but good humoured 'banter', IMHO, should not be tarred with the same brush.

Some good 'characters' are notable by the abscence and I for one find that a shame. There seem to be no 'winners' only losers.

"First they came for the Jews and I said nothing...."

If we carry on with the same intent as appears to be in operartion today pretty soon the section will close as all, barring a few, will have been bumped off with the 'banning stick'

On another thread ,a while back, it was mooted that TAR4 was responsible for ,apparently, 'upping the stakes' with world science seeming to back the direst of the old 'doomsayers'.......maybe there was something in that statement?

[SnowBear]

Sorry GW, banter is one thing, downright rude, disrespectful and childish behaviour is another. In such an important matter as this section, we don't always want to wade through that type of stuff to read the important stuff.

And I dont see what a persons character or indeed history has to do with the way that they show respect and manners.

It seems many do seem to want a pub style debate whereby the winner in the end is who can intimidate or attack the best.

Not for me thanks, after all, the pub is the place for that, not NetWeather.

[Gray-Wolf]

You see , there we go Snowbear.

Somehow you have misconstrued the drift of my post.

Friendships do develop in the cyberworld in which we exist and ,as such, the same type of 'banter' that we engage in in the 'real world' should also have a place here. I remember a poster called Mondy and though we stood squarely on differing sides of the climate change fence we had developed our own 'rapport' in other sections of the board and so, for both of us, we could call one another jolly names that could appear 'mean' to others.

Why can that kind of thing, in your humblest of opinions, be a no-no?

Surely it can only go to show that we needn't take umbridge at the slightest thing? I've never been very good at thinking straight and walking on eggshells all at the same time.......but then I am disabled

[pottyprof]

We have an area for banter in the lounge Ian.. Use it..

[Gray-Wolf]

We have an area for banter in the lounge Ian.. Use it..

Meany!

[Paul]

Sorry GW, banter is one thing, downright rude, disrespectful and childish behaviour is another. In such an important matter as this section, we don't always want to wade through that type of stuff to read the important stuff.

And I dont see what a persons character or indeed history has to do with the way that they show respect and manners.

It seems many do seem to want a pub style debate whereby the winner in the end is who can intimidate or attack the best.

Not for me thanks, after all, the pub is the place for that, not NetWeather.

100% agree...

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that guys but could we maybe stay within the bounds of reality and not off in some " oh ,I wish it could always be like this ..." world?

If all you want is a list of papers, brief synopsis of papers, outlines of ongoing science then fine but you wouldn't find that type of thread a very 'thrilling' place to inhabit (check out how vibrant and well attended the 'global warming links' thread is).

There is absolutely no point ,IMHO, of discussing what we would prefer in a perfect world when we are talking about reality. I mean, in real life how often do you fall short of your own 'standards' for behaviour?

My old Nan used to say " there are no angels on earth"........ain't it the truth?

Another chappie said " let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I believed this to be a thread looking both for the reasons for any problems in enviro and also looking for suggestions to help improve the smooth running of the section.

I do not believe it was intended a a soap box for the folk who believe themselves to be 'goody ,goodies' to stand on and tut ,tut whilst wagging fingers at anyone who they perceive doesn't attain their unrealistic (IMHO) standards.

If I wanted a lecture I'd turn on Open University.

So, for the sake of the thread, could we get back to earth now?

Edited June 24, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Paul]

I'm seriously struggling to understand why asking people not to be (and I quote) "downright rude, disrespectful and childish" and to "show respect and manners" within these threads is not either realistic or completely attainable.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm seriously struggling to understand why asking people not to be (and I quote) "downright rude, disrespectful and childish" and to "show respect and manners" is not either realistic or completely attainable.

Again ,whilst trying not to drift the subject too far, that is not my understanding of the tome of the posts I am referring to.

It is the "why can't we all just", "surely it's not too much to ask" tome of those posts which seem a little ,if not patronising, then unrealistic.

I ,for one, am not looking for anarchy, I am not willing to be a part of slanging matches.I am not happy to be a part of any 'brow beating'.

I am ,however, very happy to be part of robust, substantiated debate that is written in an entertaining way and which ,on occasion, may sadly offend the likes of Mary Whitehouse, Saint Teresa or the Pope.

It goes without saying (surely?) that we are polite,respectful,courteous on here but then, once we are more comfy with one another, can't we just relax into the folk we are?

We are ,generally ,quite 'gentle' with new folk who pop up into the section (unless your called KRing) and that is how things are (whether they should be or not) 'cause that's the kinda' guys we appear to be down here.

Once you have been posting a while then things will ,naturally ,become less formal and it is my concern that folk are wishing to 'do away' with this less formal approach and enforce the "goody two shoes" code will remove both the spontaneity and the enjoyment from the section.

Come on guys! who enjoys being told what they SHOULD do? (apart from masochists that is)

Edited June 24, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Perhaps theres some inherent (sp?) anxst on this type of discussion, that needs a new direction/style of thread to start a fresh? Dont ask me how though