If a member cites an article here that is pure rubbish, then that member should have "read only"

[winterymix]

status in the Climate Change forum, going forward.

I would say to Jonger and others lacking scientific integrity, you had your one bite of the apple and it

pisses me off to no end. Enough. This is not middle school.

Seriously, why should you or anyone else that pulls this stunt have the

privilege of doing it again?

This is not a borderline travesty. It takes a special lack of scientific integrity to

sling crap in the face of the many scientists that read and post here.

http://metofficenews...4-october-2012/

[WeatherRusty]

This episode is a prima facie example of why climate scientists are reluctant to correspond with known rogue scientists and disinformers. The Michael Mann's and Phil Jones' of the world have had it up to their ears in dealing in this stuff. When they get "caught" holding back FOI requests from political think tank "scientists" such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick , they catch hell and accused of attempting a coverup. Any wonder why the public is confused?

[TerryM]

I've been offline for the last few days (mainly), so don't know yet what the ruckus is about. I don't think we should have monitors deciding what is rubbish and what is not.

Jong often seems to toss out tidbits that can't be taken seriously - he's not alone. I've posted material that has turned out to be pure rubbish, but that I thought was valid when I posted it. If the forum devolves to the point where only the most robust, provable data can be posted don't we lose the one thing we have that more rigorously scientific boards have. - and that's having a place to try out speculative ideas.

At present I'm proposing that the opening of the CAA is a game changer. This was posted here before other boards had looked at it, and it may prove to be rubbish - we won't know for at least two years - unless the coming melt proves me wrong. Taco thought this year's extent would catch up to 2007 & 2011 this month, and it's looking as though he may be right - but it looked like rubbish to me when he first proposed it.

It's aggravating when disinformation is posted, long discussions about Goddards Graphs come to mind, or when one of the posters was copying and pasting Tallbloke's BS and claiming it as his own.

In the end it's an open forum. Most serious people are going to avoid it because of the temperament rather than the percentage of BS, but an environment in which even the most rigorously defensible positions are attacked, speculative ideas can be introduced without causing more than a ripple in the already tumultuous current.

Terry

[Jonger]

I've been offline for the last few days (mainly), so don't know yet what the ruckus is about. I don't think we should have monitors deciding what is rubbish and what is not.

Jong often seems to toss out tidbits that can't be taken seriously - he's not alone. I've posted material that has turned out to be pure rubbish, but that I thought was valid when I posted it. If the forum devolves to the point where only the most robust, provable data can be posted don't we lose the one thing we have that more rigorously scientific boards have. - and that's having a place to try out speculative ideas.

At present I'm proposing that the opening of the CAA is a game changer. This was posted here before other boards had looked at it, and it may prove to be rubbish - we won't know for at least two years - unless the coming melt proves me wrong. Taco thought this year's extent would catch up to 2007 & 2011 this month, and it's looking as though he may be right - but it looked like rubbish to me when he first proposed it.

It's aggravating when disinformation is posted, long discussions about Goddards Graphs come to mind, or when one of the posters was copying and pasting Tallbloke's BS and claiming it as his own.

In the end it's an open forum. Most serious people are going to avoid it because of the temperament rather than the percentage of BS, but an environment in which even the most rigorously defensible positions are attacked, speculative ideas can be introduced without causing more than a ripple in the already tumultuous current.

Terry

A fair point.

I do regret posting that article. In the past year I have only started 3 threads in this sub forum and I don't recall them being that outrageous. This is an amateur/professional participation forum, while my thread was bad, it was harmless in the grand scheme.

Jon

[Ed Lizard]

How would a member know the Mail link in question contained inaccuracies? Assuming the Met Office, which is fully commited not just to climate change, but AGW, isn't attempting some kind of damage control. I don't know. I'm light on the science involved, this forum seems to be a proxy for PR under the guise of science, so I don't usually post here. But this sounds like Dr. Cullen wanting to destroy the careers of anyone who didn't publically proclaim acceptange of AGW by stripping them of their AMS certification. Fascistic.

I know the conventional wisdom is that global warming is absolutely, completely anthropogenic, and anyone who doesn't accept that is a 'denier', the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier, and thus anything linked that would dispute AGW as fact is a bad link from a disreputable source.

In a weather/climate/science forum, one can refute incorrect claims without resorting to calls of hive think, bannings, read only, post limits, and the such. If one is so confident of one's merits.

[Snow_Miser]

I think that many members that post on this forum would be on "read-only" if such a policy was implemented. Many people make mistakes when they post stuff. I just don't see whysome people are getting livid about something Jonger posted.

[ORH_wxman]

We've had links/articles in here over the past few years posted on the following topics:

1.) Arctic will be ice free by 2012

2.) Arctic will be ice free by 2013

3.) Cosmic Rays control most of our climate

4.) Sea level will rise 10 meters by 2100

5.) All of the global warming signal is due to UHI

6.) Hurricanes are increasing in frequency due to AGW

7.) Tornadoes are increasing in frequency due to AGW

These are just a few...but I surely haven't mentioned many more. It would take a lot of moderation at the expense of the main wx forums to stop every questionable link from being posted in here. Mostly we just ask people to not use personal attacks and keep the discussion civilized.

[forkyfork]

i was a moderator in the nyc forum during several big events and deleting bad posts was pretty easy

[winterymix]

A fair point.

I do regret posting that article.

Jon

Excellent. I salute your interest in Climate issues and look forward to solid information that

supports your views.

[Msalgado]

We've had links/articles in here over the past few years posted on the following topics:

1.) Arctic will be ice free by 2012

2.) Arctic will be ice free by 2013

3.) Cosmic Rays control most of our climate

4.) Sea level will rise 10 meters by 2100

5.) All of the global warming signal is due to UHI

6.) Hurricanes are increasing in frequency due to AGW

7.) Tornadoes are increasing in frequency due to AGW

These are just a few...but I surely haven't mentioned many more. It would take a lot of moderation at the expense of the main wx forums to stop every questionable link from being posted in here. Mostly we just ask people to not use personal attacks and keep the discussion civilized.

The signal to noise ratio in this forum is pretty damn bad. But lets not pretend that moderation can solve that. Some of the people posting in this thread complaining are they themselves to blame.

The forum should be to an extent self correcting. When someone posts trash it should be ignored by the other users. If a poster does this on a regular basis, that poster should be ignored.

Often what people want when they ask for more moderation is for someone to silence others with different viewpoints. I realize that not all viewpoints are created equal but there are plenty in this forum who dismiss valid viewpoints simply because it does not conform to their view of the science.

Just ignore those you feel are ridiculous and you'll go a long way to solving the issue of too much BS in the forum.

[WeatherRusty]

The signal to noise ratio in this forum is pretty damn bad. But lets not pretend that moderation can solve that. Some of the people posting in this thread complaining are they themselves to blame.

The forum should be to an extent self correcting. When someone posts trash it should be ignored by the other users. If a poster does this on a regular basis, that poster should be ignored.

Often what people want when they ask for more moderation is for someone to silence others with different viewpoints. I realize that not all viewpoints are created equal but there are plenty in this forum who dismiss valid viewpoints simply because it does not conform to their view of the science.

Just ignore those you feel are ridiculous and you'll go a long way to solving the issue of too much BS in the forum.

As far as I am concerned, the ONLY valid viewpoints are those supported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Everything else is conjecture. The science is represented in the literature and nowhere else. Especially not from a 3rd party, politically biased newspaper.

When you say "valid viewpoints", you are speaking to opinion not rigorous science. No one is entitled to have "their view of the science". They are entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts (as they interpret them).

[Amped]

Global Warming will melt all of your snow. Every last flake of it.

I'm enbtitled tomy opinion.

[FPizz]

The signal to noise ratio in this forum is pretty damn bad. But lets not pretend that moderation can solve that. Some of the people posting in this thread complaining are they themselves to blame.

The forum should be to an extent self correcting. When someone posts trash it should be ignored by the other users. If a poster does this on a regular basis, that poster should be ignored.

Often what people want when they ask for more moderation is for someone to silence others with different viewpoints. I realize that not all viewpoints are created equal but there are plenty in this forum who dismiss valid viewpoints simply because it does not conform to their view of the science.

Just ignore those you feel are ridiculous and you'll go a long way to solving the issue of too much BS in the forum.

100% correct

[Msalgado]

As far as I am concerned, the ONLY valid viewpoints are those supported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Everything else is conjecture. The science is represented in the literature and nowhere else. Especially not from a 3rd party, politically biased newspaper.

When you say "valid viewpoints", you are speaking to opinion not rigorous science. No one is entitled to have "their view of the science". They are entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts (as they interpret them).

You seem to have glanced over the line where I posted that not all viewpoints are created equal but more importantly....

Does all peer reviewed science agree 100% or are there valid viewpoints on contentious issues where scientists back two diametrically opposed viewpoints with evidence in journals? I didn't say anything to the contrary to the notion that real science is conducted through the peer review process but you seem to be implying that all peer review literature backs only one view of climate science which is utterly false.

As an example, there is plenty of peer reviewed showing that the AMO is a sizeable/significant contributor to arctic sea ice loss. Yet, there are plenty who dismiss it outright. There are others who definitely take it too far, but because there is a incredible air of defensiveness among a large group of posters here (you need look no further than this thread) almost any attempt to acknowledge natural variability (just an example) leads to outright dismissal.

I find it so laughable that I've been called a denier and a skeptic here simply because I don't buy into every worst case scenario link that is posted. Literally; it amuses me quite a bit because I'm pretty damn far from that. (Though my education is being funded in part by grants from oil companies so maybe I'm compromised HA!)

[winterymix]

...

Does all peer reviewed science agree 100% or are there valid viewpoints on contentious issues where scientists back two diametrically opposed viewpoints with evidence in journals? ...

All good. Let us not have this sub-forum continue as some sort of wresting tag team match where opponents post drivel in an attempt to add weight to their faction.

Please...the constant back-biting about a flawed temperature database...can we move on?

[blizzard1024]

Why is there such a hostile reception to someone who presents a differing viewpoint

on this forum and in general in the climate science field? I see this on other climate change

boards and blogs too. The recent post on proposing to block someone who posts a "rubbish"

article is one example. If one reads through this forum you can see hostility at times. Someone

put a video of an actor portraying Hitler on this forum which presented a view that people

that don't believe in man-made global warming are akin to the Nazis! The moderators

do a good job on this post and the ad hominem attacks are either called out

or removed.

Debating in science is how we learn. That in my reason for coming to this forum and

I have learned a lot. There are very knowledgeable people on this forum. I am a MET

and as a group I think we are the most skeptical of catastrophic AGW. So I have

learned a lot on this forum and thanks to all who contribute.

I think everyone agrees on: 1) the earth is currently warming 2) CO2 is going up fast

and it almost solely because of human emissions 3) increasing CO2 causes additional warming.

The areas of uncertainty lies in the feedbacks and how much natural variability plays

a role in the current warming. Many are skeptical of climate models abilities to accurately

represent the future magnitude of warming. Anyone who does not agree with 1) 2) and 3)

can post all they want and they will be ignored. The uncertainties are where the debate

should be. New papers, data and articles are welcome in these areas and they could be

complete rubbish but it will be called out. my 2 cents.

[Bozart]

my education is being funded in part by grants from oil companies so maybe I'm compromised HA!

Yep. You have made your choice.

HA!

[WeatherRusty]

You seem to have glanced over the line where I posted that not all viewpoints are created equal but more importantly....

Does all peer reviewed science agree 100% or are there valid viewpoints on contentious issues where scientists back two diametrically opposed viewpoints with evidence in journals? I didn't say anything to the contrary to the notion that real science is conducted through the peer review process but you seem to be implying that all peer review literature backs only one view of climate science which is utterly false.

As an example, there is plenty of peer reviewed showing that the AMO is a sizeable/significant contributor to arctic sea ice loss. Yet, there are plenty who dismiss it outright. There are others who definitely take it too far, but because there is a incredible air of defensiveness among a large group of posters here (you need look no further than this thread) almost any attempt to acknowledge natural variability (just an example) leads to outright dismissal.

I find it so laughable that I've been called a denier and a skeptic here simply because I don't buy into every worst case scenario link that is posted. Literally; it amuses me quite a bit because I'm pretty damn far from that. (Though my education is being funded in part by grants from oil companies so maybe I'm compromised HA!)

The literature which constitutes the state of scientific knowledge is near unanimous as to the reality of man made global warming. That's what I am saying. Do there exist ambiguouities in the details? Of course. Is the general concept settled? Yes. Are all the details known and unanamously agreed upon? No.

You have to understand that a powerful interest is operating out there which seeks to dismiss the very concept of anthropogenic global warming and climate change. They go so far as to call it a hoax. This extends all the way to the top of the political arena, for reasons which are not all scientific in nature. These people, who definately are not as open minded as you may be, have disrupted the honest public discourse concerning this subject. As a result most people believe there is great contention in the scientific community over the very existance of AGW when there is not.

As to natural variability, the actual science fully acknowledges it's existance, who do you think discovered the AMO and PDO? It was scientists who study climate! I posted a peer-reviewed paper on here recently which demonstrated the AMO to have less than a maximum 1/3 influence on the rapid loss of arctic sea ice during the past 30 years or so. I have explained over and over why science understands ocean cycles add next to nothing to any long term global temperature trend. Influence short term? Yes. The longer term global warming. NO.

[WeatherRusty]

Why is there such a hostile reception to someone who presents a differing viewpoint

on this forum and in general in the climate science field? I see this on other climate change

boards and blogs too. The recent post on proposing to block someone who posts a "rubbish"

article is one example. If one reads through this forum you can see hostility at times. Someone

put a video of an actor portraying Hitler on this forum which presented a view that people

that don't believe in man-made global warming are akin to the Nazis! The moderators

do a good job on this post and the ad hominem attacks are either called out

or removed.

Debating in science is how we learn. That in my reason for coming to this forum and

I have learned a lot. There are very knowledgeable people on this forum. I am a MET

and as a group I think we are the most skeptical of catastrophic AGW. So I have

learned a lot on this forum and thanks to all who contribute.

I think everyone agrees on: 1) the earth is currently warming 2) CO2 is going up fast

and it almost solely because of human emissions 3) increasing CO2 causes additional warming.

The areas of uncertainty lies in the feedbacks and how much natural variability plays

a role in the current warming. Many are skeptical of climate models abilities to accurately

represent the future magnitude of warming. Anyone who does not agree with 1) 2) and 3)

can post all they want and they will be ignored. The uncertainties are where the debate

should be. New papers, data and articles are welcome in these areas and they could be

complete rubbish but it will be called out. my 2 cents.

Except they are not ignored. We spend nearly all our time defending the science against these attacks. In this place and most anywhere else climate change is discussed in public, the disinformers dominate the direction of discourse.

For instance, the Nazi thing you refer to was a backlash to the right wing politial thinktank (Heartland Institute) ploy of displaying billboards on public highways depicting climate scientists and their adherants as Charles Manson and the Unibomber. The whole climategate incident just before the Copenhagen climate conference sought to depict the science and it's scientists as scoundrels. Sen. Inhofe, the head the U.S. Senate Commity on the Environment calls AGW a hoax. Need I go on?

[bluewave]

Why is there such a hostile reception to someone who presents a differing viewpoint

on this forum and in general in the climate science field? I see this on other climate change

boards and blogs too. The recent post on proposing to block someone who posts a "rubbish"

article is one example. If one reads through this forum you can see hostility at times. Someone

put a video of an actor portraying Hitler on this forum which presented a view that people

that don't believe in man-made global warming are akin to the Nazis! The moderators

do a good job on this post and the ad hominem attacks are either called out

or removed.

Debating in science is how we learn. That in my reason for coming to this forum and

I have learned a lot. There are very knowledgeable people on this forum. I am a MET

and as a group I think we are the most skeptical of catastrophic AGW. So I have

learned a lot on this forum and thanks to all who contribute.

I think everyone agrees on: 1) the earth is currently warming 2) CO2 is going up fast

and it almost solely because of human emissions 3) increasing CO2 causes additional warming.

The areas of uncertainty lies in the feedbacks and how much natural variability plays

a role in the current warming. Many are skeptical of climate models abilities to accurately

represent the future magnitude of warming. Anyone who does not agree with 1) 2) and 3)

can post all they want and they will be ignored. The uncertainties are where the debate

should be. New papers, data and articles are welcome in these areas and they could be

complete rubbish but it will be called out. my 2 cents.

I agree that no member should be given a hostile reception for posting or discussing differing

viewpoints. We can learn from an issue during the back and forth between members.

The fault with the original thread was not with the poster that linked to a story that they saw in

the media. People post links here all the time and some will eventually turn out to be false.

The fault entirely lies with the author of the Mail piece which which did a real disservice to

the science and the scientists involved. That author has a history of these kind of games.

Scientists are going to have to be more selective in the media outlets that they decide to

do interviews for.

[WeatherRusty]

Why is there such a hostile reception to someone who presents a differing viewpoint

on this forum and in general in the climate science field? I see this on other climate change

boards and blogs too. The recent post on proposing to block someone who posts a "rubbish"

article is one example. If one reads through this forum you can see hostility at times. Someone

put a video of an actor portraying Hitler on this forum which presented a view that people

that don't believe in man-made global warming are akin to the Nazis! The moderators

do a good job on this post and the ad hominem attacks are either called out

or removed.

Debating in science is how we learn. That in my reason for coming to this forum and

I have learned a lot. There are very knowledgeable people on this forum. I am a MET

and as a group I think we are the most skeptical of catastrophic AGW. So I have

learned a lot on this forum and thanks to all who contribute.

I think everyone agrees on: 1) the earth is currently warming 2) CO2 is going up fast

and it almost solely because of human emissions 3) increasing CO2 causes additional warming.

The areas of uncertainty lies in the feedbacks and how much natural variability plays

a role in the current warming. Many are skeptical of climate models abilities to accurately

represent the future magnitude of warming. Anyone who does not agree with 1) 2) and 3)

can post all they want and they will be ignored. The uncertainties are where the debate

should be. New papers, data and articles are welcome in these areas and they could be

complete rubbish but it will be called out. my 2 cents.

Because most of the "viewpoints" expressed by skeptics are not of their own making. They are generated by politically minded interests who seek only to obfuscate the public understanding of the science. Scientifically minded folks should be offended by this behavior.

Integrity in science has suffered greatly, and if that's important to you, you should be offended too.

Become a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists