Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[Xnn]

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

Greg has made a good decision on this and I fully aqree with it.

Whoa!

There is main stream science and the other side.

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

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


Evo;

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


All other Mentors;

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


Thank-you for your reply.

 

[Astronuc]

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

 

[Evo]

Whoa!

There is main stream science and the other side.

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

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


Evo;

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


All other Mentors;

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


Thank-you for your reply.

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

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

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

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

 

[Wallace]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Xnn]

Thanks Evo;

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

Thanks Evo;

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skyhunter]

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

All of which are related to climate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should prove interesting to watch this new policy enforced.

 

[Evo]

All of which are related to climate.

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

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

No one has claimed that.

 

[sylas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers -- sylas

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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

 

[Bill Illis]

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

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

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

 

[Skyhunter]

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

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

No one has claimed that.

Then what exactly does this mean?

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

 

[Xnn]

Anyhow, this thread is not for debating.

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

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

I would like to help in the search.

 

[Mark24]

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

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

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

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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

 

[sylas]

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

Uh... no, I don't believe pre-big bang discussion is against the rules at all. It is, in fact, a genuinely open question in science which is interesting and worth discussing, and we have a couple of members who are well placed to give excellent guidance on it.

Part of the guidance should involve reigning in random speculations that have no basis in working science. But if someone has a really good understanding of Big Bang cosmology, then they are in a good position to look at possible considerations for pre-Big Bang states. The biggest hiccup for a beginner is simply presuming that "time" is a well defined infinitely extensible backdrop on which you can locate events and speak easily about before and after. It is probably a lot more subtle than that. But I do not believe the topic is off limits, and I see no such restriction in the guidelines.

Sorry; I digress. But I think it important to clarify. Cheers -- sylas

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh... no, I don't believe pre-big bang discussion is against the rules at all. It is, in fact, a genuinely open question in science which is interesting and worth discussing, and we have a couple of members who are well placed to give excellent guidance on it.

It is not explicitly a banned topic, but it is more appropriately situated in the philosophy forum, since science really has nothng to say about it. Any pre-BB theories are untestible and unfalsifiable.

Nevertheless, the point remains: not discussing GW does not fobid discussion of Earth Sciences - just as not discussing pre-BB events does not forbid discussing our current universe

 

[sylas]

It is not explicitly a banned topic, but it is more appropriately situated in the philosophy forum, since science really has nothng to say about it. Any pre-BB theories are untestible and unfalsifiable.

You would have to take that up in the appropriate forum. I consider your statement here to be a common mistake; and that science does say a lot about it, without yet being in a position to resolve all the issues. The question is wide open, but it is not unconstrained. It would be a good thing to talk about sometime, and the right place for that, IMO, would be the cosmology forum. (Added in edit -->) Or even just read this recent thread, with some great posts by SAs with good cosmology expertise: [thread=330932]A little thought of before the Big Bang[/thread].)

Nevertheless, the point remains: not discussing GW does not fobid discussion of Earth Sciences - just as not discussing pre-BB events does not forbid discussing our current universe

I consider a ban on GW discussion to be an incredible omission with no comparable precedent. It leaves a gaping hole in the forum, and it is for reasons that are completely unrelated to concerns over it being science or philosphy. This makes our minor disagreement over the scientific standing of some aspects of cosmology doubly irrelevant.

This new policy may be necessary, given the current circumstances with mentors and members. This is a decision we shall have to live with, I think, though it is permitted to hope it might be temporary. In any case it is certainly a sad failure of our capacity to support a productive discussion of a very active area of science that has widespread interest.

This is, I presume, the guts of why the new policy is "regrettable". I'm accepting this new policy with regret as well. I am extremely disappointed it has come to this; but I am not despairing. Let's at least acknowledge that the ban certainly is regrettable, and that climate science should in an ideal world be something we discuss like any other area of active science. There are special problems with this discussion, but it isn't because of philosophical concerns about whether it is legitimately science.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[DaveC426913]

... science does say a lot about it...

Scientists may have a lot to say about it, but scientists are quite capable of taking off their science hat and putting on their philosophy hat. It doesn't mean everything any given scientist has to say is, by definition, scientifically-founded.

Anyway, this is a tangent. OK, so you don't get the analogy.

It is quite possible to discuss anteaters and tyrannosaurs without being able to discuss DNA, despite the fact that anteaters and tyrannosaurs are intimately-connected to DNA.

Better?

 

[story645]

much in the field of climate science, particularly the models, have appeared to largely involve hand waving rather than real science to the outside observer.

*shrugs* I work with data from one of the models, and the climate adviser (one of those really well known/respected people in the field) to the research group always gives a laundry list of ways the model is or may be broken and requires us to do a bunch of runs to account for/work with/catch that. His attitude made me think that within the community it's generally accepted that the models are a bit wonky.

but to the experts in the field who have spent their life studying climate, it may seem like such an elementary issue that they choose to ignore it

That's actually my reason for asking if we could discuss just the models/data here. It's really confusing to a newbie 'cause they're just really dense and full of all sorts of crazy math and science (there are like sixteen forms of wind in some of these models) and I'd love to be able to just discuss the nitty gritty hows of it all and forget the whole bigger picture.

 

[sylas]

It is quite possible to discuss anteaters and tyrannosaurs without being able to discuss DNA, despite the fact that anteaters and tyrannosaurs are intimately-connected to DNA.

Better?

Well sure, it's possible to limit discussion artificially in this kind of way, and for useful discussion to continue to take place in any case. I agree on that.

The crucial thing for me is this. There's no good reason from a science perspective to rule out GW topics. The only reason for such a sweeping ban, IMO, would be that mentors have not found a way to keep discussion appropriately focused on the science, and we are putting a fence around the area where they have not succeeded.

Sure, it is going to be possible to discuss various Earth science topics without raising GW. It is going to be a highly artificial restriction, and the enforcement of it may be harder than people realize. We'll see, I guess. The enforcement will, in my view, be a constant reminder that physicsforums has failed on this one matter to live up to its stated aims, and that's regrettable. It is worth thinking about how it could be fixed. Ultimately, the mentors will make that call, but Greg has allowed for people to make comments and suggestions in this thread.

I do not think we need to demand it must be fixed right away. The mentors have been struggling this for a long time, apparently. I can see ways to manage it better than has been done in the past. I've made a couple of concrete suggestions in [post=2523110]msg #26[/post] for things that could be done differently. I'll be continuing to look for widely acceptable solutions with those who have an interest, while at the same time abiding by the guidelines the mentors have put in place... including this new policy.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

Unless you are already an expert, how do you know that what you learned was correct? It certainly isn't because we had any qualified climate scientists moderating the discussions. It isn't because the threads were populated with qualified climate experts, because they weren't. Whether something seems to make sense, or not, is irrelevant unless you have the proper background.

Frankly, your post is a great example why [based on the constraints] I support the ban on the topic.

 

[sylas]

His attitude made me think that within the community it's generally accepted that the models are a bit wonky.

That's certainly true. Wonky is not quite the word I'd use, but the general fact that all the models are incorrect is pretty clear to people actually working with them. One phrase that iI have heard used is "climate models are always wrong, and often useful".

Argh. We have someone here now who could really give some great contributions on working with models, and what they can and cannot do. Welcome to physicsforums!

That's actually my reason for asking if we could discuss just the models/data here. It's really confusing to a newbie 'cause they're just really dense and full of all sorts of crazy math and science (there are like sixteen forms of wind in some of these models) and I'd love to be able to just discuss the nitty gritty hows of it all and forget the whole bigger picture.

Same here. In fact, that is one of my suggestions for how climate discussions could be managed better... having a much stronger expectation on topic drift.

Unfortunately, climate models are one of those topics that sometimes attract a lot of heat and sweeping pontifications without a lot of backing; both by people keen to defend the successes and by people keen to emphasize their limits. In the meantime, any focused consideration of how they work and what they do and how they are used all gets a bit lost.

If we could find a way to manage a discussion of climate models of the sort you envisage, we'd have solved the problem! (IMO) There would also be a huge educational benefit, IMO.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Chronos]

Climatology is a frustrating science. There are more variables than scientists. The geological record tells us it does as it pleases. Given the ebb and flow of climate change over the history of earth, I doubt human activity greatly disturbs whatever cycles are preferred by nature. Human contributions to the atmosphere are undoubtably significant, but only over a century or two. Climactic volatility supercedes the human factor by billions of years. Our hubris exceeds our understanding.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Climatology is a frustrating science. There are more variables than scientists. The geological record tells us it does as it pleases. Given the ebb and flow of climate change over the history of earth, I doubt human activity greatly disturbs whatever cycles are preferred by nature. Human contributions to the atmosphere are undoubtably significant, but only over a century or two. Climactic volatility supercedes the human factor by billions of years. Our hubris exceeds our understanding.

The geologic record also shows that species can change the climate and chemistry of the planet so dramtically that they can no longer exist - recall for example that oxygen-breathers once did not exist here.

What I don't understand is why so many people have opinions. While we may have more varialbles than scientists, we certainly have far more opinions than we do people qualified to have one.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

What I don't understand is why so many people have opinions. While we may have more varialbles than scientists, we certainly have far more opinions than we do people qualified to have one.

It seems to me that the main problem is more related to gambling and everyday human psychology than specifically to climate science.

We have some scientific but not totally conclusive evidence of what may be happening, and people are trying to guess what will come up next. If some people are right, then it is very important that we take one course of action, as the cost of the consequences could otherwise be unacceptable. However, if others are right, then a different course of action may be better.

It appears to me that rather than exposing these factors (the risk and the potential costs or benefits of each outcome) separately, some people are becoming (intentionally or unintentionally) biased in their evaluation of the risk because they feel that the cost of the consequences is so high. This then makes them vulnerable to criticism and undermines their own position. This then results in polarization of positions as usual, and a general slanging match.

I'd like to see quantified risks and costs rather than a naive polarized "Oh yes it is! Oh no it isn't" approach. Of course this is tricky, as on balance it might maximize the potential benefit in the short term to decide to take action based on a risk which might not even be the majority scenario, simply because of the potential cost of the consequences, and this could be difficult to accept. However, that's how insurance works, and we live with that.

 

[vanesch]

The only reason for such a sweeping ban, IMO, would be that mentors have not found a way to keep discussion appropriately focused on the science, and we are putting a fence around the area where they have not succeeded.

This is entirely correct. Moderating GW threads has not only been a difficulty in execution, but also a difficulty in agreeing on what to do exactly, as within the mentor crew, you have almost the same "spectrum" of opinions as in the forum itself. So I think that Greg decided to amputate the leg instead of having gangrene infect the whole body.

I know of one other instance where there is a similar problem, although there is no politics, and certainly no society-related issues connected to it, and that is in the battle field of "beyond the standard model". It is there where a lack of genuine field expertise is a problem, because you need that expertise to separate the "outside of the bulk of the mainstream but a knowledgeable suggestion/criticism/observation" from the "unfounded opinion/crackpot/conspiracy" idea. In the end, such a decision is always somewhat subjective for borderline claims. If you have some people rather knowledgeable of the field on board, you can rely on their intuition to make those decisions.

If you know a field rather well, you know what is "so rock solid that it is silly to dispute it" from "rather well established but with some known/unknown criticisms" and "the more speculative parts of the domain". We have people on board for most of the sciences to make these decisions. We don't have such persons on board for GW. So we do (did) the best we can, all with our own conceptions, (ill) understandings and opinions. And those opinions, uneducated as they may be, don't agree within the Mentor crew. On top of that, there is a certain, justified or unjustified, suspicion towards at least part of the top scientists in the field, so that some within the mentor crew don't take their word for granted.

Of course, the proposed philosophy, "let's strictly stick to peer-reviewed material", was supposed to handle this. However, even there, you need expert knowledge, because of course not EVERYTHING can have peer-reviewed sources. In mechanics, nobody is going to require you to come up with a peer-reviewed source of Newton's laws, or of basic material that is taught at the level of the first years of university in the field. Point is, you need to have some expert knowledge to even be able to *recognize* that. Some strictly non-peer-reviewed sources are probably thrustworthy, like some data that are on public servers. Even though that is (probably unrightfully, but if you're not an expert, how do you really know) put in doubt with the hacked e-mails. It would also be simpler if we had several scientific experts who were at the same time not involved in any "political" action. If we had climate scientists that had the viewpoint "I want to find out what is going to happen to climate, but I really don't care how society will act onto this or what are the moral implications of my work, I only want to find out, that's all". Because, as said otherwise, how to know if a "scientist" that is at the same time an "activist" is wearing his scientist hat, or his activist hat.

All this means that the "stick to the peer-reviewed material" doctrine, nice as it looks, was more difficult to put in place than it may sound.

On top of that, there's another difficulty. The "social" utility of discussing AGW on a forum like PF is probably because what the public wants to know, to a certain extend, is: "how seriously should we take those climate scientists and their claims ?". If we start already with the answer: "what can be discussed here is what climate scientists say", that essential question cannot be answered. If that's the point we take on, there's much more interesting material on something like RealClimate. My personal view on a GW discussion here - on the public utility of a GW discussion here - would have been to try to explain, to try to discuss what should be taken seriously, and why, because it is "basic science" and what is more prone to doubt or error, even though it is published and peer-reviewed. And NOT refer "just" to "peer-reviewed authority" without the ability to back it up. That's also only possible with enough expertise on board. Then you can refer eventually to peer-reviewed material, but if you master it enough, you can also explain it. You also know the extend of the certainties and uncertainties of the field.

However, if constantly you have the discussion between "you put the words of the IPCC in doubt, how dare you, heathen " against "I think many climate scientists are lead by a small group of influential people whose aims and objectives are suspicious and misuse their scientist statute to push through an agenda" and the entire spectrum in between, it is, as a non-expert, very difficult to intervene. Especially because among the non-expert moderators, almost just as large a spectrum of uneducated opinions is present. So any moderation action taken by one mentor is then put in doubt by others, reversed, or not, and this is a very unhealthy state of affairs.

Hence, I suppose, Greg's decision.

Yes, it is a failure of the PF crew. No, we shouldn't be proud of it. But because there's a lot of other nice scientific stuff here at PF, where things DO work out great, Greg wanted to protect that part from all the hassle of GW.

 

[Borek]

It appears to me that rather than exposing these factors (the risk and the potential costs or benefits of each outcome) separately, some people are becoming (intentionally or unintentionally) biased in their evaluation of the risk because they feel that the cost of the consequences is so high. This then makes them vulnerable to criticism and undermines their own position.

Are you trying to describe the situation or to word new definition of groupthink?

 

[sylas]

Climatology is a frustrating science. There are more variables than scientists. The geological record tells us it does as it pleases. Given the ebb and flow of climate change over the history of earth, I doubt human activity greatly disturbs whatever cycles are preferred by nature. Human contributions to the atmosphere are undoubtably significant, but only over a century or two. Climactic volatility supercedes the human factor by billions of years. Our hubris exceeds our understanding.

I'd rephrase the first part of this.

Science is frustrating. There are more variables than scientists and more questions than answers.​

... except that I don't find it frustrating. I *like* living in a complex world with a depth of detail that leaves no apparent end to the questions and no easy path to answers. Science is fun, and difficult, and worthwhile, and makes progress with no apparent end point.

Why single out climate? What about cosmology, or anthropology, or medicine, or a host of other examples we could mention? I don't think there is anything particularly different about climate that makes it in a class of its own. Each field of science has its particular problems. If they didn't science would be much easier -- and more boring.

You make some assertions in the rest of the post that seem odd. You state them apparently with a degree of confidence, and then complain about hubris. That doesn't ring true to me. Why would the ebb and flow of climate over Earth's long history mean that human activity cannot greatly disturb things? The scientific evidence is pretty unambiguous that human activity has indeed disturbed things significantly. Can this be quantified? Well, yes, it can, though as is common in science the estimates come with uncertainties. This isn't unique to climate.

You acknowledge that effects on the atmosphere are significant, but the assertion that this is only over a century or two is unsupported and dubious on its face. The scale and duration of impacts are an open question; but they are investigated, and in line with physicsforums we should not be just soliciting opinions, but looking to see if the question is actually being addressed in the actual practice of science. It is.

Contrary to what some posters seem to suggest, you really don't need to have an expert on hand to look into the question. It would help, of course; but the literature is not that hard to survey and the Earth forum guidelines already has a sticky thread with pointers that would be enough to get good appreciation of what is being done.

Also, contrary to what some posters have suggested, we really do have people involved here right now who can pick up such questions and address them with reference to the actual practice of science, and we've had them for some time. I'm one of them, and I am not the only one. Nor am I limiting myself only to individuals who share all my views on the various specifics of climate. There are a number of contributors, with a range of views, who are all well able to back up their posts with useful and directly relevant references from the work of science being done right now. (Me, Andre, mheslep, Xnn, joelupchurch, Skyhunter, chriscolose, Bill Illis, and my apologies to lots of folks I have omitted. Every now and again I notice some really first rate contribution coming in from a contributor who is not all that regular.

I do not mean contributions that merely state a point I agree with. Indeed, some of the folks I list don't agree with me. What makes a good post, in my opinion, is one that actually gets substantive on the questions of a thread, and backs up the information with references people can use to explore further what is actually being done on the subject within working science.

You don't need to have one person who can cover all the bases. Indeed, I think the whole desire to get a climate scientist on the staff is fundamentally missing the point. I support whole heartedly support the idea of finding someone like that, it would be great. It would help a lot. They wouldn't even need to be a mentor, frankly.

And yet... this won't get to heart of the problem -- which is that too many people, even some within staff, simply don't trust climate scientists.

On how best to deal with a question relating to climate

This is not a debate thread, so I am not proposing at all to debate the question raised. But Chronos makes a claim above, and it is worth looking at HOW it might be addressed without trying to actually make that debate here and now, which would be off topic.

The claim I mean is this:

Human contributions to the atmosphere are undoubtably significant, but only over a century or two.​

Seeing the claim made I immediately recognize without even looking up the papers that this is a fairly hot topic in climate being actively investigated, and there are a couple of recent papers that explore the likely duration of significant consequences of the anthropogenic impact. I think I have at least one of those recent papers already in my own private collection of downloaded resources that I have been using as I've studied this whole area for myself.

If this claim had appeared in the relevant science forum, and if the forum had remained open to actually talking about such questions in the light of existing work on science, I would very likely have noticed, and presented a brief explanation of what durations are thought likely, and why, and with a reference to one or more papers that deal specifically with the topic.

I know already, from the responses I have received from different people, that this kind of contribution is useful and appreciated. It doesn't tell you what you must believe. It gives information about what is going on in existing science in relation to the question. And that, in my opinion, is what physicsforums is all about.

No personal criticism of you in intended, Chronos! Indeed, just the reverse. Having input like this, so that it can be addressed, is really useful. I would not expect anyone to be immediately satisfied with my response. The idea, IMO, is simply to give people the background and the pointers to explore further if they are interested. If anyone actually changes their mind, that's their own doing and their own thinking through resources from the discussion and from whatever else they look into. (I've touched on the nature of debate generally at my blog as well; links are in my signature.)

On why a substantive response still has problems

And yet, even given a substantive, properly referenced post, that gives some insight into the actual practice of science on the matter, there are going to be people who object.

(1) There's an unrealistic desire for a complete answer. There's no such animal. Scientists actually DON'T have the hubris, in general, to think their work resolves such things with a final answer or finished understanding.

(2) There's an unrealistic desire for equal time to some other allegedly equivalent alternative perspective. The expectation by many contributors that climate science is about equally credible alternatives is flatly mistaken. Contrasting ideas exist, of course, and the work of science is focused on resolving discrepancies and identifying those ideas that are wrong. Think "falsification". The work of science includes minority views, and they are perfectly on topic for the forum. But a presumption of equal legitimacy is not any part of science. For instance... the idea that changes will persist only over a century or two not really backed up by any scientific work of which I am aware. The best you can get is a lack certainty on potential longer durations for the effects of a human impact to dissipate; and that is already a part of the work I'd be citing on the matter.

Be that as it may, anyone else who wants to add depth to discussion by giving properly referenced alternative is making a useful contribution. Anyone who remains skeptical of the scraps provided by one contributor is perfectly within their rights. It's not a good idea to post with the objective of changing someone else's mind. The proper objective is simply to give some useful additional information.

(3) There's an unrealistic desire for authority. Science doesn't depend on authority. It's great to have an expert available, but for a basic question like this one, a student who has looked at bit at climate science will already have some useful contributions to make. Anyone who takes the time to try and learn about the subject will quickly come to a point of making useful substantive contributions. We don't need final authoritative answers to everything, or complete agreement even within staff, before the discussions become helpful.

(4) People confuse the lack of answers to some questions with the lack of answers to all questions. There are a heap of wide open problems in any area of active science. That's what keeps it active. At the same time, there are some useful discoveries and fundamental theories that make a solid foundation for pushing back the boundaries of what is known.

Of course there's a heck of a lot unknown in climate science. But frankly, the biggest problem is with people who think everything is unknown, or at least behave as if they think that. I listed back in [post=2523110]msg #26[/post] some foundational points that are often disputed in climate discussions but which could (I hope!) be usefully recognized by staff as a common basis that is not actually in any credible dispute. They are:

• Temperatures are increasing over recent decades, with a total gain of roughly 0.7 C since the start of the twentieth century. Even if people question the importance of this, the actual change itself is real and significant.
• The greenhouse effect is real. The atmosphere does interact with thermal radiation and this does result in a much warmer surface temperature than would exist otherwise. (About 33 degrees warmer, on average.)
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate. (A forcing of about 5.35 W/m² per lateral log of atmospheric concentration.)
• Humans have a significant effect on carbon dioxide levels. (The 30% increase in atmospheric levels since the start of the industrial revolution, and the measured increase in the present, is being driven by human activities.)

All of these are solidly established well quantified information. It is by no means a complete account of everything that matters, but it is a solid foundation not in any credible doubt. We can easily explain and reference these points for newcomers, and recognition still gives full reign to all manner of "skepticism" on various points of climate.

(5) People mix up confidence in scientific theories with the importance of scientific theories. That's a distraction from dispassionate consideration of what we can actually know and with what confidence. This is a very politically charged topic, and we should not even attempt to resolve all the political questions of appropriate policy responses. The unique contribution of physicsforums, and our greatest strength, is the capacity to help people learn more about the scientific questions. That will, no doubt, inform their views on policy as well, and I don't see why we can't allow for political discussion in the designated subforum. But our prime business is education in the science itself, regardless of how important you think it is. We'd still consider it as an interesting scientific topic even if there were no immediate pragmatic consequences; and policy considerations should be ruled as a divergence of topic for a thread that focuses on a scientific question.

I'm not saying that it is easy to manage this issue. I continue to support the new policy, albeit reluctantly, and to hope that it might indeed be temporary, without presuming so. But I do think it is a failure of physicsforums to achieve its stated aims, at least as far as this one topic is concerned, and that the major problem has been lack of unity within the staff. This isn't surprising; it is a reflection of deep lack of unity in the community. If it was only disagreement between different competing ideas in science the problem would be manageable; science takes competing ideas in its stride.

The problem is far deeper, with disagreement as to whether scientists are actually really doing honest science at all. And that makes it very hard indeed to keep to the physicsforums mandate: "to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community". If people think the current status of science practice is riddled with fraud or incompetence or distortion, then the whole basis for this physicsforum mandate is undercut. And so -- most regrettably -- this active area of science is going to be ruled off limits here. Not because physicsforums has determined that the practice of science is compromised, but, in my opinion, because the staff cannot even agree on whether the practice of science in this area is something that should be the basis for education.

--------

Sorry this has been over long. I'm presuming this thread will probably close off as well, though I'd like to see it open for a little bit longer to let people comment on whether they would like to see physicsforums find a way to manage this, or give some more thoughts as to what that might take.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Xnn]

Could somebody explain what would be required of and expected of an appropriate expert?

I would like to help in the search.

 

[Evo]

Could somebody explain what would be required of and expected of an appropriate expert?

I would like to help in the search.

Vanesch summed it up.

It would also be simpler if we had several scientific experts who were at the same time not involved in any "political" action. If we had climate scientists that had the viewpoint "I want to find out what is going to happen to climate, but I really don't care how society will act onto this or what are the moral implications of my work, I only want to find out, that's all". Because, as said otherwise, how to know if a "scientist" that is at the same time an "activist" is wearing his scientist hat, or his activist hat.

 

[Wallace]

So you mean, almost any climate scientist? The idea that the line between professional scientist and activist is blurred in climate science is a myth plain and simple. There are activists with science backgrounds but the professional research scientists are just doing science.

Once again I'm truly shocked, saddened and disappointed that there are staff members of this fine place actively spreading this kind of ignorant disinformation. Once again it flies in the face of the very things PF stands for (or that I thought it did).

 

[Mark24]

Unless you are already an expert, how do you know that what you learned was correct? It certainly isn't because we had any qualified climate scientists moderating the discussions. It isn't because the threads were populated with qualified climate experts, because they weren't. Whether something seems to make sense, or not, is irrelevant unless you have the proper background.

Frankly, your post is a great example why [based on the constraints] I support the ban on the topic.

Who decides if the person responding to an inquiry is an expert or not? You? This sounds like an appeal to authority, and science should not be subject to that. Science should be able to stand on its own based upon the evidence. IMO, this attitude demonstrates the whole problem with the AGW debate, and it has been exemplified by the arrogance shown by climate researches in the hacked e-mails toward people who voice any degree of skepticism.

I do not simply rely on being told by an expert which way is up from down. I am capable of examining the validity of the evidence as it is presented to me by doing further research into the premise on my own. I, as most people here I suspect, do not simply take for granted what I am told by the "experts." If I did, I would have long ago hopped aboard the AGW express to begin touring the country with Al Gore.

For those who are skeptical in nature (as I believe all scientists should be), the GW discussions on the Earth forum made for an environment to obtain more information about the foundation of the AGW theory including it's limitations, from contributors who do not consider themselves above responding to an honest inquiry. Banning discussion simply because Gavin Schmidt isn't moderating it does a disservice to the pursuit of knowledge here IMO.

 

[Xnn]

Thanks Evo;

When I find a few experts that are not involved in political action, where should they be directed?

 

[Count Iblis]

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.