Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[Evo]

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

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

 

[sylas]

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

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

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

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

Cheers -- sylas

 

[ZapperZ]

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

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

I agree 100% with this. This distrust exists at the level of the moderators here and that fact probably led to this problem. I find it suspect that this happened not so long after Sylas came along here. He was able to debunk most of the nonsense that most of the time went unchallenged before. In case of the hacking incident, just read all the discussions and you'll see that it is mostly Sylas who debunks most of the myths about data being destroyed etc. etc.

So, objectively, you would have to say that things improved a lot lately. The problem therefore really is that you have moderators who hold strong sceptical opinions on this matter who do don't like this development. One lesson from Wikipedia is that people who are involved in a discussion should not moderate that discussion. People who hold strong opinions who are not directly involved should be able to put their opinions aside when moderating a discussion and only apply the rules.

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

Zz.

 

[Xnn]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Borek]

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

(ducks back under the chair)

 

[Skyhunter]

The answer is simple.

Make Sylas an Earth forum moderator.

If he will accept of course

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

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

He understands the guidelines and how they should be enforced.

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

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

 

[Count Iblis]

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


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

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

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

 

[Sorry!]

The answer is simple.

Make Sylas an Earth forum moderator.

If he will accept of course

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

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

He understands the guidelines and how they should be enforced.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

Thanks for the feedback.

Please be patient while we work something out.

 

[ZapperZ]

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

This is not true.

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

Zz.

 

[Xnn]

I also recommend that Sylas be a Mentor/Moderator.

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

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

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

 

[story645]

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

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

Note, we are talking about somebody having the know-how to moderate disputes that happen in the CC/GW threads, and to do so without the moderators on the whole spending a disproportionate amount of time on them. This is different than being knowledgeable enough to contribute worthy and thoughtful posts at our forums.

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

 

[sylas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Skyhunter]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sorry!]

This is not true.

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

Zz.

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

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

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

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

 

[ZapperZ]

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

Definitely NOT!

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

Zz.

 

[Sorry!]

Definitely NOT!

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

Zz.

'It's entered mainstream science'

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

 

[ZapperZ]

'It's entered mainstream science'

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

Huh?

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

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

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

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

Zz.

 

[sylas]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

 

[ZapperZ]

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

Zz.

 

[Xnn]

How about the Lindzen debacle?

It's current and relevant to GW/CC.

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

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

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

 

[ZapperZ]

How about the Lindzen debacle?

It's current and relevant to GW/CC.

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

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

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

This is EXACTLY the reason why we need an expert.

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

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

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

Zz.

 

[sylas]

How about the Lindzen debacle?

It's current and relevant to GW/CC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers -- sylas

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

 

[Wallace]

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

 

[Saul]

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

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

There is some other issue which is not being discussed.

Science changes based on the facts and analysis.

I do not support censorship. It is irrational.

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

 

[sylas]

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

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

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Saul]

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

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

There is some other issue which is not being discussed.

Science changes based on the facts and analysis.

I do not support censorship. It is irrational.

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

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

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

Censorship is not part of the scientific process.

This is a scientific forum not a politic forum.

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

 

[Xnn]

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

Is the new policy a type of censorship?

I feel it is.

Is that getting emotional?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Borek]

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

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

 

[cristo]

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

 

[Redbelly98]

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

Okay.

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

 

[Saul]

Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much time have you spent here addressing the topic?

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

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

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

 

[Xnn]

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

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

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

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