Quality of debate on this forum

oscarBravo

[split from the "Global Warming" thread]

I've been following [the Global Warming thread] for a long time, and I'm strongly considering locking it and amending the charter to preclude any similar threads. It seems to me that it's an unevenly-balanced split between science and logic on the one hand, and borderline conspiracy theories on the other.

I'd be interested in hearing reasoned arguments from people on both sides of the debate as to whether it should be allowed to continue, or not.

robtri

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've been following this thread for a long time, and I'm strongly considering locking it and amending the charter to preclude any similar threads. It seems to me that it's an unevenly-balanced split between science and logic on the one hand, and borderline conspiracy theories on the other.

I'd be interested in hearing reasoned arguments from people on both sides of the debate as to whether it should be allowed to continue, or not.

So you want to lock a thread that is generating debate because there is an unevenly balanced split between science and logic and conspiracy theories?
there is no abuse going on in the thread, there is only a debate happening, and as wild as some of the idea's are here, everybody is entitled to an opinion and to express it.
lock it if you wish, but please use a better reason than a difference of opinions...

asdasd

I agree with Robtri. Neutrals can see who is winning the argument, and it is largley the warmists, so I am not sure why a mod of a green forum would be upset. My feelings are that AGW is real, but over-alarmist. That belief is not the same as denial, of course. I intend to post why I think that in this thread when I get my thoughts together, so i would like to keep it open.

oscarBravo

I'm all for debate. I live for debate.

This thread isn't a debate. One one side you have science and logic, and on the other you have "I was golfing in America last year", "it's snowing in March" and unsubstantiated claims of the whole thing being a con to excuse increased taxation.

I'd love to see an intelligent debate on the topic. I haven't seen much evidence of that here.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

So you want to lock a thread that is generating debate because there is an unevenly balanced split between science and logic and conspiracy theories?

But this is supposed to be a science-based forum (according to the charter); conspiracy theories have no place here. I'm all for a debate on the subject, but irrational, illogical arguments are pointless.

Perhaps applying some of the rules of the politics forum here might help - if you make a claim, you must be prepared to back it up with a reference.

JonnyMaguire

robtri wrote: »

lock it if you wish, but please use a better reason than a difference of opinions...

You see the problem. OscarBravo is getting hassled, too many holes are getting poked in this global warming scam. He is being told to shut down all alternative views on the topic.

Hence his appeal to change the charter to allow only pro global warming posters.

JonnyMaguire

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm all for debate. I live for debate.

This thread isn't a debate. One one side you have science and logic, and on the other you have "I was golfing in America last year", "it's snowing in March" and unsubstantiated claims of the whole thing being a con to excuse increased taxation..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/environment/2748922/Fuels-gold---the-cost-of-carbon-emissions.html

And then some.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd love to see an intelligent debate on the topic. I haven't seen much evidence of that here.

The topic does not stand up to debate.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/a-heated-exchange-al-gore-confronts-his-critics/

JonnyMaguire

djpbarry wrote: »

But this is supposed to be a science-based forum (according to the charter); conspiracy theories have no place here. I'm all for a debate on the subject, but irrational, illogical arguments are pointless.

Is that the party line?

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps applying some of the rules of the politics forum here might help - if you make a claim, you must be prepared to back it up with a reference.

The vast majority of my claims have been backed up by links. Anything, such as my golfing adventures in the US have been stated as personal opinons. Am I not allowed my opinons?

oscarBravo

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

You see the problem. OscarBravo is getting hassled, too many holes are getting poked in this global warming scam. He is being told to shut down all alternative views on the topic.

Thank you for making my point beautifully for me.

djpbarry

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

The vast majority of my claims have been backed up by links.

No you don't. You spit out pseudo-random links to articles (usually blogs) that are generally related to the subject, without actually addressing any specific points; your previous post in response to oscarBravo is a good example.

JonnyMaguire

djpbarry wrote: »

No you don't. You spit out pseudo-random links to articles (usually blogs) that are generally related to the subject, without actually addressing any specific points; your previous post in response to oscarBravo is a good example.

Rubbish. My posts are to the point and backed up.

What specific points would you like addressed?

oscarBravo

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

What specific points would you like addressed?

How about you start by backing up this little gem:

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

OscarBravo is getting hassled, too many holes are getting poked in this global warming scam. He is being told to shut down all alternative views on the topic.

JonnyMaguire

oscarBravo wrote: »

How about you start by backing up this little gem:

Well, basic inference.

I'm not getting dragged into personal attacks. I have no interest in personal attacks, as robtri stated above, there has been no abuse whatsoever on this thread. I suggest it stays that way.

oscarBravo

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

Well, basic inference.

Or, in scientific terms, "jumping to conclusions". Perfectly typical of the quality of this "debate".

I'm not getting dragged into personal attacks. I have no interest in personal attacks...

Bull. The example I quoted is an ad hominem attack, pure and simple. You're claiming I have an agenda, and then refusing to back up that claim. You know it's a false claim, so you're simply slinging mud. Put up or shut up - and that's a moderator instruction.

JonnyMaguire

:mad:

Anybody want to get back to the debate?

Maybe I have a mental disorder.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4953981/Climate-denial-is-know-a-mental-disorder.html

djpbarry

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

Rubbish. My posts are to the point and backed up.

What specific points would you like addressed?

Where to start...

djpbarry wrote:

I'll ask you the same question I have asked of others who have posted that story (which seems to be confined exclusively to blogs); who is John S. Theon and why is his opinion of James Hansen so important?

djpbarry wrote:

So, in your opinion, it was quite warm on a golf course somewhere in the US in 1998? At what point did you (in your opinion, of course) link this event to El Nino?

djpbarry wrote:

So in your opinion (which is apparently based on the opinion of an essentially anonymous blogger, who's opinion is in turn based on the alleged opinion of one John Theon, a man we know virtually nothing about), James Hansen is a fraud. Do you have any evidence that he is a fraud, other than a blog article?

djpbarry wrote:

So some guy puts together a book, in which it is claimed that pollution, global warming, water shortages, famine “and the like” were identified as a sort of common enemy against which, humanity could be united. From this you deduce that global warming is not real. But I’m confused; are pollution, water shortages and famine not real? Suppose that paragraph read as follows:

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that AIDS, cancer, Malaria, Tuberculosis and the like would fit the bill.”

Would you then conclude that all of those diseases are fictional?

djpbarry wrote:

Regarding the article you’ve linked to, where does it state that you are being forced to pay taxes to Generation Investment Management?

djpbarry wrote:

Is there a particular claim that has been made by Steve Hansen that contradicts the available evidence?

djpbarry wrote:

Further, you might point out some errors in Hansen’s programme for our consideration.

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

I'm not getting dragged into personal attacks. I have no interest in personal attacks, as robtri stated above, there has been no abuse whatsoever on this thread.

Wrong again; you accused me of being a propagandist:

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

You want my data. Well I don't think the government hand out multi million euro "research" grants to heretics. You have to be on the wagon, as you well know.

Why are you getting your pay cheque? DIT research, yeah right. Propagandist.

maniac101

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

Maybe I have a mental disorder.

I would agree with you here. Your contributions to this forum over the last couple of years certainly provide strong, incontrovertible scientific evidence to back this up!

JonnyMaguire

DJP, I have dealt with the vast majority of those questions. Maybe you should have a read through the thread before posting.

Anything such as made up quotes about Aids and so on were ignored, and rightly so.

WARNING;

( Personal opinon will shortly follow )

Am I the only one getting the impression that certain people are trying to push my links further back into the thread so that they wil not be seen by later posters ?

oscarBravo

maniac101 wrote: »

I would agree with you here. Your contributions to this forum over the last couple of years certainly provide strong, incontrovertible scientific evidence to back this up!

I don't think there's anything to be gained by contributing further ad hominems to the thread.

oscarBravo

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

DJP, I have dealt with the vast majority of those questions.

No, you haven't.

Anything such as made up quotes about Aids and so on were ignored, and rightly so.

That's a refusal to engage in debate. Which goes back to my point: there is no debate here, and I'm still at a loss as to why I should allow you and your ilk to continue to pretend to debate the issue.

Am I the only one getting the impression that certain people are trying to push my links further back into the thread so that they wil not be seen by later posters ?

If your links contributed anything of value to the debate, they would be discussed.

robtri

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm all for debate. I live for debate.

This thread isn't a debate. One one side you have science and logic, and on the other you have "I was golfing in America last year", "it's snowing in March" and unsubstantiated claims of the whole thing being a con to excuse increased taxation.

I'd love to see an intelligent debate on the topic. I haven't seen much evidence of that here.

Like it or not its still a debate, even if one or two comments are completly "off the wall"
you don't like the way the debate is going fair enough, neither do I, but don't lock the thread cause it doesn't agree with you and your idea's of a debate..

as per the oxford english dictionary:




debate


• noun 1 a formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented. 2 an argument.
• verb 1 discuss or argue about. 2 consider; ponder.
[SIZE=-1]— PHRASES[/SIZE] under debate being discussed.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] debater [SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE].
[SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] Old French, from Latin battere ‘to fight’.

oscarBravo

robtri wrote: »

Like it or not its still a debate, even if one or two comments are completly "off the wall"
you don't like the way the debate is going fair enough, neither do I, but don't lock the thread cause it doesn't agree with you and your idea's of a debate..

One or two off the wall comments I could handle. A total and utter absence of anything resembling substance on one side of the debate leaves me wondering what the point is.

If I replied to every other post with "yore ma", would it still be a debate worth having?

eta: Has there been a single post by, say, JonnyMaguire that made you think "hm, maybe the boy has a point"? Do you feel he has adequately addressed djpbarry's points? What do you think can be done to improve the quality of the discussion?

robtri

oscarBravo wrote: »

One or two off the wall comments I could handle. A total and utter absence of anything resembling substance on one side of the debate leaves me wondering what the point is.

If I replied to every other post with "yore ma", would it still be a debate worth having?

eta: Has there been a single post by, say, JonnyMaguire that made you think "hm, maybe the boy has a point"? Do you feel he has adequately addressed djpbarry's points? What do you think can be done to improve the quality of the discussion?

nope if you replied with your ma... I would agree it would be pointless,

and nope jonnymaguire has said nothing that would make me think, but to close the tread because of a few inputs by him is wrong....

oscarBravo

robtri wrote: »

nope if you replied with your ma... I would agree it would be pointless,

and nope jonnymaguire has said nothing that would make me think, but to close the tread because of a few inputs by him is wrong....

How many posts can you link to by global warming deniers that have made you think? Is there anything of substance on that side of the discussion?

JonnyMaguire

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many posts can you link to by global warming deniers that have made you think? Is there anything of substance on that side of the discussion?

Well, for a start the TRUTH is on that side of the discussion, and that is as good a place to start as any.

robtri

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many posts can you link to by global warming deniers that have made you think? Is there anything of substance on that side of the discussion?

you see you are assuming I am a global warmer belivier.....
so should we go through all the threads here, now and going forward and if you don't believe there is anything of substance, we should close the thread...

my point is simple, this is a forum for discussion, and people should be allowed to bring to the table their idea's, barking mad as some of them are...
the rest of us can ignore them, refute them or agree with them, that is our decession to make, and not anybodies else's.

as mod of this cat. it is ultimately your call....

asdasd

Possibly Mods need to power to ban from a thread, not just a forum.

J Maguire uses a scatter gun approach, links to journalists who are themselves suspect, conspiratorial language, Ad hominens, anecdotal "evidence" etc.

And, remember, I think global warming is exaggerated but real, so I could be on his side in some arguments were they put usefully. Anyway the thread does need some pruning.

in the midst of all that a question I do want answered,was not :-(

Macha

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many posts can you link to by global warming deniers that have made you think? Is there anything of substance on that side of the discussion?

JonnyMaguire wrote: »

Well, for a start the TRUTH is on that side of the discussion, and that is as good a place to start as any.

*facepalm* JonnyMaguire you just proved oscarBravo's point. Perfectly.

oscarBravo

robtri wrote: »

you see you are assuming I am a global warmer belivier.....

Not necessarily. The question stands, whichever side of the debate you're on. I'd love nothing more than a good-quality reasoned debate on the topic. This thread isn't it, and never has been from my reading of it. I will admit that I missed several weeks, but if something interesting was contributed there, I'd like to see it pointed out.

so should we go through all the threads here, now and going forward and if you don't believe there is anything of substance, we should close the thread...

my point is simple, this is a forum for discussion, and people should be allowed to bring to the table their idea's, barking mad as some of them are...
the rest of us can ignore them, refute them or agree with them, that is our decession to make, and not anybodies else's.

Let me try to explain where I'm coming from:

Should I allow threads on this forum discussing the plot of Fair City? Of course not. It's a forum for the discussion of green issues.

Should I allow people to post "yore ma" comments, ad hominem attacks, or things of that nature? Some would say yes, but I say no: it's a forum for serious and civil discussion.

Having established that this is a forum for serious and civil discussion of green issues, my question is this: should it be a forum that allows illogical and unscientific soapboxing by people who refuse to engage in a debate in any meaningful way? I think not, but I'm soliciting others' opinions.

By way of example, we introduced a "no soapboxing" rule in the EU forum (and in Politics in general) in the run-up to the Lisbon referendum, precisely because a handful of posters wanted to continually repeat slogans, completely ignoring refutations and refusing to engage in debate. We made a policy decision that Politics is a discussion forum, and that people who are not interested in discussion are not welcome. As a consequence, a small number of people grumbled about fascism and censorship, but the majority appreciated the quality of the debate that resulted.

ART6

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many posts can you link to by global warming deniers that have made you think? Is there anything of substance on that side of the discussion?

The way you chose to phrase that post suggests to me that you have made up your mind about global warming and believe that those who are sceptical about it for whatever reason should be silenced. There have been a number of posts that, while I accept that there is an element of GW going on, have caused me to think further on the subject even when they have not provided links or good science. I suggest that the post by Mahatma coat (below) is a good example. It simply asks questions without any links or arguments, but it is well put and shouild stimulate reflection.

Sometimes an opinion can engender a new train of thought even if it's not scientific surely?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

just a few questions on Global warming/cooling/Climate Change whatever you want to call it

was there a medieval warming, what caused it?

was there cooling in the earlier half of the twentieth century?

does the earth wobble on its axis?

was the Sahara once a temperate Forest region?

Was there a point in recent (geological) times when the Antartic was not frozen over?

have the coalfields in china been burning for centuries?

isnt Carbon Dioxide the Stuff we breathe out, the stuff plants need to live?

wasnt Carbon Monoxide theone everyone was worried about 20 years ago?


Havent Sea levels risen dramaticaly previously, Seperate to the end of Ice ages?

did we ause all those other things inthe past?

what is the total manmade output of carbon into theatmosphere annually?

how does this differ from 100 years ago?

oscarBravo

ART6 wrote: »

The way you chose to phrase that post suggests to me that you have made up your mind about global warming and believe that those who are sceptical about it for whatever reason should be silenced.

Don't read between the lines; I'm not writing between them.

If I've made up my mind, it's because the argument has thus far been for the most part between science and nonsense, and I know which side I'm coming down on there.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd love to see a good-quality debate. I'd like to see an interesting discussion on MC's post.

Instead, we get JonnyMaguire posting a link to a Register story that was already linked on this very thread, replied to by djpbarry, whose reply in turn was dismissed with a flippant comment.

I don't want to silence people who are skeptical about global warming. I want them to engage in the debate. I'm asking whether it makes sense to provide a platform for them to scattergun links while refusing to actually engage in a serious debate on the topic.

But I'm sure after a few more posts, someone will skim over what I've posted here, make up their own mind about what it is I must have meant by it, and accuse me of attempted censorship again.