Why not make a new thread devoted to climate change links, like a reddit style listing. Leave the climate change thread for general discussion, including disagreement about details. I think that would be less confusing.

It is only through a discussion that we can show them that their idea is incorrect, nonsense, or rubbish. — MoK

Absolutely. And that has been done, countless times — and not just from curmudgeons like me, but from far more patient and thorough individuals. But that can come to dominate the discussion, and the climate change thread wasn’t meant to be such a venue. Thus, why not branch that discussion off to a separate thread?

People can discuss anything they like— creationism, a flat earth, Holocaust denial, anything, as far as I’m concerned (within the site’s rules). Just in the appropriate thread. The climate change thread isn’t a debate about whether climate change is happening, or how the scientific community is probably wrong about it because of groupthink, etc.

Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision. — Agree-to-Disagree

I make the decision for myself, and I express it with evidence in support. The site owner and the volunteer moderators are the ones entitled to make the decision for this site. My opinion might inform or persuade, or it might not. They might ban me instead.

You want to be able to post anything that you want to, but you want to deny other people the same privilege. You want to delete people's posts that you disagree with or don't like. That sounds like the sort of thing that a dictator would do. — Agree-to-Disagree

No. I don't want anyone to be able to post anything they like; and I would be happy to be banned from any site that was run like that. I was an admin for several years of the predecessor of this site, and I did not enjoy at all deleting peoples' posts or banning them, nor did I enjoy the abuse and tedious accusations that were routinely made like those you have made above. I did those things to preserve something I consider valuable — a community of communication. Such cannot exist without standards and discipline.

Why not make a new thread devoted to climate change links, like a reddit style listing. — frank

This is a discussion site, and I want to discuss. But I don't want to discuss garbage.

Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite — unenlightened

I know. I should have said “my” suggestion.

This is a discussion site, and I want to discuss. But I don't want to discuss garbage. — unenlightened

Exactly.

This is a discussion site, and I want to discuss. But I don't want to discuss garbage. — unenlightened

Then your point is that they should ban Agree-to-Disagree? I think he's the only person who posts on that that thread with any regularity (other than yourself). His posts aren't really bad enough for banning. They'll probably ban me before they do him.

I agree. I didn't follow the climate change thread but I agree that sometimes it is need to open another thread to keep the focus on a specific topic.

Then your point is that they should ban Agree-to-Disagree? — frank

Yes.

I think he's the only person who posts on that that thread with any regularity (other than yourself). — frank

That seems to indicate that at least one of us making the thread uninteresting to others. But @Mikie also posts. I think he mostly ignores @Agree-to-Disagree these days.

His posts aren't really bad enough for banning. — frank

"Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision.", as was Disagreeably said to me a few posts back.

This is a comment from Mikie to Agree-to-Disagree from a week ago:

Oh hahahahaha! A line from 40 years ago that’s been quoted about a billion times before! What wit. What humor.

Just also worth pointing out how Incredibly unfunny this guy is. (Besides when he’s pretending that he’s not thought of as a complete baffoon — that’s actually hilarious.) — Mikie

Look, I think climate change denialists should take half of their brain out of their head, make a smoothy out of it, then drink it. I think they're some of the dumbest and ethically lowest human beings on the planet. That being said...they should be given a chance to say whatever they want. As long as they are not outright insulting or trolling, this is a place where all ideas should be discussed. Self-righteousness is something we ought to be very careful of. We debate all people, not just the educated, ethical, or highly intelligent.

:up: :up: :up:

This is another of Mikie's comments from a week ago:

Answer these questions first:

1) what is it like being a climate denying idiot?

2) is moving on to the next stupid thing after prior humiliation really a winning strategy? — Mikie

If what we desire is a high quality thread, maybe cut down on the childish flaming? I mean, these types of comments go on for pages and pages.

We debate all people, not just the educated, ethical, or highly intelligent. — Philosophim

Right— so create a thread where we can debate anything, even a flat earth. But the geology thread isn’t the place for that.

If only we could all aspire to get to the level of those who feel entitled to lecture others about their tone, childishness, flaming, and lack of substance…

Hey Mikie, how do you keep an idiot in suspense? — Agree-to-Disagree

I will carefully explain it to you in language that an idiot can understand. — Agree-to-Disagree

P.S. I don't want help from an alarmist idiot. — Agree-to-Disagree

There is only one type of climate activist. The gullible, unrealistic, idiot. — Agree-to-Disagree

All those idiots protesting and pushing for CO2 reduction for all those decades, screaming about how global warming would be the “end of humanity.” Did it happen?? No! Just more doomerism/alarmism. — Agree-to-Disagree

Any prediction of global social collapse and extinction is idiotic. — frank

It's all fixable. — frank

That kind of sounds like bs — frank

You suck. — frank

you great boob — frank

I only hope one day I can be as deep, as thoughtful, as substantive. Then maybe I too can be as sanctimonious.

I'm just saying that it looks like you flamed for years and years, and now you want the moderators to do something about the fact that your thread is a cesspool. *shrug*

I think he mostly ignores Agree-to-Disagree these days. — unenlightened

Yes. I had him on the ignore list for over a year— among others. Now that that’s not an option, I can see all the more how often the thread has been trolled.

I agree with the idea that people of like mind should be allowed to discuss something in depth, to explore it fully, without having to justify the premise every several posts. Exploring nuances, discussing why one solution or other failed, and hypothesizing courses of action, is a far cry from preaching to the choir or being in an echo chamber. Of course, it's easy enough to ignore posts of someone or other who you know is going to argue against the premise. But someone new to the thread might not want to wade through it all, and just leave.

But, you can only get such a setting in your own home/on your own site. Don't invite the denier to your house when you and those who agree want to discuss it. Or find/create a site geared toward your views.

This is a comment from Mikie to Agree-to-Disagree from a week ago: — frank

If I had been moderating, I would have deleted and warned @Mikie too, several times. I might even have deleted some of my own posts. If you are trying to make an argument that the standards are very low, too low, I agree. If you are trying to argue that Mikie is the main problem here or in the other thread, well that would be another matter entirely.

In general, I would be more tolerant of occasional flaming from a decent poster, than prolific low quality posters.

But, you can only get such a setting in your own home/on your own site. — Patterner

I thought this was my home.

I'll let that be my final comment on this topic.

If I had been moderating, I would have deleted and warned Mikie too, several times. I might even have deleted some of my own posts. If you are trying to make an argument that the standards are very low, too low, I agree. If you are trying to argue that Mikie is the main problem here or in the other thread, well that would be another matter entirely. — unenlightened

Thank you for saying this. I wish Mikie the best. I hope he finds a way to let go of whatever it is that makes him lean into bitterness. I hope he finds the way to have a little faith in other people.

f I had been moderating, I would have deleted and warned Mikie too, several times. — unenlightened

Yes, and rightfully so.

I don’t suffer fools. I don’t like them, I have little tolerance for them. Especially sanctimonious ones. But I do hope they find the shining path to self awareness and their own gross hypocrisy someday.

I thought this was my home. — unenlightened

Not unless you own it. No one owns The Philosophy Forum. Not the concept of one, at least. You can't legislate something like that, how would even do it? What you can legislate, in any case, is the ownership of a website, and even the name of a website. So, this website, can have a legal owner (I'm not saying that it actually has one, I'm saying that it's a legal possibility). This site can even have a legal ownership (again, not saying that it necessarily does) of the domain name, i.e, the three "w" etc. followed by thephilosophyforum, like that, with no spaces, then a period and whatever follows after that.

The discussion (the most interesting aspect of this specific discussion) is what actually follows after that. Consider the latter part of the domain name of this very thread: "/discussion/15777/new-thread/p2".

Can you (anyone) actually own something like that, in a legal sense? Well, it's a contentious point, because arguably, since I'm writing these very words into this very comment, they're my words, so I own them. And if I own my own words, you can't own them, and this is by definition. And if you want to own my words, I can sell them to you. When I do that, I don't sell my actual capacity to write, unless we sign a contract that says so.

Does accepting a EULA involve the user in that sense? It's an interesting question. What if I didn't read the EULA or the Terms of Service? What if I actually clicked on "OK"? That's why that button always has a sign above it that says "Do you agree with these terms and/or have you read these terms and have you understood them?", etc.

That's the sort of thing that can be debated in a Court of Law.

Etc.

Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule? — Hanover

I don’t suffer fools. I don’t like them, I have little tolerance for them. Especially sanctimonious ones. But I do hope they find the shining path to self awareness and their own gross hypocrisy someday. — Mikie

I do hope they find the shining path — Mikie

Well, Mikie, you have the basic human right to have an opinion, mistaken as it might otherwise be, just like everyone else does. How about that? Sound good? It sure does to my ear.

Obviously, if people want to make a thread to discuss objections to climate change related theories or mitigation efforts, they are welcome to. I am a little reticent about having to take on moderating a Lounge topic about a fairly complex empirical topic.

For one thing, when it comes to mitigation there are plenty of valid concerns about the costs of any particular mitigation efforts/policy outweighing the benefits, particularly since both economies and ecosystems are very complex and full of tipping points. Hence, it hardly seems right to disallow any questioning of particular policies or projections.

So, it might be better just to flag low quality or troll posts.

The climate change thread isn’t a debate about whether climate change is happening, or how the scientific community is probably wrong about it because of groupthink, etc. — Mikie

I repeat for the 3rd time (Perhaps Mikie will read and accept it this time, but I am not holding my breath)

I am NOT a climate change denier.

I accept that global warming is happening. I accept that humans are responsible for most of the increase in the CO2 level above 280 ppm. And I accept that this will cause some problems.

Does that sound like "climate change denial"?

But Mikie constantly calls me a [climate change] denier. I think that Mikie needs to acknowledge that he is wrong.

it might be better just to flag low quality or troll posts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But that's my entire point as an individual, Timmy. When I complain about the latter, people suggest between the lines that I'm over-reacting. Yet when I complain about the former, they treat me like I'm somehow trolling them. So what's the deal here? I'm somehow not allowed to give people a taste of both their own and a better medicine?

So, it might be better just to flag low quality or troll posts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I appreciate the response— but nothing comes of that. Whereas moving off-topic posts is perhaps more manageable. This way climate deniers (who definitely AREN’T climate deniers, wink wink) can spam and troll a separate thread with their inane observations.

I agree about mitigation efforts and problems with transitioning to renewables, etc. In fact I’ve discussed them at length. That’s quite different from making things up, or posting misinformation from low-quality sources, or citing well-known climate deniers — over and over again, even after the first 50 were roundly debunked.

In any case — I just flagged several. Maybe someone can take a look. For example, I recently tried posting a thorough post about climate as an introduction, for those possibly interested — and it gets drowned out, yet again, by irrelevant discussions and vendettas. Should those not be removed? Why aren’t they? Is anything in the lounge now just a free-for-all? I know we give some leniency to emotional topics like the Middle East and Ukraine, or even Donald Trump— but can’t science be discussed intelligently without spam?

Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule? — Hanover

Any prediction of global social collapse and extinction is idiotic. — frank

No one owns The Philosophy Forum. — Arcane Sandwich

Someone created the site by purchasing the domain name and setting up the operating system. Someone, maybe the same person, pays every year for the domain name. Someone, maybe one or more people in addition to whoever pays for the domain name, has the power to shut it down, and even delete every post.

No one owns The Philosophy Forum. — Arcane Sandwich

Someone created the site by purchasing the domain name and setting up the operating system. Someone, maybe the same person, pays every year for the domain name. Someone, maybe one or more people in addition to whoever pays for the domain name, has the power to shut it down, and even delete every post. — Patterner

And you think I care? I'm an Artist, dude. I carry my skills with me, wherever I go.

This way climate deniers (who definitely AREN’T climate deniers, wink wink) — Mikie

For example, I recently tried posting a thorough post about climate as an introduction, for those possibly interested — Mikie

Did you notice my comment about your "thorough post about climate as an introduction"?

In case you didn't read it, or can't remember it, I said:

Believe it or not Mikie, I agree with most of this post. — Agree-to-Disagree

Would a [climate change] denier say that?