but this way the actual climate change thread can be reserved for discussing climate change — its effects, recent research, mitigation ideas, etc etc — Mikie

Surely climate change skepticism belongs in the climate change thread.

Otherwise the climate change thread just becomes an echo chamber for pessimism about climate change and complaints about the lack of action to reduce CO2 levels. A good discussion needs different viewpoints. Otherwise it is just preaching to the faithful.

Mikie, you want the actual climate change thread to be reserved for discussing recent research, mitigation ideas, etc. Which thread would you post in if you were skeptical about recent research or mitigation ideas?

I agree but it should be called for what it is, ‘denialism’. Scepticism is the withholding of judgement concerning what is not evident, whereas denialism is the refusal to acknowledge abundant evidence.

↪Mikie
I agree but it should be called for what it is, ‘denialism’. Scepticism is the withholding of judgement concerning what is not evident, whereas denialism is the refusal to acknowledge abundant evidence. — Wayfarer

Plenty of meat on the bone of what is "not evident" to chew on.
No dog in this fight, but it's not an exhausted subject if philosophers get cranked up.
Which thread it should be in will just be a rose that smells the same.
Just a thought.
apologetic smile

It’s not a philosophical issue. Purely empirical. The composition of the atmosphere affects global climate. The only argument is not whether that is happening but what can be done about it.

But then, this has already become another climate change thread. Probably should be merged.

I agree but it should be called for what it is, ‘denialism’ — Wayfarer

In that case you will have to rename the existing "climate change" thread to be "climate change evangelism".

Or you could rename the existing "climate change" thread to be "climate change - preaching to the faithful".

Why is Mikie so scared of anybody challenging his beliefs? Could it be that he can't defend his beliefs?

The only argument is not whether that is happening but what can be done about it. — Wayfarer

Exactly. . :up:

I want to discuss what can be done about it.

In that case you will have to rename the existing "climate change" thread to be "climate change evangelism". — Agree-to-Disagree

Part of the argumentarium of denialism is to equate awareness of the danger of climate change with religious belief. The Australian PM who repealed a working carbon tax in favorite of ‘planting trees’ did that. It situates it in the domain of personal belief rather than environmental science.

Anyway - this thread should be merged.

I agree but it should be called for what it is, ‘denialism’. — Wayfarer

You’re right, but I want to be nice. No one admits to being a denier these days— no one. Not even Trump.

Currently — and several times over the years — the main thread gets spammed by nonsense. After pages of engagement and refutation— especially by @unenlightened and some others — more denialist garbage gets thrown in anyway, derailing the topic and cluttering the thread.

You’re right, but I want to be nice — Mikie

YOU !!!. Want to be NICE !!!. . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:

Currently — and several times over the years — the main thread gets spammed by nonsense — Mikie

Then you should stop doing this spamming of the main thread by nonsense. . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:

I would prefer that we have certain standards, such that we do not discuss creationism, flat earth, climate change denial, normalisation of pedophilia, and probably a few other topics. I am not a fan of the idea that every point of view is valid.

It is difficult in these times to draw these lines, and I would think that they ought never be absolute. But if such topics are to be allowed, at the least, high standards of rigour in evidence and argument should be required. What is hard to take in the topic under discussion is the disruption of what is otherwise a slow and hopefully educational development of the topic, by low quality and disagreeable posts, from people who think themselves clever and hilarious - aka trolls.

I certainly do not want to discuss climate change denial with anyone and would not participate in such a thread. And I do not believe anyone else would want to present their views there either; it is the attention that results from disruption and conflict that is craved.

The solution? Nonsense should be deleted, and trolls should be banned. Shimples!

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I don't. I agree with the last part, I don't agree with the first part.

What is hard to take in the topic under discussion is the disruption of what is otherwise a slow and hopefully educational development of the topic, by low quality and disagreeable posts, from people who think themselves clever and hilarious - aka trolls. — unenlightened

Yes. As I mentioned, it’s akin to a thread on biological evolution being spammed by creationist garbage. Of course they call themselves “intelligent design” theorists now, much like climate deniers call themselves “skeptics,” but the analogy holds. It’s religious-like nonsense that isn’t amenable to reason, argument, or evidence.

I too think most of it should be deleted and trolls banned— but that’s asking a lot of moderators to constantly monitor the goings-on of a long thread. I think a better solution is to create another thread and flag posts that are off-topic (denialist bullshit) to be moved there. Thus people who feel qualified to disagree with the worldwide consensus and overwhelming evidence because they “think for themselves” (i.e., have spent several hours on YouTube) have a place to share their thoughts, however childish. And we can more easily ignore them.

If that doesn’t work, I’ll create a separate, more specific thread about climate change and leave the old one to the trolls.

I would prefer that we have certain standards, such that we do not discuss [...] climate change denial — unenlightened

Please define what "climate change denial" is.

Mikie constantly calls me a "denier" whenever I post something that he doesn't agree with.

I am not a climate change denier. I have told Mikie many times that 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"?

Many of my posts are about whether the proposed "solutions" to climate change are feasible. For example, the possible problems with solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc.. It is important to know whether the proposed "solutions" to climate change will work, and/or cause other problems. Mikie doesn't like that. He wants to control the climate change thread so that it only reflects his views.

The solution? Nonsense should be deleted, and trolls should be banned. Shimples! — unenlightened

Who will have the role of climate change thread "police"? Who judges whether something is "climate change denial". Mikie would like to be judge, jury, and executioner.

I too think most of it should be deleted and trolls banned— but that’s asking a lot of moderators to constantly monitor the goings-on of a long thread. I think a better solution is to create another thread and flag posts that are off-topic (denialist bullshit) to be moved there. Thus people who feel qualified to disagree with the worldwide consensus and overwhelming evidence because they “think for themselves” (i.e., have spent several hours on YouTube) have a place to share their thoughts, however childish. And we can more easily ignore them. — Mikie

In other words, you want to make the climate change thread an "echo chamber" that preaches what you believe. That sounds extremely "unhealthy" to me.

Can the mods weigh in on this please? Thank you.

@Jamal@Michael@Hanover@Benkei@Baden@Count Timothy von Icarus@Moliere

It’s not a philosophical issue. Purely empirical. The composition of the atmosphere affects global climate. The only argument is not whether that is happening but what can be done about it. — Wayfarer

As stated, no dog in this fight. So lets see what the intrepid mods make of Mikie's question.

pacific smile

pacific smile — kazan

From the Pacific Ocean (Oceania), yes?

My two cents worth...

The request doesn't seem to be for a debate thread, but for a thread that accepts certain studies as authorative so that you can learn along with like minded folks what those authorities state and perhaps imply might be in the future.

As in, if you were taking a course on Kant, your task would be to learn what he said, perhaps realize some inconsistencies, but being disallowed outright rejection and questioning of his project.

Or, another analogy, Sunday school class is set aside to extract the wisdom from the Scripture, not to challenge the very validity of it.

So, if I've charecized the inquiry correctly enough, i turn to our guidelines. It says nothing about an OP being necessarily phrased as a debate, but it does say this:

"Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having."

So, to open the discussion...

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?

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

Straight to the point. Good.

appreciative smile

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

What ideology are you referring to exactly?

Imagine a thread on evolution, where creationists spam constantly. Is objecting to this spam “ideological”?

A more extreme example: a thread about the events of the Holocaust being spammed by Holocaust deniers. Ideological? Is it bigoted to suggest that perhaps they need another thread?

And no— it’s exactly a suggestion that a debate thread is started. The climate change thread wasn’t intended to be a place where the basic, overwhelmingly supported facts are repeatedly attacked with silly, long-refuted, thinly-veiled climate denial “arguments.” Hence why a separate thread should exist for that purpose.

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving.

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving. — Mikie

If I may. I believe that Mike's point, which perhaps is falling on somewhat deaf ears, is that the rules of the Forum could be improved, somehow.

And that's always a good thing, isn't it?

Imagine a thread on evolution, where creationists spam constantly. Is objecting to this spam “ideological”? — Mikie

Mikie. You are trying to depict me as a denier. But I am NOT a denier.

As I said above. 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"?

I am NOT a denier. — Agree-to-Disagree

Well, that's what's known as a performative contradiction: you are emphasizing the exact point of your sentence which you should not be emphasizing

Well, that's what's known as a performative contradiction: you are emphasizing the exact point of your sentence which you should not be emphasizing — Arcane Sandwich

Okay then. :grin:

I am NOT a climate change denier.

Is that acceptable?

Yes, it is...

... The Devil is in the Detail, is he not?
He's the hyper-Lawyer...

... :naughty:

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

Is it an ideology that the mods are in charge? Is the rule an ideology? shall we debate forever the terms of the debate?

I think any debate needs some ideology in the form of a commitment to honesty, and an acceptance of the terms of the debate. I think therefore that this forum has such an ideology and sets the standards for participation. If you as moderator think that belief in climate change, or that shit smells is an ideology, or a matter of opinion, then I will have to consider my position as contributor.

I have been putting up videos of careful explanations of scientific papers, and then having to deal with quotes and citations from petrol-heads, disreputable sensation-monger press, and click-bait sites, and I am mightily dis-chuffed with wasting my time on them. If you find the topic too controversial to deal with such nonsense, I will seek a site where sensible discussion can be had without constant interruption.

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving. — Mikie

Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite, to prevent the expression of nonsense and rubbish, and ban people who persist in so doing. I guess it must be an ideological disagreement.

Whereas my suggestion is [...] to prevent the expression of nonsense and rubbish, and ban people who persist in so doing — unenlightened

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

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.

I think if the purpose of this forum is to learn and teach things through the discussion then we have to be open to ideas that are not correct, nonsense, or even rubbish. People come up with some ideas they think they are correct. It is only through a discussion that we can show them that their idea is incorrect, nonsense, or rubbish. So, I think we have to be open to people's ideas. The trolling, insulting, and talking off-topic is another matter though.