I commented earlier that interpretations change by decade. The idea that "nonsense" has a special meaning in the Tractacus is from the 1980's realist interpretation.

I've got my own view, but don't we all?

Yes, we need to be careful about moderating stuff we're involved in. I haven't been perfect in that area either. But the consensus seems to be that the posts were off topic. So, I don't see any further action being required here. — Baden

I think you're making a mistake, but ok.

Next time, don't make off-topic remarks. — Xtrix

I think you know they weren't off topic. It's just sad you can't muster the character to admit it.

Isaac, how would you feel if I deleted that comment?

You were "simply saying" it after you were told that it was off topic. Furthermore, the fact that "information about ice ages can be shocking" says nothing whatsoever about why that comment was made to begin with, and is therefore just as irrelevant and off topic as stating, out of the blue, that "we're in an ice age guys." — Xtrix

If you have a concern, how about throwing it to another moderator to look at? I advised you to do that and you said "Thanks for the feedback."

Don't moderate a thread you're engaged in, especially after you're getting insulting and aggressive.

Honestly, I thought just raising the flag about the abuse would be enough to end it. This has gotten ten times more dramatic than I thought would be necessary.

I deleted your posts because they were irrelevant, and explained why. — Xtrix

Do you remember the content that you deleted? I was simply saying that information about ice ages can be shocking, but it's taught in classes on global warming. It's basic climatology.

Why would you need to delete that?

I don't think you deleted that one, did you?

The issue is that you disagreed with what I said and subsequently deleted my posts.

Also you deleted posts out of the feedback thread that was about you.

These kinds of actions are a detriment to robust discussion. Do you see why?

Tate

Xtrix only deleted them after I raised the issue that I thought you were trolling. The only reason I didn't delete them is because I wanted others to look (because I'm on holidays) into whether this was a general issue or just in the climate thread. Because I raised it Xtrix felt comfortable deleting the posts another moderator (eg. me) already flagged. — Benkei

I'm surprised you didn't explain this earlier.

One of the posts he deleted was one where I mentioned the content of a freshman class in global warming. Did you flag that? If so, why?

So you agree that this was abuse of mod power.
— Tate

I do... ? — Baden

He deleted posts out of a feedback thread that was about him. You said I should have been able to post that.

Tate

No. I accept the reason given that it was due to them being off-topic. If another mod deems this worthy of further investigation, I have no objection. But I don't see why you must post in a way that an OP writer says, apparently with some justification, isn't on topic. — Baden

Imagine you're debating a topic and your opponent deletes your posts. He subsequently states that your posts were off topic. Does that sound good to you? Do you think it might undermine discussion on the forum if a moderator is doing that?

Xtrix simply disagreed with me. The post he deleted was about information one would learn in a freshman class on global warming. It was on topic and non-offensive in any way.

Your position on this isn't making a lot of sense.

Perhaps Xtrix could post what he deleted and explain further.

To clarify, if you really must post a PM from a mod, you can. — Baden

So you agree that this was abuse of mod power. How about the posts he deleted out of the climate thread. Can you review those and explain why they needed to be urgently deleted?

Who are your "opponents"? — Benkei

Whoever disagrees with you

Anyway, would you hang around a forum where your opponent deletes your posts?

That's just crazy.

I raised the question with moderators whether you were trolling the thread or not. — Benkei

Really? Somehow I've been completely misunderstood. :grin:

He also deleted my posts in this feedback thread where I posted his PM's to me. I guess that's ok too?

Anyhow, we tend to defer, within reason, to an OP writer's analysis of what is relevant in their discussion, — Baden

As I said, if what I wrote was irrelevant, then probably the majority of that thread is irrelevant and
subject to bring deleted by Xtrix.

If that's how we want to do it, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for attempting to answer my concern.

Almost none of your statements are scientific fact, — boethius

That's really not true. I'm not continuing this discussion with you.

Basically what you're both saying is that you disagree with me. Neither of you has shown that what I posted was irrelevant. In fact, that you follow me to this thread to argue about it indicates that it's pretty on point.

Apart from the fact that your citations do not support the claims you made, you provided them after several pages of repeated requests from at least three different posters — Isaac

This is a lie. Why are you writing this?

That's what you're statements, like an ice age is expected in the next few hundred years, imply. — boethius

I don't think we should back down from stating scientific facts because someone could imply something we disagree with.

You refused to provide any citation when asked. — Isaac

That's not true. I provided two citations in spite of the fact that my knowledge is primarily from textbooks.

You seem to just want to make vague statements that imply global warming is not a problem, — boethius

That's just not true. I've explained that several times now

We both agree that the planet would normally be heading towards reglatiation — boethius

Thank you.

The issue at hand is the effect of human interference; in particular dumping billions of tons of carbon every year into the atmosphere and carbon cycle that would not otherwise get there, resulting in higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than any point in the last millions of years. — boethius

Right. That requires computer modeling.

but there were no other mods around at the time. — Jamal

That's not true. Xtrix continued deleting my posts after I opened this thread and Baden was present.

It is. As far as I can tell, Xtrix avoided, or tried to avoid, modding in that thread for this exact reason, but there were no other mods around at the time. — Jamal

Could you explain why moderation was needed? The only explanation I got from Xtrix was that my post was irrelevant.

The thing you claim is contradicted ... is literally repeated the very next statement. — boethius

It's supposed to follow from the portion that failed verification.

Again, if humans interfere in a system the pattern may diverge wildly from what was there before. If we damn a river the patterns of fish migration may stop, even if they have been occurring for thousands of years. — boethius

Yes. I mentioned the computer modeling on this earlier. I think you're attributing a motive to me that isn't there. This was brought up originally to show that the science of global warming is not simplistic. From there we started debating the standard scientific outlook.

I have not proposed that climate change should be denied due to this information.

From unmanageable global warming to fine-tuning climate, — Agent Smith

That's not what's happening.

I was wondering if you could comment on the feedback OP:

Is it appropriate to talk about the climate in a thread about climate change? Xtrix doesn't think so.

The issue was the effect of climate change on events related to the present ice age.

Why is this problematic? Could someone explain? — Tate

The article also in no way contradicts the wikipedia statement that we've already delayed reglatiation by some 500 000 years or more. — boethius

The Wikipedia article is wrong. The same information shows up in the article on the Milankovitch cycle and it's superscripted with "verification failed".

The article I provided does explain that current glaciation cycles are triggered by low summer insolation. That confirms that we are presently near a glaciation trigger. This has been conventional wisdom for several decades.

Yep, it's true; no fucking way. — Janus

Wow. Tough crowd.

It's true

, the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years — 180 Proof

That was the last glacial period of a large scale ice age, during which the climate swings between long glacial periods and short interglacials. There have been several of these larger scale ice ages in Earth's history.

the Earth is currently 1/10th of the way through an estimated 100,000 year interglacial cycle that scientists refer to as the Holocene — 180 Proof

That's one view. There are others. The more common view is that we should head back into glaciation some time in the next 10,000 years. We're near a trigger point now.

A few centuries ago the northern hempisphere, specifically pre-industrial Europe had experienced what is now referred to as a "Little Ice Age" when average global temperatures had dropped; this does not mean, however, we are "currently in an Ice Age". — 180 Proof

Interestingly, that cold spell was identified by comparing grape crop records from French monasteries to weather reports from the British Admiralty.

It is simply factually incorrect to claim "the Earth is currently in an Ice Age" — 180 Proof

It's proper usage. Note to the point: whether it's true or false, is it relevant to global warming? If for no other reason than that it provides fodder to deniers, I'd say yes.

This is a study from 2013 about summer insolation reglaciation triggering. It upholds the standard view that we're fairly close to a trigger point now since we know summer insolation is at a minimum.

If you want a simpler narrative, I would advise a climatology textbook. There are some good ones out there

You linked the source. If you have others, then quote them to back up your claims, Otherwise you cannot show your opinions to be anything of greater authority than those of just one more opinionated dude on the internet. — Janus

I linked that source because as far as I know, it represents the standard answer. For some reason the Wiki article is highlighting one article from Nature and not emphasizing the standard range of answers. So I'm looking.

It actually is about being human.

Whta "conventional wisdom" is that? Do you have a source? The information from the source you did cite seems to have been cherry-picked by you: — Janus

C'mon, man. My sources are all books and articles. You're looking for an internet blurb. Be a human, why don't you?

He's continuing to delete perfectly normal posts of mine. What the heck?

No, it does not. At most it says logic is senseless. Logic shows the structure of propositions, some of which picture the world. — Banno

It follows that only factual states of affairs which can be pictured can be represented by meaningful propositions. — SEP

There are, first, the propositions of logic itself. These do not represent states of affairs, — SEP

I think the SEP is saying that, per the Tractacus, propositions of logic are nonsense.

This suggests that we are around the middle of an interglacial period, not at the end of one. Can you cite a reference for your claim that we are at the end of an interglacial period? — Janus

"..the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years."
here

The conventional wisdom for sometime has been 500-3000 years. The trigger is cold winters in the northern hemisphere.

This means that what can be said are only propositions of natural science and leaves out of the realm of sense a daunting number of statements which are made and used in language.

"There are, first, the propositions of logic itself. These do not represent states of affairs, and the logical constants do not stand for objects. “ — Tate

This says propositions of logic are nonsense per the Tractacus. They're tautological. They don't picture states of affairs.

The propositions of logic are nonsense.

Is there some other logic?