Global Warming Skeptics

Full Version: Suggestions/Observations
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
1) Just my opinion, but I don't like seeing everyone's IP address.

2) Why can I see & read the moderator's forum? It should be hidden for private discussions amongst moderators. After running my own forum, as well as currently being an admin/moderator on another sports forum, I'd highly suggest it. Such discussions are best done behind closed doors.

3) One caveat...I'm now shown as a moderator. News to me if I am.
[quote author=AEGeneral link=topic=115.msg734#msg734 date=1248149032]
1) Just my opinion, but I don't like seeing everyone's IP address.

2) Why can I see & read the moderator's forum? It should be hidden for private discussions amongst moderators. After running my own forum, as well as currently being an admin/moderator on another sports forum, I'd highly suggest it. Such discussions are best done behind closed doors.

3) One caveat...I'm now shown as a moderator. News to me if I am.
[/quote]

It is fixed.

I forgot to delete the Forum Moderator group.You fell into it by the number of postings you had.Sorry about that.

:-[
I thought you were discussing some secret stuff until I got to the end. Boy what a let down :'(
I think that the posting of articles worth reading is a wonderful idea, but I have a suggestion.
Is there a way they could be grouped by topic?  For instance, under the general heading of: CO2 research.... Solar.... Paleoclimatology and so forth.  It would be even a better resource in that form I believe.
[quote author=Doug Danhoff link=topic=115.msg895#msg895 date=1248706172]
I think that the posting of articles worth reading is a wonderful idea, but I have a suggestion.
Is there a way they could be grouped by topic?  For instance, under the general heading of: CO2 research.... Solar.... Paleoclimatology and so forth.  It would be even a better resource in that form I believe.
[/quote]

That is a good suggestion,I will work on it.

You can suggest an article,by using the Personal message system.

The articles I usually post are those that the public can still have a chance to understand it.I usually avoid the the heavy mathematically derived science papers,that only trained or educated people can understand them.

But maybe I could create a heading just for such technical articles to post under?
[quote author=Doug Danhoff link=topic=115.msg895#msg895 date=1248706172]
I think that the posting of articles worth reading is a wonderful idea, but I have a suggestion.
Is there a way they could be grouped by topic?  For instance, under the general heading of: CO2 research.... Solar.... Paleoclimatology and so forth.  It would be even a better resource in that form I believe.
[/quote]

I have not forgotten your suggestion,just too busy catching up on forum problems and being out of town.

Soon I will make some changes in that area.

8)
Agree with the earlier suggestions. I, too would like to see a slightly different structure.

I have found navigating the evidence and opinions on AGW over the past couple of months to be a real trial. Both "camps" have large followings and the overwhelming impression is of a major example of public information warfare the likes of which I have not seen before.

(I have seen a similar phenomenon in respect of 9/11, excepting that the dominant belief is the generally accepted "truth" and the skeptics and conspiracy theorists are firmly on the fringe. My personal assessment is that the evidence in terms of the physics does not support global building collapse without large injection of energy (plane + fuel is a mere fraction of what is required). What small amounts of robust evidence there is has been discussed on boards and swamped by trolls and shills to dilute the message in the evidence.)

Any citizen of earth looking to make up their own mind on AGW would find a religious information war and no good reason to change their mind. Climategate has helped immeasurably, but the mainstream media is still decidedly unscientific in approach.

I believe there is a need for:
a. somewhere to find a critique/classification of web sites on AGW (I found Ross McKitrick's page helpful http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cc.html but a board that is updated would be better) - perhaps a pro-AGW sites forum and skeptics forum
b. somewhere where people can find evidence - perhaps key published papers as posts under key topics
c. somewhere where people can discuss evidence in a scientific manner free from irrelevant rants

In order to maintain the signal/noise ratio, the moderators will have to be firm on the board's rules. See here for an example:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/viewto...a613b89b12

I think this board needs one more level of organisation, so that major items can be seen as thread topics as mentioned above.
* suggestions could be a forum rather than a thread so the discussion on possible suggestions is the content of the thread
* scientific papers should probably be threads and the discussion can link to other papers in support or against

Most of the public lightly moderated boards I have seen end up being yet another information battleground. The world needs a quiet contemplative place where scientifically minded skeptics can locate/discuss/analyse/formulate the evidence. The war room if you like. This board looks like it from what I have seen so far.

I think what is on this page needs to be more prominent in the debate - since it is what real IPCC climate scientists think - the individual comments must be important topics
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/...nion/35820
Quote:Agree with the earlier suggestions. I, too would like to see a slightly different structure.

I have already followed Doug's post #4 suggestions.It is a lot better than it was.I deliberately kept the URL visible in case there is an error in it that can be fixed on your own,when you want to visit the chosen link.

Quote:I have found navigating the evidence and opinions on AGW over the past couple of months to be a real trial. Both "camps" have large followings and the overwhelming impression is of a major example of public information warfare the likes of which I have not seen before.

I have found that except for rare places,any AGW believing websites are very bad to participate in,since you will be strongly censored such as at Realclimate,Daily Kos and several others who are very passionate defenders of the AGW hypothesis.

Realclimate is a well known censor of civil comments that are not supportive of their unverified AGW hypothesis,especially when they are inconvenient.

Richard Courtney who is a forum member here was banned by Joe Romm (who is a member here too) a while back,despite that Richard was not abusive or hostile in his brief time at that place.

There are no AGW believers who are members here except Joe Romm who has not posted here at all.Therefore this is a quiet restful forum for those who want a relaxed discussion and help educate the public who does lurk here.

I have tried a few times to have AGW believers come here to provide a counterpoint to the skeptical members of the forum,but they never come because they know I would tolerate a fair,civil and moderator watched discussion.Rolleyes

Most at large Global Warming believers are known to be nothing more than lemmings following someone such Al $$$ Gore and slurp up every bit of that mans drivel,thus remain in abject ignorance.hence the reason why I have a forum section just for Al Gore,for the purpose of exposing what a climate flim flam artist he really is.

Quote:(I have seen a similar phenomenon in respect of 9/11, excepting that the dominant belief is the generally accepted "truth" and the skeptics and conspiracy theorists are firmly on the fringe. My personal assessment is that the evidence in terms of the physics does not support global building collapse without large injection of energy (plane + fuel is a mere fraction of what is required). What small amounts of robust evidence there is has been discussed on boards and swamped by trolls and shills to dilute the message in the evidence.)

I pass over this provocative statement.

Quote:Any citizen of earth looking to make up their own mind on AGW would find a religious information war and no good reason to change their mind. Climategate has helped immeasurably, but the mainstream media is still decidedly unscientific in approach.

I find that most people are ignorant on the subject and therefore have no grounds to make up their minds on.

I have encountered many of them,who make dogmatic statement,then when I asked them simple questions such as;what is the most common "greenhouse" gas,they are wrong 99% of the time.But they continue to assert that they know what they are talking about,when actually 99% of them do not even know what the AGW believing scientists believe about CO2's role.

They do not realize that even AGW believing scientists agree that CO2 BY ITSELF has little warm forcing capability,since it is on a LOGARITHMIC trend.

Quote:I believe there is a need for:
a. somewhere to find a critique/classification of web sites on AGW (I found Ross McKitrick's page helpful http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cc.html but a board that is updated would be better) - perhaps a pro-AGW sites forum and skeptics forum
b. somewhere where people can find evidence - perhaps key published papers as posts under key topics
c. somewhere where people can discuss evidence in a scientific manner free from irrelevant rants

A) If you look around at skeptic sites,they already have a lot of web site links listed on their front page of blogs.I have a climate skeptic blog too with a good list of skeptic links and a special link to the alarmist links as well.

B) I have been trying.There were a bunch of scientists who joined the forum last summer,but not a single science paper has been offered for me to post.It is the layman who seems to have more interest in educating the public than those scientists who are members here (who does nothing) by posting at their precious (country club) closed climate science forum composed of many scientists who seem to prefer shutting out the public.

I have tried to have them post a few here as part of educating the public,but noooo they like being with a club and leave us peons behind.Sometimes people like Dr. Ball,Tim Harris,Dr. Carter and a depressingly few others does bother to post at places like Canada Free Press and The Australian.Otherwise they gab in closed forums,thus depriving the public.

Richard Courtney is one rare scientist who cares to post out in the public in several locations including here,and we are much better for it.I keep hoping a few of those scientists who registered here would bother to post once in a while,otherwise why did they bother to join in the first place?

I think many of them lack balance,since they show obvious reluctance to post in civil climate forums and blogs,where the information starved public have visited.

C) Sadly people do not seem to consider this forum as one such place since not a single member is a AGW believer except Joe Romm,who has not done anything.Maybe he does not realize that he can post here as long as he is reasonably civil,just like everyone else should.

Ironically most debates seem to happen at POLITICAL forums,where there is off and on discussions going on.But at skeptical forums there are very little traffic in them since most AGW believers seem to think the Science is settled therefore no discussion is really needed.But of course they irrationally continue to support future climate science research,despite saying that the science is settled.
Rolleyes

You are welcome to send me PM's of suggested science papers and worthy articles to read (those that the average public can understand the main points) for me to post.

Harpospoke is the forum Moderator who has been adding links in his special forum,for the purpose of making information available to the public.Maybe you can annoy him a little with link suggestions as well.
Shy
I can't find a search button. I remember Derek started a thread on abiotic oil a while
back and I wanted to add this link I filtched from a WUWT comment.

Abiotic Oil and Gas: A Theory That Refuses to Vanish

What about a "don't know where to post this" thread that moderators can decide where it goes.
Maybe the thread your thinking of was on the old forum Richard111.
I remember we had an "area" but can not locate it now.

How about this thread in the gazebo.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-191.html
(04-26-2010, 11:29 PM)Richard111 Wrote: [ -> ]I can't find a search button.

It should be at the upper right side of the screen in the line with:

"Search Member List Calendar Help"
(04-26-2010, 11:29 PM)Richard111 Wrote: [ -> ]I can't find a search button. I remember Derek started a thread on abiotic oil a while
back and I wanted to add this link I filtched from a WUWT comment.

Abiotic Oil and Gas: A Theory That Refuses to Vanish

What about a "don't know where to post this" thread that moderators can decide where it goes.

I had created a forum that contained a thread just for Abiotic Oil,in the OLD forum.

I may still have some links in the old computer that is now offline.I can go get them if you want them posted?

If you want a thread discussion on it,just create a thread in the Gazebo forum,or just continue the thread Derek has found.
(04-27-2010, 06:24 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: [ -> ]I may still have some links in the old computer that is now offline.I can go get them if you want them posted?

I would like them handy again, and of course there is also the oil is mastery blog to remember.
Thanks for the pointer JohnWho, found the thread in Consensus Science.
Okay Derek, will make that thread current again. Might be interesting
as lots of talk about "asphalt" volcanoes over at WUWT.
Well found Richard111, I'd forgotten about that thread.

I hope you'll keep us informed on that thread of the asphalt discussions at the new look WUWT.
One observation and one idea.

observation. many of the quotes on this thread are showing up as code not quotes.

idea. there is no section for general science. I had to put a science article in the gazebo and it just doesn't seem right. maybe add it to the geologic section or something. make that a general science section with sub forums. I don't know, you'll figure it out.

(06-13-2011, 09:47 AM)Scpg02. Wrote: [ -> ]One observation and one idea.

observation. many of the quotes on this thread are showing up as code not quotes.

idea. there is no section for general science. I had to put a science article in the gazebo and it just doesn't seem right. maybe add it to the geologic section or something. make that a general science section with sub forums. I don't know, you'll figure it out.

You can use THE SCIENCE forum

The quotes are from the days when we were using the SMF software.
(06-13-2011, 02:40 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-13-2011, 09:47 AM)Scpg02. Wrote: [ -> ]One observation and one idea.

observation. many of the quotes on this thread are showing up as code not quotes.

idea. there is no section for general science. I had to put a science article in the gazebo and it just doesn't seem right. maybe add it to the geologic section or something. make that a general science section with sub forums. I don't know, you'll figure it out.

You can use THE SCIENCE forum

The quotes are from the days when we were using the SMF software.

This is why I didn't. "This forum is strictly to discuss the science behind global warming and climate change." I guess that needs to be taken off then.

(06-13-2011, 04:22 PM)Scpg02. Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-13-2011, 02:40 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-13-2011, 09:47 AM)Scpg02. Wrote: [ -> ]One observation and one idea.

observation. many of the quotes on this thread are showing up as code not quotes.

idea. there is no section for general science. I had to put a science article in the gazebo and it just doesn't seem right. maybe add it to the geologic section or something. make that a general science section with sub forums. I don't know, you'll figure it out.

You can use THE SCIENCE forum

The quotes are from the days when we were using the SMF software.

This is why I didn't. "This forum is strictly to discuss the science behind global warming and climate change." I guess that needs to be taken off then.

I will keep it that way.

But I see where you are coming from.

Will see what I can do about it.
A new Forum has been created.

GENERAL SCIENCE
Pages: 1 2