Discussions about climatic change and renewable vs. nuclear energy should be banned

[DeepOdyssey]

Debate on climate change can be summed up to one phrase for each side:

-Those who are willing to pay the higher cost now

-Those who think the cost is too high at present time, and are willing to pay but in the future when better technologies will have emerged, thus cheaper energy opportunities.

There's only a small group of lunatics who think global warming isn't happening at all, whether it's man made or natural.

[Alchemist]

One of the things about scientific discussions is attempting to match the opponent's level. So while both sides use properly argumented opinions it stays civil, when one side shows obvious (for the other) misunderstanding there comes explanation on a simplified models (and potentially the attempt to return to the top level after reestablishing common ground), but when peasants with pitchforks come no wonder that somebody will bring a nuke soon...

Not that poorly supported opinions must be banned - sometimes they may work as valuable hypotheses, they just should be presented as such hypotheses and theories, not solid facts.

As for global warming, the really poorly known part seems to be the true extent of feedback effects (particularly, positive feedback with every research causing panic amongst some people).

Right, panic. That's the problem of politically influenced topics - they are already overpumped with scary exaggerations, that turn attempts to quantify something into "we'll all die!!!" extrapolations, to the extend that touching these without some base level of understanding of the topic can be dangerous. Why can't humanity do anything without these ultra-extroverted exaggerations?

Maybe some sensitive topics really need special status (separate subforum branch?) to keep it more scientific. Something like "keep to proven facts" and "avoid extrapolations". Only because extrapolations don't work properly in some systems with rapidly changing factors. Maybe also encourage putting some additional links to relevant articles in OP for establishing common ground. I don't want these banned, but we do need some additional defense mechanism in some cases.

P.S. Sorry if said something offensive. Sometimes even just a bunch of facts (or at least direct observations) may be perceived this way, especially if improper extrapolation gets involved.

[Kulebron]

There's only a small group of lunatics who think global warming isn't happening at all, whether it's man made or natural.

Here we go again. Exactly as I said a page before: a newcomer appears and starts calling names. The same as it happened in that thread. It looks like you take it as a religious topic and a marker. A way to mark someone as a person of low quality. This is so kiddish!

I have to deal with mayor office people, with those who work by official costruction codes. Many would just call them obtuse. They don't want to listen the others. They're hard to get convinced at anything, it's hard to push any decision, yet dealing with them made me stop believing that any of other people is a moron. They may be conservative, they may negate good ideas, but the more you know them the more you understand the motivation. Anyone who'd have to do this gets this idea quickly, or quits. And it's just stupid to think of others as of idiots.

Here instead, where people get interest in knowledge, behave like kids: "Waaaaa, you don't agree, you're morons!"

Edited October 11, 2014 by Kulebron

[CaptainKipard]

And in a stricter forum this kind of behaviour could incur a warning. Why not? It would be their decision to expose themselves to harsher treatment by entering that forum. And if they can't handle it they can go back to the lounge or science labs. After a while everyone would get a clue.

[Guest]

Here we go again. Exactly as I said a page before: a newcomer appears and starts calling names. The same as it happened in that thread. It looks like you take it as a religious topic and a marker. A way to mark someone as a person of low quality. This is so kiddish!

Except that "global warming is happening" is a scientific fact, whatever the reason for it. Not an opinion you can agree with, not a even a scientific theory, it's an empirical fact. Say, you're walking down the street and there's a telephone pole in front of you. If you then say "there's no telephone pole in front of me", then people have every right to call you a lunatic (unless you follow with a witty explanation along the lines of "this is not a pipe" ). Especially if you proceed to walk right into that pole and keep insisting it isn't there. You don't dispute an experiment. You can try to find faults in the method, but if repeating it gets you the same results, then at some point you just have to account for its result and live with it. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who refuses to acknowledge experimental results is a person of low quality and not worth listening to (an no, this has nothing to do with the fact I'm studying experimental physics, not at all... ). You can derive any conclusion from false premises, so even if their reasoning is otherwise valid, their argument won't be logically sound.

[Dodgey]

@Dragon01

It doesn't matter if it a scientific fact, the comments said by the newcomer are still detrimental to the conversation. You don't advance a conversation by saying to someones face you are an idiot.

[KasperVld]

Not to mention the fact that experiments often generate results that can be perfectly explained by either false correlation or incomplete knowledge. I'm not advocating either side here, but experiments have often proven to yield results that are poorly explained. For example, if you walk into that pole and get a bump on your head you may say that you get a bump on your head every time you walk into a telephone pole, but this is obviously dependant on a large number of factors such as force, angle of impact and even which body part of yours hits the pole. In the case of global warming we know a lot about climate but we can't possibly claim to know everything about it. That's why research is still being done on unexplored topics. Science differs from religion not only because it experiments and deducts from the results, but also because it's inherently aware (or should be!) that knowledge is never absolute.

I'm very much opposed to banning climatic change or energy debate from scientific discussion because that in itself would go against the very notion of science. I'll keep an eye out for threads that do discuss it though, and perhaps because it is a scientific forum having a policy of requiring some form of reference would not be a bad thing but be aware that it'll limit the ease of posting significantly.

Edited October 11, 2014 by KasperVld

[Kulebron]

Except that "global warming is happening" is a scientific fact, whatever the reason for it.

A dozen of people point you at the fact that there's no "scientific fact", but a common agreement in interpreting the observations. Let me also remind you that a firm science can give confirmed but falsifiable predictions in at least mid term, and I've still not seen a link to any of those. I interpret this as meaning that climatology is as much firm science as economics, which can't give any mid-term forecast either. (I have barchelor and master degrees in maths in economics btw.)

I agree that part of these theories will prove true, but that's not a reason to turn a discussion here into an evening beer chatter. A scientific discussion, this is a finer matter.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Kulebron

[CaptainKipard]

... perhaps because it is a scientific forum having a policy of requiring some form of reference would not be a bad thing but be aware that it'll limit the ease of posting significantly.

Only if those rules apply to the whole science forum, which is why I'm proposing a stricter debate subforum.

A dozen of people point you at the fact that there's no "scientific fact"

There are scientific facts. A fact is an observation. A theory is the explanation for that observation. Global temperature rise of for example a verifiable fact.

and I've still not seen a link to any of those.

This is completely irrelevant. A persons ignorance of something is not an argument against it. If you don't know something, you can ask about it, but don't pretend it doesn't exist the way scientists explain it.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[CaptainKipard]

As a further argument to back the need for a sctrict debate subforum, let me direct your attention to the Dunning–Kruger effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias manifesting in unskilled individuals suffering from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, people with true ability tend to underestimate their relative competence based on the erroneous or exaggerated claims made by unskilled people.

It explains among other things why people who are merely using common sense think they are being logical.

[Guest]

A dozen of people point you at the fact that there's no "scientific fact", but a common agreement in interpreting the observations.

I wasn't talking about theory. I was talking about facts. Observations. You likely have a thermometer outside your house. Now, imagine that every day since you could read, you took note of the temperature at a certain point of the day (let's assume it's representative of the day's average). Now, if you took those results and plotted them, you should notice that the line is slowly, but steadily rising. Now, what you make of it doesn't really matter, the fact is, average temperature is rising. If you collected data from across the globe, you'd see that the global average is also rising (some places are getting colder, but this is a local effect). You simply don't argue with observations, especially multiple ones. What you can argue is why observations are the way they are.

Due to this, I'd have more respect to someone claiming the warming to be an act of God than to someone claiming it isn't happening. The former has a theory, which could even be viable if you make certain additional assumptions, while the latter's position is in direct contradiction with observed facts.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Guest

[Holo]

If you dislike this, there is something you can do about it. And that is, stop turning those threads into name-calling arguments, and we won't have any need to close them.

How does one do this if it's impossible to make threads on the topic?

[Vanamonde]

How does one do this if it's impossible to make threads on the topic?

If folks would stop making arguments out of so many of the threads which are open, we wouldn't have a need to shut them down, nor have a list of proscribed subjects.

[CaptainKipard]

Is there no way to ban users from specific threads?

[Dodgey]

Is there no way to ban users from specific threads?

That would solve so many problems.

[pxi]

Is there no way to ban users from specific threads?

Must admit, I couldn't resist a quick google search:

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=259017

YMMV, but it seems that it is doable in principle.

[CaptainKipard]

There you go! A scalpel for a cancer surgeon.