Forums

Last edited by AngelAlice on 08-05-2012 18:24; edited 1 time in total

I originally posted this on the Global warming thread, but Pietro, true to his word, moved it to a thread discussing the CH4 doc 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Since this comment has nothing to do with that doc, and since we can no longer post any criticisms of AGW on the Global Warming thread, I'm starting a new thread here for discussing the science on both sides of the issue. I hope that's ok with P and others. Smile

Posted: 05-05-2012 13:18 Post subject:

Edit: Moved to Conspiracy.

P_M

Posted: 05-05-2012 13:32 Post subject:

There are two threads already about Global Warming and Climate Change. One, Global Warming and Climate Change, which should be about the actual science and evidence for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming and one, CH4: The Great Global Warming Swindle, about the alleged conspiracy to promote the false concept of AGW. One of the main methods being used to promote the anti-AGW line, is to suggest that the scientific community is actually far more at odds over the general principles underlying the known science of AGW, than it actually is. This attack method has been well documented previously on both threads.

That's why this new thread has been moved to the Conspiracy forum and may eventually end up in the Global Warming Swindle thread.

P_M

Posted: 05-05-2012 13:38 Post subject:

What possible justification is there for a topic called 'Manmade Climate Change, the evidence for and against' being moved to the 'Conspiracy' slot?

Why can't we have a topic in New Science where people are free to debate both sides of the argument?

Seriously, this is censorship gone insane.

Can wiser heads prevail please?

Posted: 05-05-2012 13:58 Post subject:

I don't think you should be moderating on the climate debate Pietro, you are so biased in favour of man made climate change that it's affecting your judgement.

Posted: 05-05-2012 14:09 Post subject:

Posted: 05-05-2012 14:43 Post subject:

Ronson's right P - you're losing your sense of balance over this. That's ok, we all do that from time to time, but I think it's important you take a breath and reconsider.

Posted: 05-05-2012 16:01 Post subject:

Everybody be nice, take a deep breath and look at the sunshine outside!
Cool

Posted: 06-05-2012 10:11 Post subject:

Isn't it lovely Smile

?

I've reviewed the threads, and agree with Pietro that the overall tone of each warrants them staying in Conspiracy. However, I've resurrected an existent Climate Change thread, already in New Science, in which discussions of the purely scientific and interpretative aspects of climate change can be discussed.

As I've said on that thread, it's a very fine line sometimes, and there may be a need to shift posts between them occasionally, or indeed to cross-post in each thread, which is acceptable in such circumstances.

The purely scientific thread is here.

I trust this solution is to everyone's satisfaction.

Posted: 07-05-2012 10:40 Post subject:

Posted: 08-05-2012 08:28 Post subject:

IMHO it comes under the remit of conspiracy if discussion revolves around how the information for and against AGW is being spun by others to serve a purpose related to various agendas. Okay, maybe 'conspiracy' tends to paint things in a certain light, but that's just the way the FTMB is laid out. Either way, maybe this thread could stay alive it was used to show and discuss how AGW is being used as a subject by different parties to further any given agenda. That would put it under the remit of 'conspiracy' as it would show how such parties are using information to promote such furthering...

Posted: 08-05-2012 08:35 Post subject:

In my opinion, Conspiracy, in this case, covers claims that the AGW debate is being pursued by scientists, because they are: venal and greedy; liars; crypto-religious fanatics; part of some secret Globalist conspiracy; incompetent; deluded; suppressing, or censoring, contrary evidence; and or, criminally insane. That covers an awful lot of the arguments presently silting up the, Global Warming and Climate Change, thread.

If it's not about the actual science, or evidence, then it should be here.

Posted: 08-05-2012 13:45 Post subject:

'Actual science' and 'evidence' could both be skewed conspiratorially and still be within the remit of the other thread. The problem with the subject is that the various agendas for and against can still sit within actual science and evidence...

Posted: 08-05-2012 14:19 Post subject:

Posted: 08-05-2012 15:21 Post subject:

It makes more sense to me to keep it all in one thread - that way we can have any new info about current theories, and then also new info about how each side is pushing any given ideas forward. I think it's too complicated a subject to divvy up into seperate chunks and still keep the various themes going for discussion here at the FTMB.