Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Manmade Climate Change - the deeper agendas
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - general
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 733
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 05-05-2012 12:16    Post subject: Manmade Climate Change - the deeper agendas Reply with quote

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

Quote:

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
Ronson8 wrote:
Pietro_Mercurios wrote:


In future, all speculation about the AGW, 'swindle', will be moved to that thread.

P_M
Yeah, that's teling em, this thread is for true believers only. Rolling Eyes

A science and evidence based thread, as opposed to a conspiracy theory thread.


Sorry, but what?

My point has been from the beginning that the science behind AGW is uncertain, and I've brought a lot of evidence to support that. How exactly is that a 'conspiracy theory', while your claim that Big Oil is funding anyone who even doubts AGW is not?

If you like I'll start a new thread called - "The Complex Science of Climate", and you can rename this one - "AGW is REAL, and anyone who says it isn't is a Shill or a Loon." then people won't make the mistake of thinking this is some sort of open forum where all shades of opinion are welcome Wink

Edit: Moved from Global Warming and Climate Change. P_M


Last edited by AngelAlice on 08-05-2012 17:24; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 05-05-2012 12:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edit: Moved to Conspiracy.

P_M
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 05-05-2012 12:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile 
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 733
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 05-05-2012 12:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Ronson8Offline
Things can only get better.
Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Total posts: 5945
Location: MK
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 05-05-2012 12:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 05-05-2012 13:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronson8 wrote:
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.

I am not in favour of, 'man made climate change'. Wink

I am in favour of ensuring that the AGW debate is not skewed by astro-turf influenced talking points. This isn't, Above Top Secret, or 'Alex Jones's Info Wars', plenty of that sort of stuff in evidence there. So, I reckon as a mod, I'm allowed a bit of leeway in setting the ground rules of this debate.

There are two basic Threads. Global Warming and Climate Change, which I reckon should stick pretty close to the scientific orthodoxy and, The Great Global Warming Swindle (I've updated the name), which attempts to question, or undermine the scientific orthodoxy.

I'll play pro-science, devil's advocate, as I see fit. WYSIWYG. I'm not the sort to pretend impartiality and then attack from behind a sock.

P_M
Back to top
View user's profile 
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 733
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 05-05-2012 13:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9702
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 05-05-2012 15:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everybody be nice, take a deep breath and look at the sunshine outside!
Cool
Back to top
View user's profile 
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 8591
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 06-05-2012 09:11    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 733
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 07-05-2012 09:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

stuneville wrote:
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.


LOL, well, the 'overall tone' of this thread is devoted to discussing why it was made and why it's been moved to this place Smile I just don't get why a thread called Manmade Climate Change the evidence for and against is moved to Conspiracy in the first place, but I guess it's not worth making more fuss over. Why not close this sad anomaly? Wink

It's raining here btw .
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 08-05-2012 07:28    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 08-05-2012 07:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 08-05-2012 12:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

'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...
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
AngelAliceOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Total posts: 733
Location: marshy middle ground
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 08-05-2012 13:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
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.


Okay I accept that, but surely then it should also cover claims that people who don't believe in AGW are all sponsored by Big Oil? That's a conspiracy-theory too. It's the lack of evenhandedness that's the real problem here, P, and all the moving of stuff based on unclear parameters has only caused confusion. But heyho...

Here's a suggestion - How about we keep the 'Global Warming Swindle' thread for discussion of the documentary - as it was until recently; rename this thread "Climate Change:possible deeper agendas," and use it for discussing the potential 'conspiratorial' elements, and keep the Global Warming thread for discussions of the evidence on both sides?

Does that sound like a plan?

(gosh we should all get lives shouldn't we? Laughing )
Back to top
View user's profile 
Jerry_BOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Total posts: 8072
PostPosted: 08-05-2012 14:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - general All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35  Next
Page 1 of 35

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group