Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 21
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
One birthday today, congrats!
uzzors2k (35)


Next birthdays
03/29 GrantX (34)
03/30 Adam Horden (39)
03/30 Mr.Warwickshire (23)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: Suggestion Box
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

Political vs scientific threads

Move Thread LAN_403
Uspring
Fri Apr 24 2015, 08:18AM
Uspring Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711
Wrt to a recently closed thread about global warming, I'm wondering about the site rule enforcements. There were 2 statements suggesting the closure of the thread:

Poster 1:
I can't see any good coming of this thread, and suggest the mods lock it, before it descends into left versus right, and oil interests versus tree-huggers dick-swinging at each other. Even the OP described it as a rant. There's too much politics in the issue, and not yet enough science to be convincing.
Moderator:
There hasn't been much science so far, and it will only go downhill from here I'm sure. I completely agree with Dr. Slack, and I'll lock the thread before it gets really bad.
The above statements were mostly about expectations about how this thread could evolve and not so much about its current state. I've looked at the site rules again and could not find any specific point, that would justify the moderators action. While I agree, that this is a politically loaded issue, particular points about it, e.g. the greenhouse effect, can be sensibly discussed on its basis of absorbtion and reflection of specific radiation wavelength.
I do fully agree, that the moderators should take action in the case, where the discussion becomes ugly and impolite.

Sadly, though, the quoted comments seem to support the opinion, that global warming or not has the status of a religious belief. This may be the case for few, but it does not do justice to the many more, who try to deal with this issues in an objective manner.
Back to top
Bjørn
Fri Apr 24 2015, 03:40PM
Bjørn Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058
Intentionally or not the thread broke at least 4 rules:

C. Be clear and concise.
D. No trolling, no flaming, no spamming.
I. Free energy, electrogravitics, and all other types of pseudoscience are not allowed on any part of this site
H. Don't use the chatting board as a crutch. If your thread involves the topics covered by the more specific boards on the forum, don't post it in the chatting board to avoid having to follow certain rules.

In addition it completely breaks with this general statement:
"We pride ourselves on being a great community, full of people who get along and interact in a professional, intelligent manner."
Back to top
Wolfram
Fri Apr 24 2015, 03:54PM
Wolfram Registered Member #33 Joined: Sat Feb 04 2006, 01:31PM
Location: Norway
Posts: 971
A scientific debate about global warming is welcome, but the issue is one which tends to trigger emotions rather than rationality in a lot of people, and these kinds of threads need to be very carefully worded with solid arguments. The thread in question was not, and it was already leaning towards politics in the first post. The title, "Why global warming is full of shit", didn't really encourage rational discussion either.
Back to top
hen918
Fri Apr 24 2015, 06:00PM
hen918 Registered Member #11591 Joined: Wed Mar 20 2013, 08:20PM
Location: UK
Posts: 556
Wolfram wrote ...

A scientific debate about global warming is welcome, but the issue is one which tends to trigger emotions rather than rationality in a lot of people, and these kinds of threads need to be very carefully worded with solid arguments. The thread in question was not, and it was already leaning towards politics in the first post. The title, "Why global warming is full of shit", didn't really encourage rational discussion either.

I agree, the thread could have been locked on the title alone.
Back to top
Andy
Sat Apr 25 2015, 07:01AM
Andy Registered Member #4266 Joined: Fri Dec 16 2011, 03:15AM
Location:
Posts: 874
Hi, the title was because of phys.org, but it took me to the second to last post to start a scinfic arguments, that beaning said the models arent accurate and you cant use 2000 permtaions, and then say most match the data, in sharemarkets that buy a program to find a pattern, and if unigue then exlamin to the world we will be reach(untill tommorrow), point from website above, the reasoned mentioned is what annoyed mean, and the reaction was pre directed opposite view.
Yes the thread started badly and I can edit it, but what I said could make there models accurate or disprove them or none of the above .

I just have a prejuices towards people that say they are Phd in scince that use stastical anylize to prove a point, they arent maths people but butcher a tool that isent design for science, which makes them one module maths student...with human memory glands,which based on scinece websites is most of them, and yet you block my post....

Deep breath,
Yes it proably was a good idea to remove the thread.
Back to top
Uspring
Sat Apr 25 2015, 09:20AM
Uspring Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711
@Wolfram:
I tend to agree, that the title of the thread was... provocative. Enough to justify your action. I don't entirely agree on the issue of site rules versus post content, which you seemed to have based your decision on. They were much milder than the title, but well.

I certainly appreciate your work as moderator.
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.