Political vs scientific threads / Suggestion Box / Forums

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

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.

Bjørn

Fri Apr 24 2015, 03:40PM

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."

Wolfram

Fri Apr 24 2015, 03:54PM

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.

hen918

Fri Apr 24 2015, 06:00PM

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.

Andy

Sat Apr 25 2015, 07:01AM

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.

Uspring

Sat Apr 25 2015, 09:20AM

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.

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