There's a request in Meta for a Climate Change group

[XemaSab]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240167401

[pscot]

1. Good idea

AGW for the masses.

[joshcryer]

2. Will they allow alarmists to post there?

If not will they at least allow AR5 to be posted when it is published?

[cprise]

4. Climate scientists are just now starting to come to terms with systemic under-estimating

...and these people have the nerve to rally around "luke-warmer".

Part of me would enjoy seeing a group of nincompoops invest in their lukewarm denialism only to have it tank when AR5 is released. But the rest of me has had enough of the "present both sides, and find a second side if necessary" mindset. It has done immense damage to the public's understanding of global warming.

Having DU mods protect climate scientists' old, discarded trepidations or disconnecting energy discussion from AGW would be an act of misinformation on a critical subject.

Let "luke-warmers" argue their points and present their data, open to criticism, in the EE forum.

[joshcryer]

5. Those same people were arguing that AR4 was overestimating.

And continue to say that the models are overestimating (with only a few years data to defend the argument; in direct contrast to the feedback we're witnessing).

They will just laugh at AR5, and call it alarmist.

And AR5 will probably still underestimate.

[AverageJoe90]

16. Too bad it hasn't been working that way.

Part of me would enjoy seeing a group of nincompoops invest in their lukewarm denialism

What denialism?

But the rest of me has had enough of the "present both sides, and find a second side if necessary" mindset. It has done immense damage to the public's understanding of global warming.

And so has the fearmongering(i.e. Malcolm Light's "All life will be gone my mid-century" methane fearmongering, or McPherson's "16*C by 2100" fantasy), too. In fact, maybe even as much as actual outright denial in some cases.

Let "luke-warmers" argue their points and present their data, open to criticism, in the EE forum.

Open to criticism? I'm sorry, but from my experience, that hasn't quite been the case. I'll admit I've made a few mistakes from time to time. But the truth is, there are just some people who can't stand to have their views challenged when there's good reason to do so.

No, there needs to be a change. If the E & E forum can't be scrubbed of what seems to be a clear host bias towards "doom-and-gloom", then a Climate Change forum needs to be created at some point, whenever it may be possible to do so.

If I were to be a host of a CC forum, I certainly would not tolerate actual denialism. Anyone who posts WUWT, Monckton, etc. bullshit(at least for anything other than debunking or poking fun at said junk), would be dealt with, and troublemakers would be booted out the minute we got to them.

But the "doom-and-gloom" set won't be immune from criticism either. They too, will have to abide by the rules.

[Nihil]

17. Go for it.

> If I were to be a host of a CC forum ...

... you might find that it's a bugger when your hardest attempts to be objective
are constantly slated by people who disagree ...

e.g.,
> If the E & E forum can't be scrubbed of what seems to be a clear host bias towards "doom-and-gloom"

[XemaSab]

18. TELL ME ABOUT IT

[CRH]

19. Hey, go for it Joe, you would be good moderating in meta. ...

And the luke warm product would suit many making the transition from climate agnostics, to conservative pollyanna visions and solutions.

You can contribute to reducing damage of 'the public's understanding of global warming'.

Sounds like a win win, to me.

[cprise]

23. .

If the E & E forum can't be scrubbed of what seems to be a clear host bias towards "doom-and-gloom"...

You have a lot to learn about history and life, kiddo. Your incessant SPAM-ing of denials against projections not yet scientifically debunked has gone too far, IMO, and now you have the nerve to resort to eliminationist rhetoric as well.

So let me be the first to openly request that you get a taste of your own medicine and be banned from the environment forums.

[AverageJoe90]

24. Okay then, I guess maybe I should reciprocate in kind and ask you to be banned......

from the E & E subforum too. All's fair in war, as they say.

And it's funny how you keep talking about denials against projections when it seems that half the "Cassandras" around here keep claiming that the IPCC's temperature models are still too conservative, even the worst-case ones, even though the most recent ones account for feedbacks as well! If that isn't ignoring the facts, I don't know what is.

[hatrack]

3. How about a phrenology group, or maybe an anti-vaccine group while we're at it?

[wtmusic]

6. How about phrenology/chemtrails/anti-vaccine/creationism

as a subgroup of 9/11?

Oddly, they're all somewhat related.

[hatrack]

11. Or we could simply name the Forum "Opposite Day" and leave it at that . . .

Either that, or "Nederland's Treehouse", sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (c).

[CRH]

8. Can we use Jeff Rense as a source there? ...

Maybe show the other side with a little Mitch Battros?

[NickB79]

7. I'd say no to that, personally

Climate change is the confluence of both the most pressing environmental concerns and energy concerns of our world today. I can't think of a better place to discuss it than right here on the forum we already have.

Now, if you're interested in setting up a climate change survival and adaptation forum, I'm all ears Though I have a feeling it would just turn into a doomsday prepper forum.

[Mojorabbit]

30. I think we NEED a doomsday prepper forum

I am gobsmacked that govts worldwide are twiddling their thumbs. If they will not do anything then it might be a good thing to maximize our chances of surviving the mess if possible.

[hunter]

9. We already have a "Creative Speculation" group.

I think speculation that the climate will stay more or less the same while we continue to burn increasing amounts of fossil fuels is pretty damned creative.

[Nihil]

10. And *that* is the best response to such a proposal ...

... but I think the combination of active & passive deniers (and associated trolls) who
are requesting such a group would really start throwing their toys out of the pram if
informed of it ...

[AverageJoe90]

13. But nobody is suggesting that. n/t

Edit: Maybe we should add End of the World to Creative Speculation, too. How about "Human Extinctioh by Climate" as one of them? I'm sure we could get Guy McPherson as a guest author every once in a while.

[pscot]

12. I've been thinking about this

If AGW is going to have the effects we think it is, people are going to need to talk about it. Some crazy is bound to creep in, people love their hobbies, but there's also going to be a lot of anxiety and bargaining. There are scairy times ahead. We need someplace folks can talk without being subjected to doomerist nihilism; not that there's anything wrong with doomerist nihilism.

[AverageJoe90]

14. I would mostly agree.

Unfortunately, the tragic thing about the nihilism, however, is that is has indeed proven to be harmful, mainly in the way that the deniers and people who enable them have been taking the rhetoric of a small minority of people, and then trying to use that to paint us all as a bunch of lunatics & crazies, when 90% of us aren't even close to the "doomer" camp, so to speak.

If I may used Occupy as an example here, you may remember that the MSM, or at least certain figures, took the actions of a few nutters and associated cranks who just happened to be in the movement, and tried to make it look like all Occupiers were lazy, or violent, or crazy, etc., when in reality, 99% of people in the movement were just ordinary Joes and Janes looking for an opprotunity to voice their perfectly legitimate grievances.

The sad thing is, a similar (though not exact) phenomenon seems to have happened with the Climate Change Acceptance movement as well.

Perhaps my worries may be a tad overblown(I would hope so, actually), but they are indeed legitimate and I'm definitely not the only one who shares these concerns, either.

[CRH]

20. Joe do you understand what it is you are saying? ...

from your post ~

Unfortunately, the tragic thing about the nihilism, however, is that is has indeed proven to be harmful, mainly in the way that the deniers and people who enable them have been taking the rhetoric of a small minority of people, and then trying to use that to paint us all as a bunch of lunatics & crazies, when 90% of us aren't even close to the "doomer" camp, so to speak.

end

So those who think, write or speak out of your framework of mainstream acceptance, shouldn't write or speak what they think so they wont infect or taint the thoughts of the mainstream? Or worse, paint onto you, others perceptions of the difference.

You ever tried fascism Joe?

[AverageJoe90]

21. Nice try.

So those who think, write or speak out of your framework of mainstream acceptance, shouldn't write or speak what they think so they wont infect or taint the thoughts of the mainstream? Or worse, paint onto you, others perceptions of the difference.

You ever tried fascism Joe?

LOL, nice try. In all reality, what I've said over and over again is that my concern, and that of some others out there, is that too much saturation of doom-and-gloom theories will only cause more people to stick their heads in the sand, not to mention the badjacketing, as I've talked about before. If you really do believe differently, you are entitled to that opinion, but I'm sorry to say that it doesn't quite square with what I've seen over the years.

In all honesty, I wouldn't tell the wanna-be "Climate Cassandras" to stay away, if I were hosting. They'd be welcome too, just as long as they didn't start spamming the boards with McPherson & Light op-ed pieces, or start screaming about how everyone who doesn't agree with their version of how things will play out is a "denier", or anything.

And, unfortunately, I've been called a denier because I don't believe in human-extinction-by-AGW-alone theories, or that the IPCC is still being too conservative(which their models aren't doing anymore, even if their public statements may still show this every once in a while.). And that's a little screwed up, to be frank.

[CRH]

22. Nice try joe, over and over, ...

You rap the same line. If others don't agree with the mainstream underestimation of the science, we should not be 'doomers'. Bare your past posts, live or sink by your attempts, to intimidate anyone who isn't writing you conservative bent. Nice try indeed, more pathetic every day.

What you want is for no one to contest your understanding of climate change, an understanding based on a website you champion. Excuse me, but others think outside your box. What you are asking for is for us not to express our opinions or be thought of as extremists. I have two words for that transparent game, I said them to uncle sam in the early seventies. Fuck You.

[AverageJoe90]

25. .....

If others don't agree with the mainstream underestimation of the science, we should not be 'doomers'.

The IPCC may indeed have underestimated the potential temperature rises back in the '80s and '90s, but their models are more state-of-the-art now, at least in that respect.

Bare your past posts, live or sink by your attempts, to intimidate anyone who isn't writing you conservative bent. Nice try indeed, more pathetic every day.

You do realize that false accusations of being a closet conservative without reason is probably a TOS violation, right?

What you want is for no one to contest your understanding of climate change, an understanding based on a website you champion.

What I want, is for people outside your little focus group to be able to have a little more berth to express themselves, as long as they're not claiming that "AGW is a hoax", or whatever, or posting any "Climategate" crap. And in fact, I'd be likely to ban anyone who goes into Climategate.

Excuse me, but others think outside your box.

That's basically what I've been implying all along.

What you are asking for is for us not to express our opinions or be thought of as extremists

No, what I'm asking, is that other people be given a chance to speak with a little more freedom, without being thought of as deniers just because they may not believe that the worst case scenarios are inevitable, or that humanity will go the way of the dinos, etc.

And obviously, you didn't read the various comments where I said I would let the "Cassandras" post like anyone else as long as they weren't spamming the boards. Actual deniers would be shown the door right away(Skeptics? Depends on how they behave. As long as they don't troll or spam, I might give them some leeway, where I to host this new board.).

[Mojorabbit]

31. I disagree

People are not going to do anything or force the govt to do anything unless they ARE very concerned. I also believe that there is plenty to be scared about esp for those with young children and what sort of future they can expect to face.

[pscot]

15. I rest my case.

[hrmjustin]

26. Great idea! I am surprised that there wasn't one already.

[XemaSab]

27. Actually, there is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1127

[hrmjustin]

28. Thanks

[XemaSab]

29. .