Over the last decade, commenting has dramatically moved from specific web-sites to general social media platforms, radically changing how people interact with longer-form content (such as blogs, substacks, newspapers and journalism). No single site can compete with the breadth of audience and engagement that is found on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. This has led to a very clear reduction in the quality of comments on more specialized sites (like RealClimate), as many of you have observed. This is not a problem that appears amenable to stricter moderation.
We are therefore leaning towards suspending comment and open threads on the blog. Feel free to comment on this decision below. If the discussion is good and substantive, it will weigh towards the continuation of the commenting facility. Contrariwise, if it is shallow and unnecessarily hostile, then it is likely to be the last comment thread on this blog. We would still post articles, but anticipate that commentary and criticism will be hosted elsewhere.
As a replacement, we are happy to explore ways to better link to relevant discussions on social media – suggestions for plugins/methods are welcome.
First, I would like to commend the job the regular contributors and moderators do on this blog. Supplying high quality commentary on developments in the field while at the same time staying on top of an unruly commentariat is a Herculean and probably seemingly thankless task. I suspect that there are times when you look at the back and forth in the comments, it is tempting to despair. It is often petty, trivial and pointless. Worse, for a blog, it is boring. Boring is death for a blog.
Many of us remember when it wasn’t like this. Realclimate is still a wonderful resource for those learning about the climate crisis–but far fewer people are taking advantage of that resource. Now, almost no one who is not an imbecile seriously questions whether warming is occurring or whether humans are responsible. Back in the early 2000s, this was not the case. Many people still required convincing, and some of the posts by commenters were instrumental in providing the evidence and arguments that convinced them.
In 2009 and the following years, Realclimate was an essential resource for filling in context for the selectively released emails from the Climategate nontroversy and for making sure that the scientific perspective was heard over the din or Russian and fossil fuel trolls perpetrating the attack. RC provided not only facts but leadership during this crisis.
Now things are different. The “debate” has mostly moved beyond questions of whether climate change is occurring and whether humans are responsible and whether we need to do anything about it to:
1) Just how bad is it going to get?
2) How do we address it?
3) What policies should we support?
4) Who should take responsibility?
For the former questions, as I said, pretty much anyone who can be persuaded by reason and evidence is on board. The science is settled. That is the main subject matter of this blog. It is what the principals on the blog study for their day jobs.
For the latter questions, there is less agreement. Not only is the science not as settled, some of the questions don’t even concern science. There is bound to be a greater level of disagreement, even among reasonable people. The problem is that disagreeing without becoming disagreeable becomes challenging when those disagreements go on for years with little movement on either side. We are all adults. We should be above petty sniping–if for not other reason than we don’t want to be desperately dull–but we are not.
So that’s where we are? What to do about it? I wish I knew. I do think that the comments on the posts–even in the Forced Response and Unforced Variation threads can sometimes provide value. The trick is finding that value among all the column inches of name calling repetition. The comments on the blog posts can be of even more value in understanding the research–at least until trolls take over the thread. If these disappear and go to Twitter or Farcebork, I won’t be following as I do not intend to have any presence on these media. I’ll still likely read the occasional post, but I wouldn’t be able to comment. That’s fine, but I doubt I’d be the only Luddite out there who considers Farcebork to be the pulsing heart of evil and Twitter to be the purest distillation of narcissism yet devised by mankind.
If you decide to continue allowing comments, there may be things that could help:
1) First and foremost, I think that we in the commentariat need to do better. We need to learn to keep things from getting personal, to express ourselves more concisely, and above all to avoid being boring.
2) I do think that limiting posts per day/week/month might be fruitful. It would limit the flame wars so they do not become conflagrations consuming all intelligent dialog.
3) I think that there could also be value in limiting the length of each individual response. There is no Earthly reason why a single response should run 20 column inches and be longer than the original post. Frankly, asking people to learn to express themselves concisely is doing them a favor. In our current ADD culture, nobody is going to read your fricking manifesto unless it fits neatly on a bumper sticker.
4) I also think that it is important (for commenters and for moderators) to consider that sincere questions should always be welcome, even if the only response is to direct the commenter to material in the Start Here tab.
5) The idea of volunteer moderators to take some of the pressure off of the professional climate scientists might have some merit. At the very least, this would mean the professional scientists can keep doing climate research rather than deciding whether a screed belongs in the Borehole or the Crankshaft.
6) It might also be useful to require users to register–and perhaps even take a little bit of training or at least read a couple of articles about what makes a good blog comment.
Whatever you guys decide, you’ve already performed a great public service, and I’ve already violated my own advice about expressing oneself concisely.
Thanks for your thoughtful serious treatment.. I would limit the frequency even more than the length of comments. The endless arguments prove that it’s not enough to be right.
When I first came here it was less common to find people who were treating this comment section as if it were their personal property and the comments added value. This still happens, but it is harder to find. Courtesy towards those providing hospitality to this comment section has been set aside, here as elsewhere.
“I’ve already violated my own advice”
Yes Ray, you have.
And I’m not picking on you personally here, but I’m using it to illustrate what I said in my earlier comment
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/03/the-end-of-blog-comments/#comment-802655
(and related suggestions by Susan and others.)
We shouldn’t need moderators, either the blog people or volunteers, to be our parents, and tell us kids how to behave.
All that has to happen is that the community, the folks who benefit from having the blog with comments available, “pay up” by exercising self-discipline, and, as a community, enforce discipline on those who violate the standards.
(The latter could be as simple, for a start, as publishing the number of comments, or the column inches, from each individual.)
But someone has to go first and take a pledge. I’ve tried to model what I consider mature behavior by not feeding the trolls, for example.
The moderators might help with some software tweaks, but first there has to be some effort from the commenters to show that they deserve it. Absent that, I think Gavin and others are simply wasting their precious professional time, as you suggest, and they should use it to write more posts rather than read the nonsense we’ve been seeing lately.
Agreed. The problem? As I have noted before, any blog that has been around a while will develop a core group of posters who create a sort of ecosystem. It becomes more and more difficult for new posters or fringe posters to get traction, and, as it drifts to toxicity as the core group starts belittling and bullying, it spirals down, down, down.
This is true of ALL lightly- or poorly-moderated blogs where the subject at hand is in any way controversial. I dare anyone to go back and read the UV’s prior to mid-2015. It wasn’t like this. You’ll be shocked at the difference in tone. And I was here! I was posting. (You can check for both Killian and ccpo.) We didn’t have these problems. What changed?
Go do the search. Be honest about what you find.
Zebra and like minded people. History shows that the people and communities mostly behave badly, unless there are rules and restrictions imposed from above. I wish it were otherwise but can’t see it ever happening.
However I do think moderation rules should be kept to a very short list of things so as not to infringe freedom of speech significantly and burden the moderatos. So for example all you need is: :1) no personal abuse, 2) no (wildly) off topic and 3) no spamming 4) No tedious long lists of weather records. Put all this in the borehole and people will soon get the message and smarten up their acts.
Zebra and like minded people. History shows that the people and communities mostly behave badly, unless there are rules and restrictions imposed from above.
This is false. It happens mostly *in* hierarchical societies because of the inequalities and injustices, etc. It is non-hierarchical societies where the degree of day-to-day respect is very high.
I have pointed you to the resources on this any number of times.
As an auld fart I do not do facebook et al. I disagree with the comments by J Robert Gibson about ‘authorized’ commentatators. Even moderated comments are iffy. It is not reasonable to expect the ‘team’ to do moderation so a generic team of volunteer moderators means a broad response eg
A while ago I jousted with Mr Mann about methane. In the end all the ado was about words not about facts. A naive moderator could easily have stomped on that interaction.
I think sifting the words-of-wisdom from the chaff is wot-its-all-about (sic) so I’d be sad to see the comments go.
If you cut out the comments then what will all the regulars in the peanut gallery find to do with themselves?
Learn more science. Try it sometime.
social media is a climate science denial monster. Dont force people to use it.
So Please keep this comment box.
I straddle the fence and come down with a distinct, “Maybe; I dunno.” I think the comments add a lot to the site, though while helpful they are usually not as informative as the head articles. Plus moderating the comments tales a lot of resource, and I’m not sure it they are worth it. I wish I could be more helpful here, but I’m torn.
one quick and easy way to get a read on whether you might be commenting a bit too much here would be to look at the list of recent comments. If your name shows up there over and over, maybe you are part of the problem with comments on this website. Read more, think more. Comment and react less please.
You have a point there.
I see for myself that I write much better if I know what I am writing about, and especially if I have had a bit more time to think of it.
But the problem is then that the subject may have become too old or that the case is settled and the discussion closed. .
Our very good professor of history of ideas was interwiewed when he retired at 70, and said that as he gets older and older, he reallizes that slowly- ness is showing more and more valuable to him.
We should all be aware that climate is an especially long, slow, heavy, mean, and inert process.
The vast majority of offensive remarks come not from the so-called “trolls” but regulars on this blog who routinely malign anyone who sees things differently from them, whether that person is a “denier” or not. Why “comments” of that ilk are routinely tolerated here has never ceased to disturb me. If you are truly concerned with the quality of the comments then ban those who routinely employ abusive language and let the rest of us comment responsibly on relevant issues.
The vast majority of offensive remarks come not from the so-called “trolls” but regulars on this blog who routinely malign anyone who sees things differently from them, whether that person is a “denier” or not.
This is, while sad to admit to agreeing with Victor, true. Climate trolls, and dear Vic knows he is, are almost unfailingly polite because they hope that faux politeness triggers their targets, and it does quite effectively. Responses to them – the worst thing one can do with climate denialists at this point in time – are typically extremely rude.
Now, I see no reason to treat someone trying to drive us all into extinction with any respect, but it is a simple fact: KIA and Victor are polite and the core posters here are not.
End the comments? Others have made the following points with which I agree:
1. There are useful comments here.
2. There are many useful external links that come from the comment section that greatly expand the info/knowledge provided by the blog.
The blog post says tight moderation likely won’t solve the commenting section issues, yet tight moderation has never been applied on this blog.
Let me define tight moderation:
* No rudeness, including the backhand compliment or common fallacy forms of rudeness.
* No propaganda (I have posted on why many times.) Sorry, but I would not allow denialism. KIA and Victor, et al,, would be consistently Bore Holed or deleted, e.g. It might be useful to add comments to the Bore Hole to bleed off steam from the main forums and neuter the “woe-is-me-I’ve-been-censored” nonsense.
* On-topic,
* Short-term bans followed by permanent bans for rudeness/disrespect to *anyone,*
* No commenting on moderation (only the moderators know what the rubric is.)
KISS applies. Let people be themselves, but limit the behaviors that derail.
This is what happens when you use tight moderation:
1. The number of comments drops considerably.
2. The quality of comments overall is higher.
3. Excellent comments are lost because some knowledgeable people are also rude and they enjoy the mud and will go elsewhere to find it.
4. Readership will fall because lots of people like to watch mud wrestling.
5, Some new commenters pop up because of the “cleaner” conditions.
This would require:
1. Absolute objectivity from moderators.
Predicting who would meet this is impossible and it is far too often who you would not suspect while those that seem like they would make good moderators do not – this is particularly true of those who exhibit a sense of “ownership” of the site, i.e. some of those that post often.
Also avoid those too rigid in their thinking. Strict moderation is about rules, not content. Those who are impatient with those with less knowledge will over-moderate new and/or non=prefessional posters. Leeway with content is good, leeway with rules is bad.
2. Consistent moderation turnaround. This blog gyrates from updates daily to three days or more with no updates. This drives miscommunication as threads get tangled in time.
3. Moderators who do not, or only rarely, post: You can’t be daddy/mommy and be a buddy, too.
4. You typically need multiple moderators, but need one who rules them all for consistency.
5. Moderators make mistakes. Sometimes trust in moderation requires admitting it, even if back channeled.
How do I know these things? I have moderated sports blogs. Those are a nightmare. 99% and 1% content. I was made a mod at a major NFL fan site for my favorite team. I followed the rubric above so well I was removed as a mod after a month. Why? No mudslinging equaled very few posts. People like that crap! So, it was a delicate balance between the crap and the good that was way too biased for me: That long-term core was given more freedom than others, so new posters had a hard time fitting in. But, it kept readership at a certain level so $$ flowed.
RealClimate comments are more like 30/70, so tighter moderation will work far better here. And there’s little, if any, profit motive, I assume. You can clamp down here and have no real ill effects. The comments sections will find a new equilibrium.
Let’s be clear: There are no innocents among the “regulars” here. Until even years ago the comment sections were great. It was about that time that some of the core posters got tired of hearing about climate solutions, i.e. mitigation and adaptation and got nasty about it, as well as making people with lesser science chops feel embarrassed and ashamed, intentionally. The treatment of Victor and KIA, et al., is vile – by people often praised for their contributions here. The hypocrisy is massive. Here’s an example from one of those often attacking and then acting as if they and others are angels when they are, in fact, aggressors:
Susan Anderson says
If all RC comment sections were as thoughtful and related to the subject matter as this one (with one notable exception, a person solely occupied their own “wisdom”),
I am certain Susan doesn’t see the hypocrisy here. Why do I include this example? The angels are not angels. Don’t be fooled should you decide to choose volunteer moderators.
More importantly? I post it to say a reboot must be an absolute tabula rasa scenario where the core posters who have so long dominated these comment sections, and bullied many excellent posters off the site, must be reeled in along with everyone else. Everyone’s shit stinks and any future moderators must act accordingly. No free rides, no exceptions, no biases, no favorites.
People here like to ignore that I am a teacher and have been a counselor. You will likely see posts responding to this as if I am a hypocrite. I am not. My role here has never been as a moderator. I don’t act like a teacher as a student nor as a counselee as a counselor, and vice-versa. I have run a business. Still do.
Do not dismiss what I say above because I chose to give back 5 times what I have been dealt on this site. I posted over a year ago now an examination of when this site went off the rails, It was in 2015. It was the result of the core posters bullying, particularly those of us who were talking about regenerative systems because mitigation and adaptation were off-topic at that time. Some of us persisted because we knew it was very late in the game and that part of the conversation was an important aspect of Climate Science. SOC, e.g., is cliamte science. Thus came Forced Responses. We changed this blog, but it took wading through seven years, and counting, of constant abuse,
Why? You’ve never moderated your pet posters, that’s why. So, you, blog owners, can just give up and end comments, or you can finally, finally, do moderation consistently and fairly. I promise the latter will give the far better return in the long run.
To all and everyone
About Killian
So, he has been a moderator on vulgar commercial national sports blogs and was fired.
If we can only avoid centrally stimulated, sheere, euphoric fanaticm, racisms, and quackery from those state- religious national socialistic horizons, then we will be glad.
They belong on the crankshaft.
Physician, heal thyself.
Time to put your lengthy comments on your own blog rather than taking advantage of the hosting here. As to insults, dear gussie, look through your own comments and stop ignoring the dirt you fling. I remember suggesting you cut back at least once (twice, possibly more), but I haven’t gone on and on … and on … about it, though This is one of the reasons I think Gavin is right to suggest these boards have outrun their usefulness, along with making a lot of work for the blog owners.
The “core” of RealClimate is the people who run it, not the endless commentariat. The column inches (feet, hards, meters, what have you) are not a measure of quality but of quantity.
Let’s try this again:
“Time to put your lengthy comments on your own blog rather than taking advantage of the hosting here.
But it’s OK for you to “take advantage of the hosting?” What a bizarre comment to make about people posting in a **comments** section of a part of a blog specifically asking people to comment.
You really do not see your hypocrisy here, I’m sure.
As to insults, dear gussie, look through your own comments and stop ignoring the dirt you fling.
Huge Straw Man. I *literally* unambiguously acknowledged my own comments on these pages, as I always have – something you have literally never done. It’s always someone else’s fault in your world.
What a perfect example of how and why we got where we are today. Could not be more perfect. Is it deflection or hypocrisy? Hard to tell,.
I am not a climate scientist. My background is in glacial geology, going back to 1968, so I am aware of the mechanics of weather, climate and climate change (over geological time) I use RC to keep up to date, professionally. I don’t post here, because IMHO I do not have the academic or professional qualifications – I am a PhD Falloff in a related discipline – I went ~20 m at a 60++ degree angle down into a glacier meltwater stream while doing my PhuD, and exited stage left on the trolley to the operating theatre.
If you don’t have the qualifications (MSc minimum) or you do not know what you are writing about, or if you become intoxicated with the loquaciousness’ of your verbosity (here’s looking at you, C), please don’t post here unless to ask pertinent questions.
I now work in the energy industry, and I have several projects in the sahel in Africa. Recently, there was a very useful article for me on RealClimate: “Future rainfall over Sahel and Sahara” which was debased by one troll in particular. A similar thing happened to the review of “Don’t look up”. There is a second troll out there who passed the limits of amusement many years ago. We all know who they both are. Writing from a professional viewpoint and reducing to an ad hominem on both of them, their trolling wastes the readers’ time. I strongly suspect that both trolls are otherwise unemployed and unemployable.
This blog would be made more readable and focused if both were banned.
Permanently.
So, please, Gavin, keep the posts going and the blog open.
Ban the trolls, both of them, if technically possible, and if not, just toss their screeds into the bore hole.
They are both very stale news.
“Ban the trolls, both of them. We all know who they both are. “?
Do we all know them? My guess is nemesis and marcius. Please name them so we can be sure. They are not the only ones. you already pointed to Carbomontanus. a perfect candidate for permanent banning on any website. there’s also the sockpuppet Richard the Weaver formerly Al Bundy writing fictional movie scripts for real climate when he’s bored.
It’s an Adam’s Family circus here. Ending blog comments fixes everything wrong with real climate especially the verbal abuse and the self-appointed messiahs.
Yes, I have been etnically rinsed out and got ex- communicated and listed by the more pure and organized race and blood several times before.
I never got a chanse to really join ind and to train and to get inaugurated there.. So no wonder I should be generally banned on their request.
I intensially clog their virtual inlelligence litteral filters .
My hypo- thesis of it is that I may quite often disturb and get in the way for small gangs or groups of scolarly trained and organized influenzers with their obscure and crooky interests and plans for given, open societies , fora and media. .
Am I right, Genosse Dr. Bizarro?
With a few exceptions — for people whose comments historically have been contributory — I have long-since limited my reading mostly just to comments with a direct reply by Gavin or some other member of the RC group.
But it’s not clear to me how migrating comments to social media would be a remedy.
I find the comments and responses to actual blog posts to be interesting and generally informative. The monthly ‘open’ threads, Forced Responses and Unforced Variations, have unfortunately passed their sell by date – the occasional nugget of new science that is posted gets lost in the repetition of blatant climate denial or, almost as bad, commentator’s personal obsessions. I would favour the dropping of these open fora, and a more aggressive moderation policy.
Susan A: Easier said than done. It’s easy to lay burdens on other people’s shoulders.
RtW: and foolish to ignore volunteers.
And if we were allowed to help, there is plenty of talent and free time in this group to do a grand job.
Which is good since one goal would be modeling: RealClimate itself is a model for science websites. They deserve a peanut gallery of similar stature.
I almost only ever post online comment pseudonymously. I’ve worked in IT long enough to know there are abusive managers and HR depts who refuse to employ people based on entirely innocuous and uncontroversial opinion, or victimise existing employees for differences of opinion. I’ve also seen plenty of posters on various fora who are happy to post malign comments of all sorts under their own names.
It is your blog. So you set the rules, this seems so obvious it is not necessary to say it..
I am OK with any decision you make.
Of course I prefer to read also comments, some are very insighfull and interesting, adding more information than original article can contain.
To be honest, I am not surprised you want to close comments.
I think the time when anybody could say what he/she thinks is over.
Only the future will show if this is right way or wrong way.
I do not know.
Nobody knows the Future.
At least persons who call themselves scientists cannot say.
Of course, the prophets and saints, they can.
I hope this site will stay scientific.
Thank you for your decision, but I will do not suggest you what you should do.
It is your responsibility, not mine.
And as I have already written, I will respect your decision.
Have a nice day, MM
I came across realclimate.org in 2008, and since then both the articles and the comments have enriched my life immeasurably. Yet it’s inevitable that commenting, at least, would come to an end. Gavin’s discussion of social and technological changes is quite correct, and in any case you guys all have better things to do with your time! Beyond that, I’ve also observed the deteriorating signal-to-noise ratio of the comments: so much that I’ve pretty much stopped following them. I see no reason to continue supporting them on RC.
You say this as if not part of the problem. You didn’t just observe it, you were part of it. The willingness of all to admit this might help change it.
“The willingness of all to admit this might help change it.“?
Hey, nothing will change it Killian. The culture and standards, what is acceptable and what is encouraged, are set from the top. You’d be better off understanding they all hate you Killian. They never ‘hear’ a thing you say. A little self-respect would tell you to turn your back on it and walk away.
My self-respect is what keeps me here in spite of the abuse. We’re headed for the end of everything as we know it. It would be immoral and unethical for me to walk away because of the lack of decorum.
My 2¢.
It’s 2022 and there are still contrary people denying AGW? Maybe time to rethink and update the philosophy and policy governing the comment section (and social media in general for that matter). Creationism doesn’t belong in biology classes, or disruptive anti-vaxers in public meetings, and so on.
It’s your blog, but it seems like you’d rather close down the comment section to everyone than deny it to those who would just as soon intentionally ruin it.
I don’t know from decorum, but when it comes to denialists, I’d say kick ’em off the island. I doubt you’d miss whatever little of use that they may occasionally manage to cough up anyway.
I have never added a comment until I saw this.
This site is one of the most informative on the web, but I believe removing comments would greatly diminish it’s value. I agree the quality of comments on all sides is on the downhill but to shutdown comments is vacating the field and loosing any control over the discussion. Similarly it is the same issue with just pushing comments off to social media platforms.
Open discussion is what we need if we are going to convince everyone of the science. I am really disappointed that comments sections on other sites (SKS) are becoming echo chambers of group think that belittle anyone one who adds a different view.
Unless you understand the other persons ideas you can never win the argument.
there is just too much usefull stuff found in the commentsection, simple is that. I dont have any socialmedia-account. and a lot of the rest of the world dont have broadband for “modern” commentsystems/socialmedia.
I’m a time-poor physical oceanography prof. in the UK. I struggle to keep up with the literature in my own field these days, and phys. o. is an important “feeder” subject for climate – therefore I value RC for its insightful articles, and as a partial shortcut (to scanning the climate literature). While I’ve been following RC for ages, and I’ve occasionally browsed the comments, I don’t remember ever seeing anything very useful in the comments – so I would not mind if the comments disappeared.
The alternative – stronger moderation – I guess ignores the fact that all this is done “for free”. I imagine the effort-to-reward ratio would be too high.
I’ve read this site since day one, always reading the comments, and also commented a few times., but not recently. I read several other sites as well and much of the climate journal literature. I find this site, like WUWT, and all the others, biased, which is a criticism of human nature, not of this or any blog. After teaching climate science for several years and witnessing the turf wars between some fairly well supported, but conflicting points of view, I’ve tried to avoid becoming cynical and political, which. IMO, is what dominates so many comments. My own perspective is that it’s very easy to become passionate, in this, so complicated a science, and to adopt an informed opinion and thereafter, defend it, without really listening to perhaps the sometimes equally informed opinions of others. I agree that most of our comments are not very informative or useful, but some are, and until and unless we actually listen to others, our understandings about climate, and our decisions about energy policy are frequently little more than an extension of the culture wars.
I am annoyed by the trolls here, but shutting down the comments would be throwing baby out with the bathwater – in effect, handing the trolls a victory. Moving the comments to Facebook or Twitter is not an option for me – as their troll to non-troll ratio is much worse, And it doesn’t have to be very time consuming – concentrate on people, instead of individual posts.
So if they repeat the same denier’s cliches, say, using local weather to question the global climate change, demonstrate willful ignorance of statistics and science (cherry picking an El Nino as …. the reference point to dismiss the global warming trend after it) – AND continue to do so even after your fallacy has been explained to you – then they are not here to learn and RC is not a good site for them,
Or if they can’t answer other people’s counter-arguments, and instead of arguments, attack them personally, and push their favourite silver bullets (rain barrels, regenerative agriculture, or nuclear power plants that can be churned 3 per 2 days for under $40 mln each) – then they may be …. happier at other sites that would not challenge your numbers…
So give the trolls a warning, or three, and after that – block them. Seems fairer than penalizing everyone for the transgressions of the few.
Good comments Piotr. I have suggested in the past give the trolls a warning, then if they dont improve borehole their offending comments, and if they still dont get it just ban them completely. Borehole should be liberally used because it does still provide for freedom of speech.
Expanding on your point I believe people should be allowed to post ‘unusual’ ideas. I believe its really important to discuss this stuff. BUT there is an equal obligation for the proponents to defend such ideas and remain reasonably polite, and to be able to defend such ideas robustly with proper maths and science. Rights come with obligations. Otherwise it gets boreholed. SKS go further and require people who make contentious claims of fact to back them up with citations. They are not pedantic about that and they give people warnings but they do enforce it and it helps stop the proliferation of BS.
https://skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
A related book fyi is Post Truth by Evan Davis, subtitle “How we have reached peak bullshit…”
Please keepte comments. I have been a follower of this site for many, many years, and I find the comment section very useful: especially if I want to see the response to your fantastic work through the eyes of e.g. a contrarian, and then to see your response to that. Plus, as others have said, this is one of the very few places where the general public like me has an opportunity to engage with real climate scientists directly, if need be.
My expertise is in IT, and I find the gradual centralisation of all multimedia content as well as communicative interactivity within the domain of Silicon Alley giants abhorrent. There are many reasons for this, but smaller commet sections like this are a breath of fresh air. Keep up the good work, but please keep the comment section around.
If you find that moderating it is becoming cumbersome, there are intermediate mitigation steps as well, shutting it down entirely would be a great loss, IMHO.
I have been reading articles and comments on this site for quite a few years. My observation has been that the quality of the comments has declined noticeably over the years, so I usually try not to waste too much time reading them. Some, however, have been useful and interesting.
You might consider how the comments section is run at arstechnica (and perhaps consider asking the people who run the site for advice and comment on the issue). To comment, you must register (there is no fee for registration).. Only registered members can comment. Comments can be voted on by those registered members, and if there are sufficient downvotes, the comment is hidden from view. It can be viewed by registered members, but is invisible to others. Commenters who abuse the site can be banned, thus depriving them of the ability to comment. They can, however, continue to view the site and the articles.
I have been hesitating to comment on this, because comments here at RC have declined so badly since I started participating at RC and similar online sites about 10 years ago. I used to engage in some good scientific discussions here, but these days is can be really hard to keep hoping that there is a pony hiding in the pile of $#!^ that flows from some of the regular cranks.
My background is climatology, so I am well-versed in the science. I used to learn things here, but it is getting harder and harder to find much useful in the comments. The most serious problem with the current state of affairs is that you are probably losing a lot of well-informed commenters with good science backgrounds – simply because the general tone here is so toxic and destructive.
I haven’t read Forced Responses in more than a year. I gloss over the Unforced Variations – only a few commenters are worth reading there, and then usually only so that I can accumulate some of the pithy and entertaining one-liners from a few of the sane people. (You know who you are!) I will read comments on the more science-based posts – but even those threads often become dumping grounds for whack-a-doodles and people that can’t speak without insulting someone. I know who to not bother with.
What to do? niglej has linked to Skeptical Science’s comments policy, and pointed out that repeat offenders eventually get banned. I think that RC – if it wants to continue to allow comments – needs to have some sort of improved moderation process. But it is a big job – especially in the early stages while people continue their customary posting habits and don’t want to behave themselves. To be effective, you would probably need to introduce a registration process, and ban repeat offenders (and their sock puppets). Skeptical Science starts with warnings, moves to deleting parts of posts, then entire posts, with banning as the final stage.
Voting by readers is not my idea of a good policy: think about what would get voted up at WTFUWT.
At a minimum, send far more material to the Bore Hole and Crank Shaft. Maybe create a new spot called AlreadyRepeatedAThousandTImes.
Hr Bob Loblaw
I do not follow Sceptical Science, probably because I agree to well with them so they hardly tell me anything new.
But personally, I am inter- facultary and have secured for myself and my own purposes also some necessary horizons of epistemology and psychology and history of philosophy, of science of art, and of ideas. That is quite necessary in order fully to understand “science”, especially when it is new and revolutionary.. One must also know the wrong side of it, the structures, history and patterns of alternatives and quackery.. We have it when it comes to Scafetta for instance.
Great GURUs and philosophers have published on the same, We can mention Immanuel Kant and Arthur Eddington and a few more.
Some people hate this and suggest its categorical banning..
I was asked to look through an essay of my wife, on absurd theater, theater- science. By 2 examples english and hungarian. And saw that it could be analyzed like I have learnt in basic anorganic chemistery along with a hypothetical pH- scale from 0 to 14 via 7 that is pure water with Ammoniumacetate. and standard “falling” reagents that tells what is there and what is not, along with the very wide and long spectrum of absurd theater.
It was re- written and she got “Quite ingenious” for it.
Moral1
If it is about how to analyze a dirty mess and absurd rubbish such as the climate or the climate dispute, then ask an exsperienced chemist for help. They are aquainted.
Moral 2:
The diciplines and sciences may be inter- connected. And that roots in the nature of human mentality according to both Kant and Eddington.
Moral 3:
Some systematic learning and knowledge also of human mind and mentality such as Kritik der reinen Vermnunft and Philosophy of physicaln science and Nature of the physical world Eddington 1 &2 may also be necessary, helpful, and fruitful.
Carbomontanus:
If you read the comments policy at Skeptical Science, you will see the kind of behaviour that gets someone moderated or banned. It is not what they think or say, but rather how they behave. Different viewpoints are allowed, but commenters must be willing to engage in honest discussion.
https://skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
The maxim – “It’s not what you say but how you say it.” – also extends to what is and isn’t acceptable in the literature, although there is also a “…where you say it.” aspect to the maxim if it is published. So a paper that is obviously wrong can still have plenty enough merit to be published because it may be seen to challenge in a novel way the literature which defines it as being ‘wrong’.
And publication is more certain if the author of the contentious work sets it out as being ‘contentious’ and even defines the consequences of the work being shown to be correct rather than speculative nonsense. But such considerations are perhaps too much to ask of a novel hypothesis still wet behind the ears.
Thus the wobbleology so loved by those who see it as a way of demoting the established AGW theory from its high horse does have some merit but only as a speculative hypothesis and not (as for instance Nick Lewis did in front of a Westminster committee back in the days of AR5) used as an excuse to brand the IPCC as a pack of liars. And with such hypothesis being speculative, that means the advocates of such speculation need to buck their ideas up if they see a need to get it established in place of the established theory in some timely way. As it is, we are treated to denialists weaponizing their own ineptitude.
Essentially, the establishment of novel contentious work as part of a ‘serious debate’ is separate from that ‘serious debate’ and is not a trivial task. Its presence should not be used within the established debate as though it were somehow ‘established’.
Thus the Bore Hole/Crank Shaft.
However the debate here is how best to effortlessly free the ‘established’ RC comment threads from the flood of cranks and bores.
What’s “wobbleology” ? The first hit came up in Urban Dictionary but that can’t be right. Otherwise wobble is a specific technical term from planetary geophysics, i.e. Chandler wobble, Mars wobble, etc.
Paul Pukite (@whut),
While not wishing to initiate a pedantic to-&-fro on this matter, I would point to my prior usage of the term “wobblology” (for instance here) relative to that unreferenced & schoolboy Urban Dictionary entry.
And while my spelling is never so perfect (which may easily defeat any google search), I have in the past amply explained my meaning (as in that ‘prior useage’ link), perhaps I should have presented a more convincing explanation here, perhaps adding that those intent on “demoting the established AGW theory from its high horse” will often insist (usually in a most unscientific manner) that the rising global temperatures recorded since 1975 have more to do with some natural climate cycle or wobble than due to the oh-so puny effects of anthropogenic climate forcings.
Hr. Bob Loblaw
I looked back into Skepticalscience rules and regulations of behaviours, and reallize that those may be the true reason why I could not follow them.
I had seen it before, and I have a large collection of catechisms in my office (= rules and regulations of behaviours) from Mose 10 commandments via Evklids elements up to Luthers small and large catechism,
Then Arthur Schopenhauers “Eristische Dialektik” that is 31 Pragraphs on how to get right when you are unright, and LJENINs basic catechism of 1919, the so called “Moskva- theses” or “The 21 conditions”. all found on the Internet today!.
I repeat….!
Personally, I have found 2 very practical catechisms for my own rules and regulations, whereunder I can aspire and orientate and regulate myself politically in the official room, and suggest and demand officially that my next persons and the very society also submits and aspitres to the same
Objections are unqualified, they are not catechismic, they are not orthodox and thus not in charge.
:
1, The UN declaration of Human Rights in original, That is Lies small katechism in 31 paragraphs from 1948 and
2, The farm Animal welfare council §§§§§ 1,2,3,4,5 on how to treat animals also, including humans, wild or tame in the class of what they actually are, namely fur animals.
Together that is about human rights and animals freedom. Really very appliciable and can be enjoined on everyone everywhere regardless.
I knock this fom above and down on everyone and expect obedience and behaviours, and objections are unqualified, not warranted.
For private toilet and hygienic use I have my own aesoterics, that I cannot enjoin on everyone anywhere, because that would be to make the very room and society into my own “bathroom” and toilet. such behaviours are characteristic of Gangsters, Labour and Hooligan Unions, and Peoples Republics.
We see the consequenses of such manners and behaviours now again in Ukraina, Lugansk and Donetsk and further villages and peoples free republics.
. I have personally seen and can remember Hamborg Hannover and Kassel of 1954 and were deeply shocked every day of what I saw there,
Lies ( Trygve Lie, 1st UN Gen Secretary) catechism of 1948 is supposed to be the worlds medicine against that along with its “Preamble” sentences.
Thus, I cannot like and I cannot follow and submit to and aspire under, “peoples” alternative and unwarranted catechisms rules and regulations anywhere.
The Scepticalscience rules and regulations is such a series of unwarranted vulgar and detailed all to tight spiritual linguistic and political closed society CORSETs.
All animals are eq1ual exept for Pigs, who are more equal than the others!
It entersn the CATETER and takes the seat an begins to instruct the new world order under which we are supposed to worship, train, submit, pay, and to obey,
And hammers down, etnically rinses out , anyone and anything that knows easier and better from before on linguistic, spiritual, tribal, national, facultary, and common, universal level.
I am sure that if you have a point to make, some day you will find a way to make it in a fashion where sensible people can follow it..
Until then:
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Hr Loblaw
Yes, I am also sure and I have found a better way long time ago. I enjoin it on everone everywhere exept on the vicim, the stupid troll or commissarius or class comrade that is to be corrected hurt and blamed.
It is their deeply political state religious Party dicipline and military drill, so it works and it hurts.
Putin / Puttler is to be taken the same way. It is basic routine in his DDR- KGB where he grew up and qualiffied.
@bl – ” I have been hesitating to comment on this, because comments here at RC have declined so badly since I started participating at RC… ”
LOL
An elderly and allegedly very experienced driver, driving home from work, turns west onto Highway 66 just before sunset and turns on the radio. After 6 minutes of driving, the traffic announcer interrupts the music program for an announcement:
!!! Attention !!! Attention !!! We’ve got a wrong-way driver on Highway 66 westbound. Please drive in the extreme right lane – please do not overtake. We will get back to you when the risk has been eliminated. —
The driver mumbles: What does 1 mean here – I see hundreds.
You’re really just a broken toy, aren’t you? Still haven’t gotten over the fact that nothing you said at SkS made any sense, and people got tired of listening?
Anyone who wants to look at your stupid chatter, your abnormally long line and obtuseness, including your brazen lies and false information, can do so on SKS.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=132&&a=141#137656
#69 ~ #109
The culmination is that there you claim to have worked with Prof. M. Wild (ETH Zurich / IPCC AR6 WG1 ch. 7.2.1) – and if I then expose you as a liar – you – as part of the moderation-team (what is a fatal error ) blocking my posts.
You can also read there about the pathetic arithmetic skills and stupidity of your colleague MAR
—
You were wrong then, and you’re wrong now. At least you’re consistent.
Carbomontanus: Just bought an interesting book fyi : “The History of Philosophy” by A C Grayling. Long enough and detailed enough to be meaningful, and it covers all schools of thought and all main philosophers. Nicely written in an easy to read style.
Haven’t studied philosophy formally, but did some basic humanities at university including psychology and geography, in addition to other more technically orientated subjects. Good to have a broad based perspective on things.
I just found out about this possibility from a comment in the Forced Responses thread. (I normally only read and post in that thread. As noted above, the science is settled, and as an engineer I’m all about solutions.)
Instead of just jumping in, I took the time to read both the post and ALL of the comments before entering my own. this took quite a bit of time, when I’m already trying to finish reading “Fear of a Nuclear Planet” for a book discussion on Monday. (I’m keeping a list of errata for the authors, too.)
My take on the “discussion can move to social media” notion: that would scatter the discussion into multiple, often non-interacting islands on different platforms, platforms which are often run and censored by ideologues and their ideologically-trained AIs. Reddit is the only one I’m familiar with, and it’s a textbook example of this. r/energy is ruthlessly censored of anything that’s pro-nuclear or points out problems with “renewables”, as if the moderators are disciples of Mark Z. Jacobson. Innumerate posters abound. There are no less than three sub-reddits for the subject of nuclear energy, with several posters and moderators who are industry veterans, but the different subs don’t interact much. This means there are lots of things which are of interest but fly beneath people’s radar because they’re posted on another of the scattered islands. I try to make up for this by grabbing things from e.g. Green Car Congress and putting them in r/nuclear or here (and vice versa), and I hope that has made a difference.
IMO, the climate scientists would probably gain from eliminating the comments, but there’s a strong likelihood that the world would lose.
My advice to Mr. Gavin Schmidt & group is to completely abolish the forced/unforced variations sections in order to liberate us from page-long, abstruse self-portrayals by half a dozen commenters..(1.#carbomontanus & Co).
Fact-based commenting should be the priority. All text passages of a comment that the editors consider wrong, dubious, undesirable or counterproductive should be highlighted in red to advice the commenter.
A few days ago I saw Gavin Schmidt on German television. ZDF-Info // TERRA X – one of many very well made documentaries (not only) about climate with a lot of background knowledge, great pictures, graphics and numbers. With ratings of 0.5 – 1 million viewers, they offer a high educational potential compared to this forum.
Perhaps there will be opportunities to also display multilingual climate videos license-free on RC, where they can of course also be commented on. They offer broader, more easily understandable climate knowledge – and could then be supplemented with in-depth specialist knowledge from the “GROUP”.
Just so long as you realize your own water management approach would be one of those things you are describing…
Ladies and Gentlemen
Kjære Menighed
To the end of blog comments
It is Langfredag Long friday Karfreitag today. They blame me both for not going to church and for being a preacher.
what shall we do with that?
Peters denial, on Denialism.
That was shortly before cocks cry. I have thought of that, about denial. St Peder was a very plausible and smelling and political Butcher, Preacher, and Fisherman and Entrepreneur..
Give a thought to St Peder and to Denial first, on good friday. .
It would be a shame to see the comments go, even though I almost never read them anymore. Some posters have ruined it by attempting to drown out others who seem to have only tiny divergences of views.
I kinda agree with Ray L. that they were far more important back when RC was new.
More diversity of commenters is needed, but where do you find people qualified to comment?
This is like my third or fourth comment and I’ve been reading here since the forum opened, I don’t know enough to opine, so I just lurk and read.
I don’t find it as informative as it used to be.
The actual articles are still great though, and the site itself a excellent resource. I can’t count how many times I’ve posted the “start here” link in other forums, usually with me saying something like “I get my climate science from climate scientists, not internet trolls”.
Brett:
“Some posters have ruined it by attempting to drown out others who seem to have only tiny divergences of views.”
“More diversity of commenters is needed, but where do you find people qualified to comment?”
Nailed it.
Maybe there are plenty of people who could make a contribution, but they are in fact being drowned out?
And they are being drowned out by sheer volume. Why would someone bother to make a minor but perhaps interesting point when their comment will never be seen… look at the “list of recent comments”.
On a regular basis, we see the same name repeated multiple times, and I don’t have the time or inclination to scroll through an entire thread each time to see if there are new comments from people like yourself, since the comment-addicts also use absurd quantities of column inches to say very little.
It’s up to the people who actually want to make things better to step up, but I don’t know who they are at this point. Everyone claims they want to make big changes to save the world from climate change, but they can’t let go of their uncontrolled consumption here, just like the people who drive F-150’s to their office jobs every day.
Some posters have ruined it by attempting to drown out others who seem to have only tiny divergences of views.
To be fair, the idea people post merely to drown out others has never occurred to me, no matter the volume of the person in question. What a weird motivation!
What I think does happen is:
1. some have no idea how little they have to say.
2. Some have a sense of ownership of this site, mostly unaware that is the case.
3. Some become addicted to responding to anything and everything. This is related to #1.
4. Some have an inflated sense of themselves (but that’s not really the same as the quote above, imo.)
5. Some have something to say, but it’s bullshit. (Deniers.)
6. Some have something to say and it’s at the forefront of whatever, so treated like fringe bullshit, but it isn’t and needs to be said. (This is me.)
But, no, don’t think anyone posts just to drown others out. That’s just poor analysis, imo.
First time poster, long time lurker. To be honest, I didn’t read the comments before posting…
I have mixed feelings since I am not a moderator or scientist but a lurker (and it’s been several months since I checked in to read anything, I don’t have that much will power/energy).
“Substantive?:”
I listened to Sean Carrolls podcast a while back with César Hidalgo that stuck with me about transfer of knowledge. I wonder if anyone here knows him that could get him to comment on a magical site like this, since I’m not actually familiar with his research and I don’t know him.
“Social media?”:
I remembered this from a few days ago and … what, is he mentioning this post without pointing to the website?: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/trippy
I honestly don’t know much effort it was to moderate a site like this for so long. Maybe it really did survive through obscurity/”specialization” — I don’t have your web traffic stats.
Personal appeal as a lurker?: When I was a child, I used gopher (the first wikipedia), but never knew why, we just moved on eventually to netscape/altavista, wikipedia replaced britannica CDs and it took years before I even realized myself when I went through college that it became https://xkcd.com/1810/ Now that’s out of date… I don’t know what it really looks like now, maybe just FB/TW in US, varying geographically internationally. If I don’t say all this I guess I seem like a luddite who never learned computers so I guess I will have to opt-in to twitter (cringe) and see if the community survives.
Rant: With the initially confusing moderation style that feels like a throwback to the nostalgic anonymous internet (the luxurious “eye-candy” features are all absent: profile pics, followers, no stars next to your name, or intimidating Dr’s and Professors, just the actual posts with a name). This site is a “blog” with a lot of scholarly references but the discussion page it feels like an IRC chat room from 2000s (is that good? bad? IMO I grew up on IRC, so it’s great! I haven’t been to IRC since 2005 and AOL helped start fragment everything … do they have real AI bots spamming channels there now or is IRC dead now from Discord?). But how many people found this site with google? I don’t have a clue; I didn’t. Will a growing number of people who don’t watch/read independent media, will they will ever find this site?
After reading Neal Stephenson’s Dodge in Hell, I see a bleaker internet.
Quoth zebra:
I made a pretty big change in 2004, and an even bigger one in 2013. Does that count?
In ’04 I quit driving a Ford Taurus in favor of a VW Passat TDI and went from 26 MPG to 38 MPG. When the TDI was totalled, I bought a Ford Fusion Energi PHEV and leapt to well over 100 MPG. I can’t directly control the emissions from the grid, but I can employ the “long tailpipe” to move emissions away from people’s lungs and set the stage for decarbonization. I’m currently looking for my next vehicle, which should be even less petroleum-dependent than my current one.
Even with my current one, I pick and choose my trips and waypoints to minimize my consumption of liquid fuel. With a decarbonized grid (which I promote at every opportunity), my own emissions are reduced to incidental transport, lawn machines and what comes from home and DHW heating (which i’d be happy to decarbonize with hydrogen if I could).
The science tells us how. Engineers make it happen; that’s where I come in.
Keep the comments, BUT:
Allow trusted users (chosen by you) to rate comments up or down.
Then give casual readers the option to view the uprated comments and by default never even see the idiotic flame wars.
I really appreciate the ability to come here with questions for experts, but hate the gibberish threads of the same old characters throwing feces at each other.
Well gavin/admin group…
With the apparent decision/experiment to allow Victor to run more and more wild repeatedly publishing the same repetitive disinformation, misinformation, and ignorance I think you may be proving your point.
If trolls are not subjected to bore holing/crank shafting trolls (which still publishes their comments, just in a more appropriate place), then maybe comments really need to end. Consequence-free propaganda will proliferate if allowed to grow as is becoming patently obvious in many arenas over the past decade or two.
Within RC, massively repetitive trolling is in so many ways a waste and could be replaced by boxes at the end oof a post saying: “Here’s what the trolling community says/will say and here’s what the science says (full stop).” At minimum, subsequent repetitive posts–e.g. one troller’s ridiculous “correlation” notions–need to be bore holed. A single hearing of such nonsense is enough to sear it into the memory.
As things are presently degrading–and for many reasons things clearly are in mainstream comment streams–even a single troll can pretty much take over since there are no consequences and surely some childish emotional rewards in it for the troller.
jgnfld,
The problem isn’t Victor, the problem is all the people who are involved in a codependent-type relationship with him.
How desperate does one have to be to keep responding to this stuff… is it any less desperate than Victor obviously is?
As you say, there can be a standard explanation for all the standard fallacies. Do people really think:
“Well this time I am going to come up with a brilliant explanation that will bring him enlightenment!!” ???
Come on, people. Grown-ups don’t need the moderators to be Mom and Dad and fix everything for them. How about a little self-control? You will not stop Victor’s acting out by rewarding him with what he is seeking.
Partly. But “grown up ignoring” rarely works when the monkeys are flinging feces around in my experience.
The massive expansion of anonymously funded, anonymously spread, and massively repetitive authoritarian-based propaganda in people’s lives has observably warped society in many ways, not just this blog. That ought to provide evidence that it is a force that needs to be met, not just ignored, in this blog as well.
While I agree there can be a fine line somewhere in here, there really is a difference between “adult” ignoring of an issue and recognizing when some sort of pushback is needed. Most infections heal themselves and are safe to ignore. This one will not. There really is a battle going on out there to control/disrupt information flows for political purposes of which we are seeing only a tiny skirmish in here. It won’t go away by being an “adult” and ignoring it here in the wider world. That’s actually what’s caused a significant portion of the problem to my mind.
Personally, I am in favor of still publishing such comments–and responses–here, but just doing so in the appropriate sub-blog. We have two such already available. I might suggest adding a third category (or reconsolidating what we have) with a new subarea called “The Troll Farm”. Such a strategy would not be censorship at all…only correct labeling.
I like your suggestion. Victor is both a bore and a crank, so one could take their pick as to category.
But for myself, I won’t willingly allow an important topic to be “Swift-boated”. Lies–including for this purpose misframings and all manner of information structured to mislead–IMO, *must* be called out and appropriately labeled, lest they establish a foothold through sheer repetition.
But there’s no need to go on at length; as we all know, folks like Victor will never be convinced, and indeed will never learn anything on the topic of their obsession. So, crispness in the manner of BPL is desirable. And if in some future version of all this, my responses end up Boreholed or Crankshafted (hmm, that sounds a bit odd!) along with them, I’m perfectly OK with that.
Pick your battles.
I’m not convinced that there’s much to be gained by wasting hours on certain trolls who probably have little influence of any consequence and provide no viable propaganda for the denialist community at large.
After years of repetitive b.s., you already know who they are. No need to bother reading them at this point. They show up? Auto-stuff them down the borehole where future generations can study them and shake their heads in sad disbelief.
IMAO
I’m assuming without an announcement being made that the closure of comments on the March UV thread (& perhaps also the March FR thread occurred at the same time) was an automatic ‘time out’ closure being exactly two months since the March UV thread (& March SR thread) was opened.
Do we have a verdict yet?
If the verdict isn’t in, or if it’s “yes, keep comments”, can we have the May “Forced Ressponses” thread now?
Engineer-Poet, you can of course comment on the BNC Discussion Forum
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/
where others here may apply for membership.
Posting on the BNC Discussion Forum comes with an obligation to include a reference to mainstream sources, including applicable technical articles. In addition, moderation is strict; those posting off-topic loose posting privileges. However, one can always start a new topic, provided it is relevant to climate and what to do about it.
Is there co-dependence between denialists and warmists? Maybe yes. For example some of the denialists are literally begging to be repeatedly treated as human punching bags (in an intellectual sense) and clearly quite a few people are happy to oblige. I guess you could label it co-dependence, but its quite entertaining and informing.
Co-dependence pervades our lives. Is it always a bad thing? Whether its a good or bad thing is going to depend on the precise nature of that co dependence and whether its becoming obsessive or time consuming or anxiety producing..
Regardless of labels like co-dependence, it seems important to me to correct disinformation. Most of the climate denialist material is just a collection of logical fallacies, or mistakes in very basic science and maths and is easy to counter quite quickly. You do get some actual genuine sophisticated pseudoscience, but it is less common. I leave that to the physics experts to counter (at their peril, like going down a rabbit hole).
Hr Nigelj
Yes, of course but,….
Haven`t you heard of Chauvin and Chauvin- ism?
Chauvin was a fameous lower French officer under Napoleon. Who praised Napoleon and le grande Nation so intensely overwhelmingly that Napoleon found that it began to have then opposite effect,
And fired the very Chauvin and his – ism because of that.
Moral: There must be limits also to warm- ism and alarm- ism..
Carbomantanus. Hadn’t heard of that, but yes its a good point. You can get group think and exaggeration in all camps, including denialists but also warmists, sadly to say. We have to be on our guard with ourselves and others. We are all at risk of biases.
So, at the risk of going Talmudic, one last comment on comments: I would know that it was the commentary of a certain troll that lured Tamino out of retirement to make not just one, but now two additional posts.
Now, Tamino knows that said troll cannot be persuaded by logic or evidence. It has been buried long ago under an avalanche of both years ago. And those of us here are familiar with the avalanche. However, Tamino’s statistical approach cuts concisely through the bullshit and reveals how the trolls have chosen to beclown themselves.
Realclimate’s greatest value has been keeping interested citizen-scientists up to data on the latest research and evidence on climate change. As the denialosphere has slipped ever further into idiocy and irrelevancy, the debate in the comment section has gravitated toward the next question: what do we do about it. As there is no consensus even among experts on the answer to this question, and as this question is inevitably more political, the debate has often generated more heat than light. Perhaps, that too will change as the path forward–if it exists–becomes clearer.
But there is still value in addressing some of the bullshit that arises from even the most clownish participants in the comments. There is still value in arriving at a deeper understanding of the evidence we already “know”. That is where the comments section at RC serves as fodder for blogs like Open Mind, Rabett Run, etc.
This scares me a little. Reading people thinking that you can’t allow other views. Climate change is a global phenomena and it needs to be open for comments. Even for those thinking that it doesn’t matter, if people stops answering thinking it’s better to constrict themselves to their peers nothing will change. When I’m here, half of my enjoyment has been in reading those comments. Some of them makes little sense, but the answers to them may, and they all widen my outlook on people, how we think and react.
Don’t go for a ivory tower.
Best regards
Yoron.
Up to a point, this reasoning is quite sound. However, when the ratio of BS to reality-based facts and reasoning gets too high in ANY area it simply does not any more than you stop a DDoS attack by simply throwing more bandwidth at it. Eventually, you have to go at the sources.
We are seeing this in a number of areas these days. Not just science, but anywhere there is money to be made or power to be had by spreading BS over reality.
Not sound. Was sound. Isn’t now. times change. We need our energy going into making it stone-cold certain climate is anthropogenic and not accepting Santa-Clause-is-real asertions about it. Particularly when the person(s) claiming it is are engaging in propaganda, not discussion.
Quoth DBB:
The BNC forum is a “preaching to the choir” thing. I chose to engage here, because here is where real change might be achieved.
The BNC Discussion Forum has 70–100+ unique viewers daily. Possibly they pass on what they learn.