Global Warming threads

[J Gontesky]

What's with the fear of discussing it openly in any manner members choose (within reason: no personal attacks, etc...)?

To say that the policy is to 'not censor meteorological discussions' but then turn around with 'the staff will hammer you flat' sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth a bit.

Let's be honest: to deny the political component of any global warming discussion is to virtually deny the ability to discuss the topic at all.

If people are that averse to dealing with GW threads, why not start a GW board on this forum? After all, it is one of leading research areas and news items related to meteorology these days.

MOD: Moved from Global Warming Debate Tracker thread.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

What's with the fear of discussing it openly in any manner members choose (within reason: no personal attacks, etc...)?

Years ago, when Stormtrack moved from YahooGroups to its own forum, the topic of allowed discussion was much more broad. After many extremely heated arguments and diatribes, however, the moderating team (I wasn't a part of that at the time, but I strongly agree with and support their decision) realized that such "hot button" discussions were not in the best interest of the community in terms of maintaining cohesion. Almost every political and religious discussion (for example) would devolve into personal attacks. Most of the time, those participating in such discussions have a hardened opinion and resolve that is very much unlikely to change. So, what's the purpose? People end up getting upset and offended, and attitudes turn sour quickly. Again, we saw this numerous times 2-4 years ago. As such, it was determined that it was in the best interest of the forum as a whole to disallow hot-button topics. Stormtrack is, above all, a forum about severe weather and storm chasing -- there are many other, more appropriate venues at which such discussion can take place.

Global warming discussion is not likely to be banned altogether. However, as we've seen more than a handful of times this year, such discussions tend to devolve into political rants and bickering. If participating members can ensure that all discussion will pertain only to science, then there's be little to worry about. Publications and actual science will likely always be safe discussion. A newspaper article on some "scientist" who wrote an article in a non-peer reviewed magazine may not...

Of course, the difficult part of this is that global warming discussion may inherently involve some political discourse (e.g. Kyoto protocol, what policies may or may not mitigate effects of global climate change, etc). Such discussions are often "slippery slopes"... As noted previously, though, the moderating team is currently discussing all options! Do not take this to mean that any and all commentary related to climate change will be banned.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

If a topic starts to devolve into personal attacks, then can't you just deal with that particular person instead of putting strict regulations on everybody and the topic in general?
I used to participate in the political discussions back in the days when it was allowed, and some of the people I respect a lot now are the same people that disagreed with me routinely in those discussions. I don't think there is anything wrong with disagreements or even arguing. So long as it doesn't degrade into personal attacks, what harm does it cause? You mentioned that people get upset with each other and I'm sure that's true, but I'm also sure that a lot of people may think an individual is mad because of an arguement, but in reality they have respect for the person arguing with them and they don't take those things personally. Outside perceptions aren't always right. At least that's the way I feel. You can disagree with me all day long and so long as you don't make personal attacks, I'm not going to take anything you say personally. If it gets personal though, I'll get pissed off and fire back the same as anybody else.
I mentioned the other day that the Senate Majority Leader said global warming was partially responsible for the California fires and I got warned on it. I don't think it's right to regulate a topic that tightly. It seems like everybody is so worried about disturbing the herd or something. It's OK to disagree. I simply pointed out that another individual weather situation was being blamed on global warming. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out things that other people may not have heard about that show how big of scape goat global warming has become.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should be able to talk about global warming and say whatever we want so long as we keep it on topic and don't stray into the realm of personal insults or attacks. If that happens, address it with the person responsible. I think it's unreasonable to ask people to leave politics out of GW and to stick strictly to scientific peer reviewed articles (I guess no ideas of your own are allowed if we do that). You might as well ban it all together.

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

If people are that averse to dealing with GW threads, why not start a GW board on this forum? After all, it is one of leading research areas and news items related to meteorology these days.

Why not start your own forum on Global Warming? I'm pretty sure this forum was created to focus and discuss Storm Chasing hints the name, Storm Track. Yes, global warming is a Meteorological issue, but I am under the impression this is a storm chasing forum and until more research/data and not just speculation is gathered on the impacts of global warming on Severe Weather systems, why should it be debated here. Debating global warming on this forum is like CMT discussing Rap videos. I'm sure there are some general weather forums out there that are designated for all weather discussion or even ones that are geared entirly towards global warming, according to the Title and the description "The Storm Chasers Resource since 1977" this forum is still geared towards Storm Chasing and at this time IMO global warming deserves no debate in the storm chasing field.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

.until more research/data and not just speculation is gathered on the impacts of global warming on Severe Weather systems

There are people on this board who are researching GW and severe storms. You might even be surprised at who they are...

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

Not surprised, I'm plenty aware of the fact that there are folks researching this, I personally know some here on campus in the CASNR, hell, I even did a little "just for fun" undergrad GIS project researching the impacts of GW on severe weather. What I doubt is that any of this research/data is anywhere close to being accepted as theory, if it is by all means, fill me in and start a thread discussing it, as that kind of info would certainly deserve a spot on a chasing forum, however at this time I am unaware of any such theories, I just keep hearing highly debated hypothesizes and speculations, not saying they're wrong but until they are fully accepted and observed (perhaps only through time) they will in no way alter the way I chase storms. Again if you are aware of any research/data indicating a direct impact of GW on severe weather that is fully accepted by the scientific community as theory please send me in the right direction, as I would be very interested in reading!! I'm all for reading forum topics discussing reasonable impacts of Climate Change on severe weather, what gets old are the repeated forum topics housing the debates/arguments on GW and rather or not its legit and all the ridiculous speculations on the impacts.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Define "Fully accepted theory"

GW isn't fully accepted theory (as indicated on this board frequently) so what would "fully accepted" be in regards to GW and severe storms.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

Storm season lasts three months. Yeah, we may get a few tornadoes in the fall and a few hurricanes, but there's only so much conversation you can have on chasing. Unless you want this board to be dead for nine months, other discussions are a must. I don't understand why people want global warming banned. If you don't like it, then don't read it. It's that simple. Why you want to take away my right to discuss it doesn't make any sense. If you have a problem with the discussions turning in to personal attacks, then deal with those people individually that resort to personal attacks. There's no reason to punish everybody for one person that can't control their emotions.

 

[mike scantlin]

Storm season lasts three months. Yeah, we may get a few tornadoes in the fall and a few hurricanes, but there's only so much conversation you can have on chasing. Unless you want this board to be dead for nine months, other discussions are a must. I don't understand why people want global warming banned. If you don't like it, then don't read it. It's that simple. Why you want to take away my right to discuss it doesn't make any sense. If you have a problem with the discussions turning in to personal attacks, then deal with those people individually that resort to personal attacks. There's no reason to punish everybody for one person that can't control their emotions.

michael, with the global warming debate being so active, there's hardly any time to argue about lightbars or the TIV.

 

[Robert Dewey]

I don't have a problem with the GW threads. Instead, I have a problem with multiple threads discussing the same thing, all on the first page. When there are +2 GW threads within the first page of W&C, it means people aren't looking before they post.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

It is about time to bash the people with lightbars again. Maybe I'll start a thread on that this afternoon.

 

[David Drummond]

It is about time to bash the people with lightbars again. Maybe I'll start a thread on that this afternoon.

Too late, someone beat you to it already.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

It is about time to bash the people with lightbars again. Maybe I'll start a thread on that this afternoon.

I had been thinking how this comes up every year. Maybe we should have a thread on what threads seem to reappear.