[ldavidcooke]

Hey Jo,

No, not really, this started out with the intent to demonstrate an "eye for an eye" or the inverse of climate-gate. Looking at the links the discussion wrt policy would have been acceptable, though edgy. Going further to discuss the basis or background for the policy would still be within guidelines. To go further to discuss the quality of the basis or background information is also okay until it became a one upmanship, at which point I first warned, participants.

The conversation has continued, with only one or two jabs salted in the body of the discussion and hence again did not trigger a warning. However, the last exchange of posts contain more then an occassional jab. At this point, we could freeze the thread or if the conversation wrt how media is representing the controversy is desired the thread could be moved to the media forum. Is this different from your view of how this thread is degenerating or do you have a different PoV?

[John Mason]

Perhaps this thread is indeed recycling into extinction! In the meantime, this is the funniest comment on the business that I have seen:

"So the Sharks and Jets are having a rumble in the playground and the Sharks are using motorcycle chains and knives on the unarmed Jets but one of the Jets has the temerity to throw a handful of sand into the face of one of the Sharks and Mr. Revkin calls “Foul play, sir, foul play!”?"

:lol::lol:

Cheers - John

[andre]

ldavidcooke, on 21 February 2012 - 23:24, said:

Hey Jo,

No, not really, this started out with the intent to demonstrate an "eye for an eye" or the inverse of climate-gate. Looking at the links the discussion wrt policy would have been acceptable, though edgy. Going further to discuss the basis or background for the policy would still be within guidelines. To go further to discuss the quality of the basis or background information is also okay until it became a one upmanship, at which point I first warned, participants.

The conversation has continued, with only one or two jabs salted in the body of the discussion and hence again did not trigger a warning. However, the last exchange of posts contain more then an occassional jab. At this point, we could freeze the thread or if the conversation wrt how media is representing the controversy is desired the thread could be moved to the media forum. Is this different from your view of how this thread is degenerating or do you have a different PoV?

I think it's bit different. I think the whole thing about the ...gates is illustrating for the bystanders that there is a war going on. "An eye for an eye," and not science. It's also obvious how meticulously accurate the sociologic processes going on have been described by people like Irving Janis , Stanley Cohen, Thomas Kuhn etc
this politics and ideology play tricks with the state of mind and how it obscures science.

It also illustrates that the people of the Heartland institute are just people, not demons, as ideologists make of them in shear frustration. People who just want a better world for their children, who just happen to think too and who think that enforcing changes based on wrong ideas is wrong.

So may I appeal to everybody, if you think you have a big mean enemy. Think!!! Think again, is it really a big enemy or is it made that way by my pals?

If only one of the readers here would be doing that, the thread is well worth the effort.

[Andy Mayhew]

andre, on 22 February 2012 - 09:37, said:

It also illustrates that the people of the Heartland institute are just people, not demons, as ideologists make of them in shear frustration. People who just want a better world for their children, who just happen to think too and who think that enforcing changes based on wrong ideas is wrong.

Aye, Just like those at the CRU, for example

[andre]

Andy Mayhew, on 22 February 2012 - 11:24, said:

Aye, Just like those at the CRU, for example

Absolutely, Just don't think in terms as them against us and also try to see the difference between science and ideology.

[ldavidcooke]

Chris Lloyd, on 22 February 2012 - 10:29, said:

Now this is what I don't understand Dave.

Not so long ago you were intolerant of anything that hinted at subjectiveness. However, and gladly, here is a thread that discusses everything that is the AGW process.

I have read your post Dave and I have to admit I am struggling to understand your criteria. Why are you so pedantic about it all of a sudden.

The thread has been perfectly ok imo, but you are starting to exercise control over the thread as you have done previously. You are sensitising the thread by what you say now - not the contributions so far from others.

Hey Chris,

Well you asked...

First, after the blow-up over climate-gate and the inability of members of carrying on a civil conversation the Climate Forums were closed. We attempted to reopen the D&A Forum, which uses stricter guidelines, where science is to be the primary focus and it degenerated to a Chat, which forced it to be immediately reclosed. After 90 days I was approached by Duncan to work with him to reopen the Climate Forums. (I would handle the daily grind and he would purge inappropriate threads/posts. The criteria was very penurious, one or two mod's and 40-70 posters. We were to stop any in-fighting or potential "flaming" exchange/triggers,... everyone left.

Andre has decided to reopen discussions wrt a POV that is not popular with some members and it has been fun to see folks return; however, as Dave W. said in a prior thread, it is being watched closely. As I stated nearly 18mths ago, a brief foray across the line will be tolerated; but, as to open conflict, it will not.

So again as mature adults being both civil and not acting like punkish children, we hope we can retain this forum community. So to that end I am offering reminders and clarification as necessary. If this is too restrictive then we likely have little more to say... I am hoping that is not the case; but, understand this, UKww is first a weather information reference for many people, many of whom enjoy the banter here and yet may not understand either the background or purpose of this forum in a weather resource site.

Actions/posts which reflect badly on the professionalism of the UKww staff will not be tolerated. We will attempt to be clear in our expectations and expect participants to consider their post subject matter within the UKww simple guidelines. Other then that I suspect there are little restrictions here as long as it fits within the Natural Sciences for this forum, (though there are some forums here better equipped or staffed then this one that can better support specific science interests).

(Remember, if anyone wishes for a "gloves off exchange" feel free to join FROUKS and request a "sticky" thread where you can unleash your "football punk"!)

[ldavidcooke]

Chris Lloyd, on 22 February 2012 - 13:31, said:

Good post from Andre about how the real problem has been obfuscated by all the politics of AGW.

You could of course have saved yourselves a lot of time and effort if you had all listened to me about 2 or 3 years ago when I first started talking about population. Nice to see everyone coming round to my way of thinking.

I got called a Nazi then for suggesting that we need to address the issue of population.

And the reason why many that believe in AGW often don't answer me is because they can't argue with my POV.

I wouldn't expect a response at a smoker's convention where I say that smoking is bad for your health.

Hey Chris,

Actually, you may have been late to the table... If I recall correctly John Mason and I had that discussion roughly 5 yrs ago over in the D&A Forum before the Chat forum was created... But, it is nice to see we can discuss the subject more broadly today... The main difference today is we no longer look to governments to take responsibility for our own procreation.

[John Mason]

Response from CAPAF to Heartland:

http://thinkprogress...land-institute/

Cheers - John

[andre]

The Director of the Heartland institute reacts on the analysis of Judith Curry, why they were targetted here .

Maybe we should have another look at the confidential strategy memo it's not because the facts are not correct, rather than -as I implied earlier- it's not Heartland language. Compare:

Quote

Given the increasingly important role the Heartland Institute is playing in leading the fight toprevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of globalwarming, it is useful to set priorities for our efforts in 2012.

That's a you-speak-with-my-father sentence, activist language, fighting everywhere.

This is Heartland language:

Quote

I can’t read Peter Gleick’s mind, but I suspect he targeted us because we have done so very much to document and rebut the assumptions and exaggerations of the global warming alarmists.

Also try to find back a single 'fight' word in the strategic document of Heartland.

Maybe it's time do de-demonize these guys a bit, for that, this reading is highly recommended.

[John Mason]

Meanwhile, attempts to ascertain who actually penned that Strategy Document continue.....

http://www.huffingto..._b_1297042.html

Cheers - John

[andre]

John Mason, on 25 February 2012 - 10:55, said:

Meanwhile, attempts to ascertain who actually penned that Strategy Document continue.....

http://www.huffingto..._b_1297042.html

Cheers - John

Pretty obvious when copied Heartland sentences are in there. I tried to get that software to work because I wanted to analyse that very first -way too complex- sentence about fighting, given the clear and concise texts of the Heartland guys, that might lead to a slightly different conclusion.

Meanwhile have a peek at the presentation of Richard Lindzen last week at the House of Commons seminar and do tell where this fits in the "anti-climate science machine".

This post has been edited by andre: 25 February 2012 - 20:16

[John Mason]

Andre - the take-home is, I guess, watch this space. It is a political issue being played out Stateside. Let us leave them to get on with it in terms of UKww. Meanwhile, take a look at NQ's YD impact thread. Interesting new stuff, yes? Let's have a chat on that one tomorrow! It beats what I called on WUWT the other day the new Cowboys & Indians i.e. deniers & warmists. Go check it out.... I would be interested in your input.

Cheers - John

[andre]

Okay I have seen it, but I've been very busy the last weeks and then one has to prioritize. I think pointing out the always recurring mechanisms of enemy image construction and conflict seeking was a bit more important.

[andre]

Meanwhile, here is an analysis of Jo Bast himself about the fake memo. I wonder about a author analysis of the highlighted sentences.