You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

Climate debate - READ ME!

New Policy

The idea that has been introduced here (and in many other places) of a conspiracy amongst the world's climate scientists is offensive nonsense and it will not continue here.
Let's be clear about what these people are saying and why it will now stop, or be stopped:

    1) Climate scientists are all (or nearly all) conspiring to present false data and predictions to the public.
    2) This is driven by politicians to make money or to increase power
    3) Only non-scientists or scientists from different fields can be trusted to tell the truth on the matter.
    4) All data or predictions from climate scientists are inevitable worthless because they have been fixed or cheated in some way
Now, I tell you plain and clear, so there is no misunderstanding:
Any posting with this sort of offensive rubbish will be binned as soon as I see it, and I may also take action against the poster if I deem it required
I am not being biased deliberately and if I see similar allegations about all sceptics phrased in the same offensive language I will do exactly the same. Let's be clear that, yes, I accept/believe in AGW, but I'm willing to listen to any reasonable views, pro or con, and I would not use Moderator status in a partisan way).

The reason I will not have this behaviour is simple - these claims directly accuse thousands of scientists of dishonesty or unprofessional behaviour. I consider that a baseless smear against a large number of professionals and I am not going to tolerate it.

By the same token I am not going to put up with terms by either side which are primarily intended to offend rather than describe. Thus eco-loony will not be used to apply to all AGW supporters. (It could be used to describe a person if supported, however).
Likewise Climate-Liars, stupid-sceptics and so on - I will take action on any such grossly generalised insults whichever 'side' they come from.

If you have something detrimental to say about someone then you must support it with accurate information or it is against the terms and conditions and will be removed.

This debate WILL remain civil. That is not a request, it is an observation.
Please be warned and don't do it.
Chris - Moderator.
That is a good position you have taken
I have been working on Climate change and Science is my profession I am delighted to see that you clearly say that Accusing the scientific community of fraud and dishonesty is not good
But as you know there may always be mistakes - genuine mistakes and some corporate agenda as science needs money more than anything!
As an effort to publicize my research on climate change I would want you and others to have a look at my papers which I have hosted in FRIH the copyrights are mine and it is not with commercial intent

Thanks for succinct read me
I will read them later when I have some time to contemplate.
The ruling is not intended to stifle debate - rather the opposite. By avoiding blanket assertions of dishonesty, and accepting that scientists, like all humans, can be mistaken, the debate can proceed in a civil manner without getting lost in a hail of abuse - as so many debates on this matter do.
Scientists are used to the notion that an hypothesis must be attacked to see if it survives critical analysis. They are used to doing this impersonally in peer-review (though sometimes it does become personal, which is always a bad thing). Non-scientists often mistake this process for a slanging match and want to join in. We then get insults exchanged, blanket assertions made, and the whole thing becomes a nonsense.

Specific allegations of corruption and dishonesty may be made, but only with evidence, otherwise such claims are potentially legally actionable under libel laws, and certainly actionable under the rules of these forums.
I am sorry it took me so long to read your paper - to be honest I had forgotten about it.
Interesting paper.
A couple of questions occur to me.
a) I think you state that some plant species are nearing the limit of their heat tolerance, and conclude that a 2.5 degree rise would be just about the limit? Is that fair? The question would be whether any increase in atmospheric CO2 would influence the 'heat ceiling' of the plants concerned? We hear a great deal about the fact that since plants basically require CO2 then any increase is bound to be good for plants.
b) The paper (1st) is, I think, specific to India. With that in mind, I'm wondering how the threat from crop-loss compares to the threat from flooding? How much arable land could be lost by increasing river flooding cause by (say) a 2.5 degree rise? Any data on that?
I find the focus on crop plants interesting, as they are unable to "migrate" across the landscape. Plants not maintained by humans are indeed able to slowly change their native range by expanding at their "edge". A lot of research has gone into how plants are moving across the landscape and has found that plants are moving a great deal, likely to counter the effects not only of increased temperatures, but also changes in water availability and water deficit. An important paper was published in 2011 by Crimmins et al. in Science, that examined how plants all over the state of California are moving along elevation gradients. Pretty interesting stuff.
But with crops, plants are not able to move, and thus have to either evapotranspire increasing amounts of water to deal with increased temperatures or die.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.