"A Separate Board For Global Warming Debate?" Topic

I can't believe I'm suggesting a new board (separate from the Science Board), but here it goes …

Call it the Global Warming Debate Board. And it must not allow cross-posting to any other board.

So, what say you?

1) No more boards;
2) Yes, let's keep this from spilling over into our other topics;
3) Don't care either way

PS. By the way, here's what the Science Board looks like these days:
TMP link

3

1.

Pistols at 10 paces.

Ooo, I'd go for that! :)

Dan

3.

I'm giving it a hardy har har. It doesn't belong on TMP.

I would like it separated, so 2.

4. No Global Warming Blather on TMP

4) already exists, it is called the Blue Fez

any one that discusses it on this site should have a lifetime ban

1

Just ban any talk of the subject of global warming. Completely delete the threads. Problem solved.

Ah, No

1

I agree there is an expansion of boards. And increase of hot air. But are these anthropogenic, or merely the result of a naturally occurring cycle on the forum?

I'm with Daler240D. Is there something inherently objectionable about a site dedicated to miniatures that people keep wanting to change it to Real Clear Policits? (Without the clarity, of course.)

1

No.

What global wargaming?

Tally Ho!

No, positively & absolutely NO!!

Lol.

So does your "NO" mean that there should be no separate place to debate the topic (and that it should continue being debated in the current Science Discussion Board), or does your "NO" mean that TMP is no place at all for that sort of debate?

Dan

I had a poll suggestion to ban the topic from TMP a year or so ago.
It seemed to me that nothing was useful thatvwas posted.
It was nothing but unreadable charts from Martin from Canada and equally tedious rebuttal from Terrement.

You don't often hear me say "This is a wargaming site!" But this time I'm saying it.

I don't really know what The Usual Suspects hope to accomplish posting that here. Who, and in what numbers, do they hope to convince?
It's not as if a tiny group of aging wargamers can do anything about it.

As I understand it, the US Defense (sic) Department already factors in AGW to its modelling of resources and conflicts. If anyone here on TMP outranks the Sec, Defense, then sure, just push it off to somewhere else as being nonsense.

Oh, and McKinstry – no. The Blue Fez is for the discussion of politics, facts are a separate issue. Unless you believe that NASA, EPA, NOA, and every other single reputable international science organisation in the world, are telling lies.

We can have one board for proponents of AGW.
Another for deniers.
And one for skeptics.
With no crossposting allowed.

I'm doing my part – eating as much beans as I can!

Lol. Khusrau, nice try.

I never said ban this or any other subject, but that seems to be a good idea to some – and no, not because of the science, but because of how politically polarizing the spillover can become to the community (as you are showing here) – so perhaps there should be an Option #4 like Winston and 6 others have already suggest here.

REVISION –

Here it is then:

1) NO new board. Keep all Global Warming debates in the general Science discussion board as is;

2) Create a new board for that sort of debate, to keep the topic from spilling over and polarizing everything all the time;

3) No opinion either way; or

4) NO new board. But ban new discussions on the subject everywhere on TMP (regardless what science says for or against – solely because of the politically divisive effect of these topics on the gaming community)

Dan
PS. JMcCarroll, I too am going to open and eat some beans, just to do my part. :)

This belongs in Blue Fez land which is not strictly for politics. In fact, it probably belongs in the Blue Fez religion board.

#4. KEEP Political discussions off TMP. There is enough of that garbage elsewhere on the WWW.

More boards, Lovely !

Opinions are like lungs everyone has at least one.

Winter is coming.

Get rid of the science board. This is a wargaming site.

Unless you do near future games where you use that information to drive your scenarios. I find historical battles of the past boring and uninteresting. I prefer to just redo history, like the ACW in 1852 or what happens when India closes the border to Bangladesh in 2022 after a year of record flooding and millions of starving people seek refuge. Or one hot summer causes the wheat production world wide to fail and you get another Arab spring. If the pentagon wargames this stuff, why cant I?

The Blue Fez is the proper place for such a discussion. I visit the Blue Fez almost daily and I visit the Miniatures Page almost daily. I enjoy both sites. But I am also happy that the two are kept separate. As the old Almond Joy commercials use to put it, "sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't."

Kevin

I just can't make up my mind. I run hot and cold and hot and cold on this issue.

I agree with Cerdic, so a 1 for this, and a permanent ban on the issue.

AND yes, NOAA did get busted for "cooking the books/stats" for 12 years when there was no global warming, to make it look like there still was.

Bill, feel free to delete this, if/when a permanent ban of all discussions of global warming are banned from TMP.

Wait! There's global warming?

#4

I thought that the point if debate was to show the strength of your argument and thereby convince the opposition that you are correct. But as far as I can see no-one changes their mind on this subject. There are those armed with facts and others armed with alternative facts. Neither will convince the other and so the whole debate is pointless abd should not be present on a wargaming website.

By all means use the concept as a basis for future scenarios but the rights and wrongs of it don't belong here.

No

#4 solid.

This seems to be a Hot Topic !!!!

As I understand it, the US Defense (sic) Department already factors in AGW to its modelling of resources and conflicts.

If true that is only prudent. To take all possible/likely scenarios into consideration. The US like any high functioning military has OPLANS for many, many, contingencies, incidents, events, etc.

I'm pretty sure in some very classified documents, they address alien landings on Earth(!). So Global Warming probably has been factored in to some OPLANs. Whether it is actually occurring or not. Just like the Alien Invasion(?) scenarios.

"Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance" …

*Sidebar: I'm taking it (sic) in this case means as I thought –

The use of sic can be seen as an appeal to ridicule, whether intentional or not, because it highlights perceived irregularities. The application of sic with intent to disparage has been called the "benighted use" because it reflects a "false sense of superiority" in its users

The problem is that one side actually debates science on the science board. The others are science sceptics. Kinda like someone going into the ancient board and in every single thread claim the Romans never existed. And then link to dubious sites to prove their fantasys.

So … #1, #2, #3 or #4?

Dan

The planet has been around for over 4 billion years. Mankind has been here for less then 1% of that time, maybe 3 million years. Things have been changing on this planet for a long time before man ever showed up. I don't think the last ice age vanished because of human industry.

When a single topic dominates all else on a board not specifically about that topic, maybe that's a good time to parcel it out?

#4. I can get much better info elsewhere on GW. The other, resin casting GW I guess is a legitimate topic.

4. No place on TMP

2

In "the circle of life" ….there is no safe space.