I am somewhat surprised to see that two posts dealing with new facts about glacial retreat from the recent "News" sections of the two leading scientific journals, Nature and Science is not considered "News" in SP, but relegated to a place under 'Drivel'.

Perhaps you consider people lost at sea, gnus, or lunar eclipses more relevant news for mountaineers? Just let me know!

Hi Ejnar-

I did not move your thread, as I thought it was newsworthy. However, I can understand another staff member moving it once it wandered off into AGW land. I try not to move stuff around too much as it just confuses folks later on, including myself . Once a thread wanders way off course, I'm more likely to get rid of it, but I do that very rarely too.

Personally, I'm trying to give a wide latitude to thread subjects and where they are posted. I'm not sure about my cohorts. We're all in "summer mode," we've been vacationing, diverted and so forth so SP matters haven't been discussed as routinely as usual. I'll alert them to your query.

While I certainly appreciate the OP's desire for an open forum, and do like to play Devil's advocate myself... I would rather see non-mountain news discussed elsewhere. No matter how logically and civilly one presents pro or con arguments for AGW, eventually people start to shout; and when everybody shouts, nobody is heard.

I would like to rename "News" to something like "News related to outdoor recreation," but that wouldn't fool anybody. It wouldn't be long before everything became rationalized as recreation-related.

MoapaPk wrote:While I certainly appreciate the OP's desire for an open forum, and do like to play Devil's advocate myself... I would rather see non-mountain news discussed elsewhere. No matter how logically and civilly one presents pro or con arguments for AGW, eventually people start to shout; and when everybody shouts, nobody is heard.

I would like to rename "News" to something like "News related to outdoor recreation," but that wouldn't fool anybody. It wouldn't be long before everything became rationalized as recreation-related.

That's basically how I saw it. I did not view it as really related to "Mountaineering, rock climbing, and hiking news." (from the Forum main page, under the description for the "News" forum). Since SP also is supposed to encompass "other outdoor activities" (from SP's mission on the home page) I would expand "News" to cover the "Lost at Sea" thread, since sailing is an outdoor activity.

But really, the AGW threads seemed like an opportunity to revive old AGW discussions, minus the insults that went on in the past.

Perhaps you consider people lost at sea, gnus, or lunar eclipses more relevant news for mountaineers? Just let me know!

Good question. Answer: probably because I only perused the SP forum for a few minutes and did not see these other topics, which probably are "Off Route" fodder, except for the "Lost at Sea" thread (see explanation above). Discussions in these other threads have already petered out anyway.

Personally, I'm ambivelent about the Off Route forum's existence anyway, but that is a topic for another day.

It seems to me that glacier activity is more directly related to "Mountaineering, rock climbing, and hiking news." than other random outdoor activities, such as sailing. I've even encountered a few glaciers myself in the mountains, but no sailboats.

Just a thought.

I think Ejnar's post was fair.

Aaron Johnson wrote:Hi Ejnar-

I did not move your thread, as I thought it was newsworthy. However, I can understand another staff member moving it once it wandered off into AGW land. I try not to move stuff around too much as it just confuses folks later on, including myself . Once a thread wanders way off course, I'm more likely to get rid of it, but I do that very rarely too.

Personally, I'm trying to give a wide latitude to thread subjects and where they are posted. I'm not sure about my cohorts. We're all in "summer mode," we've been vacationing, diverted and so forth so SP matters haven't been discussed as routinely as usual. I'll alert them to your query.

Gimme a break! It was bait for an argument. He was just trolling.

Buz Groshong wrote:

Aaron Johnson wrote:Hi Ejnar-

I did not move your thread, as I thought it was newsworthy. However, I can understand another staff member moving it once it wandered off into AGW land. I try not to move stuff around too much as it just confuses folks later on, including myself . Once a thread wanders way off course, I'm more likely to get rid of it, but I do that very rarely too.

Personally, I'm trying to give a wide latitude to thread subjects and where they are posted. I'm not sure about my cohorts. We're all in "summer mode," we've been vacationing, diverted and so forth so SP matters haven't been discussed as routinely as usual. I'll alert them to your query.

Gimme a break! It was bait for an argument. He was just trolling.

I report that a leading scientific journal (that actually used to be very pro-AGW) says the effect of CO2 on glacial retreat is just half of what has been assumed, and I'm trolling???

The trolling is all yours, whenever you hear something that doesn't fit into your uncritical accept of AGW, you immediately begin with irrelevant and personal comments (as above), trying to derail the discussion "into AGW land." It is obvious to anybody that you did not (probably cannot) offer a single argument that could be called scientific (or just pertinent) in this whole discussion.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I report that a leading scientific journal (that actually used to be very pro-AGW) says the effect of CO2 on glacial retreat is just half of what has been assumed, and I'm trolling???

The trolling is all yours, whenever you hear something that doesn't fit into your uncritical accept of AGW, you immediately begin with irrelevant and personal comments (as above), trying to derail the discussion "into AGW land." It is obvious to anybody that you did not (probably cannot) offer a single argument that could be called scientific (or just pertinent) in this whole discussion.

Ejnar, scientists seems to not be able to come to a definite conclusion about this topic. There are arguments for and against it coming from leading scientist who are experts on that. What do you think we will be able to contribute to that discussion here on this internet forum other than just voicing our - sorry - much less founded personal opinion.

What did they once say ???

"Opinions are like elbows, everybody has at least one."




How 'bout an editorial section? SP needs an editorial section, for crying out loud !!!

SoCalHiker wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I report that a leading scientific journal (that actually used to be very pro-AGW) says the effect of CO2 on glacial retreat is just half of what has been assumed, and I'm trolling???

The trolling is all yours, whenever you hear something that doesn't fit into your uncritical accept of AGW, you immediately begin with irrelevant and personal comments (as above), trying to derail the discussion "into AGW land." It is obvious to anybody that you did not (probably cannot) offer a single argument that could be called scientific (or just pertinent) in this whole discussion.

Ejnar, scientists seems to not be able to come to a definite conclusion about this topic. There are arguments for and against it coming from leading scientist who are experts on that. What do you think we will be able to contribute to that discussion here on this internet forum other than just voicing our - sorry - much less founded personal opinion.

The name of the forum is "News", I was reporting some important news, a fact of enormous significance for the whole world, namely that half of the glacial retreat is not due to any greenhouse effect (and therefore cannot be prevented by reducing greenhouse gases of any kind). This was from a leading scientific journal, Science which I somehow doubt many SP'ers see (I am a subscriber, and a member of the AAAS since 43 years), and there can be absolutely no doubt that Science accepted the validity of the research. Note that this was a report of research, not just 'arguments' for or against anything, an important distinction. I simply thought this must be interesting to know for everybody who has ever set foot on a glacier.

I am well aware that this is not a scientific forum (Buz's way of 'arguing' reminds me) , but I remember other scientific news having been reported here (new findings from Mars for instance). Why should there be a ban on reporting revolutionary breakthroughs in glaciological research, and why is it met with a reaction from some that reminds me of how creationists react to the word "evolution"?

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:The name of the forum is "News", I was reporting some important news, a fact of enormous significance for the whole world, namely that half of the glacial retreat is not due to any greenhouse effect (and therefore cannot be prevented by reducing greenhouse gases of any kind). This was from a leading scientific journal, Science which I somehow doubt many SP'ers see (I am a subscriber, and a member of the AAAS since 43 years), and there can be absolutely no doubt that Science accepted the validity of the research. Note that this was a report of research, not just 'arguments' for or against anything, an important distinction. I simply thought this must be interesting to know for everybody who has ever set foot on a glacier.

I am well aware that this is not a scientific forum (Buz's way of 'arguing' reminds me) , but I remember other scientific news having been reported here (new findings from Mars for instance). Why should there be a ban on reporting revolutionary breakthroughs in glaciological research, and why is it met with a reaction from some that reminds me of how creationists react to the word "evolution"?

I understand. This research is very interesting, but you have to agree that there are ample of other publications (also in reputable journals) that come to another conclusion. As a scientist you should never cite only the work that fits your opinion.

My point is that although the topic is of course very interesting, it will start a discussion here that will lead nowhere.