This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Re.JEB's reference to Polly,Guardian,etc.
To give credit where credit is due,The Guardian does have a very good forum. It is quite surprising the amount of stick that the likes of Polly and George get after their pieces. Seemingly there are a few more sensible people around than you might imagine.I've even noted references to Numberwatch.
Sometimes the reactions arising are absolutely hilarious.
I thought I'd take a look at the Guardian and found this on wind farms..how amusing is this:
It seems that they now wish to blame climate change for a drop in the winds (didn't Al Gore claim that climate change was generating more winds rather than less?) which means that they don't generate as much energy as was promised.... I guess they're just lining up their excuses.
Note the comments, complete with the obligatory bit about peer reviewed journal, where the data is said to be preliminary and possibly ambiguous.
Still, the headline will have nicely lodged in peoples minds and influence their future thinking and judgement.
By the way, why do we have this trend to press articles on as yet unpublished research? If it is not yet ready to be published, how can it claim to have been "peer reviewed"?
An interesting development in regard to 'Comment is free' (CiF) and George Monbiot's attitude to the stick he receives from the commenters is that he now seems to have decided that some of the commenters may be doing what he calls 'astroturfing', which is apparently slang for a fake grassroots movement. He thinks some of the commenters may actually be working for oil, coal and electricity companies and are posing as concerned citizens, so he wants to get rid of pseudonyms for CiF commenters.
The biter bit?
I think it is actually his ego that is affected.
He has spent his formative years spouting his brand of dogma with never a word of reply heard that isn't carefully screened. Of course it is axiomatic that he would believe in a free blog and he probably believes also in a free internet and yet, as we know, a world without rules is not a happy place.
So here he is having expected to open his doors to the thoughts of his admiring fans and instead, his every utterance is picked apart within minutes he is faced with the concept that the world is full of morons and they can just as easily oppose him as support him.
His "journalistic" style is probably more vulnerable than most to such treatment.
What really galls him is that he was probably a vocal proponent of "freedom of the internet", anti censorship of any kind and the CiF was an extension of that belief.
Now he realises that a world without rules is not a happy place.
Most fora (forums?) rather than blogs, have a policy statement and require contributors to be registered and have a password and user name to log in. That way, if their behaviour offends they can not only see their posts removed but their access denied.
This is very effective in some of the forums I subscribe to and it is worth noting that the Telegraph has both blogs with CiF and columns with regsitered user comments only. I know which provides the more sensible dialogue.
The only problem I see is a potential tendency for George Moonbat to exercise his censorship skills with great reluctance at first but an increasing willingness accompanied by less and less impartiality until it becomes blatant censorship fo the worst kind - does he support the idea of "deniers" being prosecuted? it is a short step from this bit of nonsense to a full on Orwellian blogstate.