FFS Global Warming Policy
(9) Comments
Discuss In ForumsThe global warming debate that has dominated our forum posts is distracting from the Focus Fusion Mission. It will hereby be capped by Monday, June 7, 2010.
Global Warming Debate Distracts from Our Mission
The goal of the Focus Fusion Society is to make net energy from fusion a reality. We will approach this goal from every angle we can come up with.
Debating global warming has no place in this strategy. Global warming speculation is a drain on our organization’s resources and alienates many of the people who would be likely to further the mission.
Global Warming Debate Is not relevant to Focus Fusion
Please note that if mankind can find a way to generate net energy from aneutronic fusion, that will mean a world with abundant energy that doesn’t create greenhouse gases.
This will be a big relief to those worried about global warming.
It will likewise be a relief to global warming skeptics who are worried about the effect of carbon taxes on the economy.
However, it will not technically resolve the argument. It is not an argument clincher. It can’t validate either camp of the debate. It doesn’t prove the science of green house gases or climatology one way or the other.
It simply provides green-house-gas-free energy.
It simply makes the argument moot.
Given how unpleasant the argument can be, making it moot is a great contribution, and for that reason alone, I think many people should support the Focus Fusion Society mission.
Policy
In order to reduce the global warming distraction from the site, we will take the following steps:
Global Warming Forum Cap & Trade
We will cap the conversation on global warming.
Going forward from today, new topic threads regarding global warming and related arguments will be deleted.
Currently existing threads will remain, but they will be closed (capped).
What this means is that no new posts can be made on global warming. There are, however, some “trade” possibilities. If you really want to, you can go into an old post of your own and edit it, update it, improve it. You can send someone else within the thread a private message and ask them to edit their post.
Policy Effective Date
You have until Monday to put in one final post to the global warming threads. I suggest a link to a forum elsewhere where you will be continuing the debate. We don’t believe in silencing anyone - just redirecting them to appropriate venues.
You also have until Monday to let me know which threads to shut down, as I haven’t been keeping track of them all. You can use the comment section here to send me the links.
On Monday, June 7, the global warming debate on the FFS site will be shut down.
And then we can focus all our energy on making fusion happen!
Two Paths to Fusion
End of May Update Soon
Comments
Tnx Rezwan. I really love not to have to debate any GW on this forum (and probably any other forum) :*.
I think somebody could post links to a forum where such debate is appropriate.
I also think it might be a good idea to clarify what can or cannot be discussed in relation to general Scepticism/Scientific method and Denialism/Alarmism.
I’m also glad this debate gets bunked. It distracts from our main concern, building (or at least supporting) a DPF based fusion reactor.
Bravo for taking the neutral position, and good job communicating that in your post. Too many people let their differences define them, and use those to demonize their opposition, when both sides should be working together to make the argument moot.
Go Team Focus Fusion!
Very well said. Capping that untenable argument is long overdue, imo.
Enough said imo…provocative signatures on the subject should be filtered too?
Having been one of the offenders myself I humbly apologise and submit to the common voice.
Could I suggest in response to Breakable’s enquiry… “I also think it might be a good idea to clarify what can or cannot be discussed in relation to general Scepticism / Scientific method and Denialism / Alarmism.” ...that the latter couplet is so closely associated with the matter being capped that the two words should also be excluded.
There are indeed plenty of other places…
I have to agree with Rezwan’s argument and policy change. We must keep focused on the prize which would be a cheap, unlimited source of electricity. Global warming will always be mired in controversy, and to be drawn into such conflicts can only harm the cause of Focus Fusion.
Honestly, this issue is one of the reasons my posting was reduced; I was tired of seeing this topic highjacking unrelated topics. IMO, it is generally irrelevant to the topic of focus fusion unless a cap/tax becomes the direct funding mechanism, so good riddance of all of these discussions. So, welcome back to me? Maybe not, but welcome back to staying on topic!
Post a Comment