mikk: <"One thing that was mentioned is that there is a dearth of female readers/posters apparently and some feel this may be due to the "flaming" that regularly goes on here. What do the females who do post here think? Is this too much like a boys locker room for you? Does the flaming that goes on put anyone off and why?">

No locker room as such doesn't worry me. In fact, I think these boards are pretty tame on the whole, though there are some really silly and nasty posts at times.

(Mikk I am sorry to hear about that; damned rugged. I would be mortified too. Hope you are ok.)

Runner is mistaken.

I, for one, am scientifically qualified. Multiply.

I gather from terminology alone that numerous others on OLO are at least similarly or more highly qualified. Some just as clearly are not.

Restricting comments to the "scientifically qualified" might well exclude runner, yet still run to double figures on many posts.

I'll take the chance.


Rusty

"Have debates on OLO degenerated into name-calling and hatred?"

I don't think so!

Though there are a few too many that treat the site like it's some kind of Articulate Olympics, they're quite boring really. A simple f.... you goes a long way to saving bandwidth and time and achieves the same result. It's the PC morons that get under my skin, but not too much, I can handle it :)

The old saying, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", should be practiced more often around here I reckon :)

Thanks all, this has been an interesting discussion. I would agree that OLO has always been a fairly "robust" forum and I've dished it out myself, though I've probably copped more than my fair share in return ( thanks very much, you'll get yours in the end). Most posters put up with it, perhaps the more delicate have gone elsewhere?

But looking at the Monckton thread "viciously emotive language, irrelevant hyperbole and hysteria", "hogwash", "strident hand flapping and irrational claptrap", "lying is a way of life", "propagandists", "lambasted here by the usual suspects", "immoral international wealth redistribution scam", I mean really? Granted, Monckton's piece was an inflammatory diatribe, but this isn't a debate, is it? Especially seeing the REALLY offensive posts were deleted. Guess I'm just not inventive enough to post on a thread like that.

Seems to me that its easier to sling an insult (or a cliche like "can't stand the heat") than to put together a well-reasoned argument with some hard evidence to back it up.

Oh I see Rusty 'the science is settled'.

runner: "Oh I see Rusty 'the science is settled'"

Why would you care whether the science is settled or not? The basic principles of evolution are most definitely settled and accepted by all scientists who work in the area (and most who don't), yet you regard it hog wash.

Besides, I don't see any climate scientists saying their science is settled. Come to that, Rusty didn't say it either. The one thing most climate scientists do seem to agree on is their computer models do a "reasonable" job of predicting the climate, and they are the best thing tool they have for doing that right now. That is not what I would call settled. I doubt any scientist would call it settled when compared to say Newtons laws of motion.