Forum Rules Version 18 [Last Revision: 29 April 2026]

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Added guidelines around AI / LLM use. Short answer - don't use it as a source.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/pages/rules/

 

[Apophenia]

Just curious, would climate change denial fit under "general conspiracy theories"?

 

[Sferrin]

Just curious, would climate change denial fit under "general conspiracy theories"?

Why would it? Doesn't your "science" allow discussion?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Why would it? Doesn't your "science" allow discussion?

Climate change doubt is not climate change denial. Climate change denial as a conspiracy theory would be a belief that some shadowy (UN?) agency is perpetrating a global scientific fraud about climate change for nefarious reasons. I'd suggest that discussions along those lines would indeed come under the conspiracy theory umbrella and not be welcome on the forum.

Doubting that climate change is settled science doesn't require belief in a conspiracy, though a certain amount of contrarianism and self-interest might be ingredients in some cases.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Science certainly expects theories to be tested, and attributing climate change to human action is a theory that should be tested, because it has very important consequencies.

There does comes a point however when you have to abandon your belief in the luminiferous aether and accept special relativity.

 

[Sferrin]

Science certainly expects theories to be tested, and attributing climate change to human action is a theory that should be tested, because it has very important consequencies.

There does comes a point however when you have to abandon your belief in the luminiferous aether and accept special relativity.

IMO most of the argument is less about does it exist and more about what to do about it.

 

[EmoBirb]

Rather than questioning about "should X count as a rule violation", we should collectively seek to just avoid such controversial off-topic stuff knowing it will simply lead to user confrontations. And yes, the bar is for off-topic stuff, but do we really have to cram everything into the forum no matter what? Everyone can have their opinions about the existence, cause, scale and effects of climate change, but do we really have to turn this forum into the stage for such discussions? Isn't there enough mud slinging and politics in on-topic, military related threads already?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Climate change is the rule, not the exception.

It has been produced for as long as the planet has had an atmosphere by a large number of random factors that may cause a mass extinction only by insignificant changes in global temperature or atmospheric composition. This has already happened several times caused for things like a small variation in the tilt of the planet's axis, the solar system entering into a cloud of gas that decreases solar radiation, the activation of magma currents, changes in the atmosphere produced by non-human biological activity, sudden changes in sunspot cycles, variations of the Earth's magnetic field, or in periodic reversals of the magnetic poles. These are titanic forces of nature, whereas plastics, aerosols and carbon dioxide generated by human activity are peanuts compared to them. But they are factors that politicians can influence to generate personal economic benefits.

When an issue is used as a political weapon by many media, debates arise that are artificially aimed at creating a false narrative that benefits a small part of society, always the same.

It is understandable that the authorities who run this forum strive to keep debates and opinions away from topics that can easily drift from science and technology to politics and propaganda.

But the price is the impoverishment of the debates, and the result is as sterile as the inside of a washing machine.

I understand the situation, but my experience tells me that the reality of the outside world always ends up filtering through despite the rules.

My respects to all of you for your opinions and your good intentions.

 

[Arjen]

Quotes in chronological order:

Climate change denial as a conspiracy theory

debates arise that are artificially aimed at creating a false narrative that benefits a small part of society

 

[Jemiba]

Why would it? Doesn't your "science" allow discussion?

Before it's forgotten, principally the answer is already given in forum rule N° 1 : "The primary purpose of the forum is to discuss unbuilt projects, military and aerospace technology in various forms."

Of course it is allowed to be discussed ... but here isn't a suitable place for such discussions ! There are other, better places for such questions, were climate change is said to be the deed of the reptiloids, that are secretly ruling the world. Or just deliberate arithmetical errors, hyped to terrify people, making them buy overpriced air conditioners ... or whatever.

As long, as climate change isn't accepted as a Boeing/Airbus/Sukhoi project for the 8th generation fighter, or something like this, most members without doubt are very interested in it, but don't want to be bothered with it here.

 

[UpForce]

Quotes in chronological order:

Also quotes in chronological order:

factors that may cause a mass extinction only by insignificant changes in global temperature or atmospheric composition

plastics, aerosols and carbon dioxide generated by human activity are peanuts

"Insignificant" can apparently be catastrophically more consequential than "peanuts", then. Certainly more titanic. What can be stated in no uncertain terms however (because it's about money and not some fluffy pie in the sky stuff like physics and chemistry), is that fossil energy worldwide gets about fivefold more direct public funding than renewable energy (the costs of fossil energy associated wars and such being a wholly separate accounting matter, of course). Global energy use is increasing and while renewables do grow at a slightly greater rate than fossil based energy is, the latter is also on a growth track. Indeed, in terms of Joules fossil energy represents about the same quotient of the total as of direct public funding.

It is also true that the issue of climate change can be debated, at length and in depth, on various, numerous, veritable plethora of fora. On the most general level possible, given the above facts, I'm always somewhat surprised that proponents of essentially unrestricted fossil fuel use even bother reacting to contrary research or observations. From their viewpoint things, in real meaningful terms, should objectively be seen as going well or even great, after all. Some of course do attempt to douse the flaming by throwing the oil of "controversy" over the waves (pardon the mixed metaphors in that construction), the great pacifists and humanitarians that they are. Perhaps the heat of the moment and verbiage can't be wholly decoupled though, but are inextricably joined in the human experience. In all, we're all capable of expending energy debating the energy debate.

The energy debate debate is a great debate for unrestricted fossil fuel proponents to have as, debatably, it increases energy use in its part and thus contributes to the growth of fossil fuel industry as well. Possibly at somewhat cross purposes as an off topic debate drawing attention to climate change though, but much more insubstantial than a mere energy debate. The energy debate debate is also a subset of the rules and moderation demarcation debate where it can illustrate differences between "conspiracy theories" (I'd use dis-/misinformation instead since it's ontologically more clear cut) and arguing within the margins of error and unknowability of science, all the while being actively discouraged as a whole. Got it. And that's about as clear as I can get in this debate because ... Wait, what were we on about, again?

 

[Arjen]

We have resurrected an argument in a now closed thread - in a forum feedback thread. Not for the first time. Reopen closed threads?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Or don't.

 

[Antonio]

We have resurrected an argument in a now closed thread - in a forum feedback thread. Not for the first time. Reopen closed threads?

I am with Jemiba. Why do we need to debate again about energy in a forum devoted to unbuilt technology (well, actually expanded very much into general military and war porn) ?.
There are some subjects that fit in the Bar as circumstantially related to the main subject. But please, think about them as off-topic.
I'm not visiting the forum for it.