User talk:S2

From RCwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Thought I'd use the talk page to talk :-)

Looks like you've hit the ground running, excellent! Some quick notes.

I am afraid I don't know how familiar you are with editing a wiki (seem to be fine though). I try to use the 'Discussion" pages for each page, so the place to discuss format/structure of the home page for "help" and hence whatever conventions we decide on.

I have disinterred an old forum of mine in case that is more helpful, at least in the short term.

I use my own discussion page as a "to do" list, but that precludes using it for discussion, so that is far from optimal. Why don't I just create a "Mike's ToDo Page"? Too obvious! Ok, I think I'll do that.

I think it would be good if we had a common "outstanding tasks" page, but the organization of it would be critical.

For the moment I would say a back log priority would be the "Myths" section. Basically using Coby's organization as an index

and taking the issues one by one and building the relevant page taking rebuttals from the "standard list"

   * A Thorough Debunking
   * Climate change controversies: a simple guide
   * Climate change debate summary
   * Climate Change Myths
   * Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed
   * Common Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics
   * Debunking the Urban Legends of Climate Change
   * How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic 
   * Response to common contrarian arguments
   * Skeptical Science
   * Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam
   * TEN POPULAR MYTHS About Global Climate Change

collating them and adding it to the home page. Very soon we are going to have to talk about organizing them (and their own page), but that is something to we have to discuss with Gavin.

You will discover that the page organization was more random when the wiki started and at some point we should go back and standardize them, but probably not an issue yet.

As for a blog post ... oh yeah, let's talk.

Welcome :-)

Cheers, Mike. :)
Have we actually got an agreed standard yet? [1] The Christopher Monckton page looks about right to me. [2]
Bringing everything to the same standard would be a lot of work, but it is probably better if it is done sooner rather than later. [3]
A common "outstanding tasks" page sounds like a good idea to me (if only to avoid possible duplication of effort). I'd started to research Claude Allegre, since he's in the list but didn't have a page - but I don't know if anyone else is already working on this.[4]


[1] Not entirely, but I just went with what seemed the dominant good one and I think at this point it is a fait accompli.

[2] Agreed

[3] Yes and no. I am making keeping up a priotity (and failing), cleaning up old pages when they get updated - the logic being that old Deniers have less relevance, and probably almost no one is looking to debunk a 3 yr old article. When we get more folks I think we should systematically clean up everything, and make sure we all adhere to the same protocol in the meantime.

[4] Looks good to me. Here again I am using a different approach, prioritizing current articles rather than thoroughly researching a given individual. As I run into older material in my net surfing I add it regardless of how current (up to a point).

Up until very recently it was pretty much just me with the occasional post by Gavin (for the last 4 months anyway). He seems to have gotten Michael Mann and Coby going now to, so things are humming nicely.

More later, but another post went popular so a tonne of comments.

NB Colons will indent a paragraph, which if we do so for every 2nd post makes the page more readable and clearer who said what where. Multiple colons indent further if one is creating a threaded comment forum analog.

The signature button (2nd from right) will sign and time your post, which can be useful info.

--Greenfyre 12:44, 4 December 2008 (EST)

since this is where we are discussing things, here's an idea. I know that Coby et al have set out the myths 'straight' (i.e. by quoting the incorrect idea), but there is a lot of evidence that this just ends up reinforcing peoples misconceptions, even if you conclude the exact opposite. Would it not therefore be a little better to phrase the myths section as real questions? i.e. Are chaotic systems predictable? Is the CO2 rise natural? etc. Admin 20:31, 5 December 2008 (EST)

That makes sense to me.
Should we be thinking about categorising the myths as well? For example, "Do CO2 observations match Climate observations?" pointing to a new page containing (e.g.)
   * Is the CO2 record reliable?
   * Is CO2 rising as fast as projected?
   * Does CO2 lag the temperature?
   * (etc., etc.)
It might stop the main page from getting too cluttered and unweildy.
One question - I don't appear to be able to rename a page. If I've got this right I can create a copy of a page with a new title, but I can't then delete the old page. Is there a method of flagging such orphaned pages so that someone else can delete them at a later date? --S2 08:26, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Since you are concerned about the titles (and quite correctly), how about making them declarative statements?

   * The CO2 record is reliable
   * CO2 is rising as fast as projected
   * The CO2 lag is a distraction, CO2 does drive the temperature?
   * (etc., etc.)

Could be tricky in some instances, but sure solves the problem.

re: old pages ... as far as I know only Gavin has that level of Admin, so just give him the url of the page to die and he will delete it. --Greenfyre 01:20, 8 December 2008 (EST)

My apologies S2, I did not want to reroute the conversation. Do we have a page that shows all the myths we are dealing with? I think categories might help so we should consider the scope of subjects if that is decided to be a good direction. --Jreisman 04:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)

No need to apologise.

I'm basically working from this: . Feel free to join in. If we create a link to a myth before we start working on it we should be able to spot when a topic is already being worked on, and avoid duplication of effort.

I agree that categories would be good, but we can work on that later (I would like to know what Greenfyre & Admin think about this). --S2 04:51, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Would you like me to connect those to RC articles then? Do you have a format for multiple articles that address the issue?

       === 1. Inadequate evidence ===
              * There is no evidence
                 Article Title 17 Aug. 2008
                 Article Title 23 Nov. 2007
                 Article Title 05 Feb. 2006

I can pick away at it when able... or is this still in consideration? --Jreisman 06:13, 13 December 2008 (EST)

We're not just restricting rebuttals to RC articles. I'm basically following Greenfyre's suggestions at the top of the page. We don't seem to have a formal format, I'm just trying to keep my contributions reasonably consistent with earlier ones. If we do agree a format then that will mean changes, but I'm happy with that (most of the leg work is in finding suitable links, retrospective format changes shouldn't be a big deal).

I wish I could be more helpful, but I've only been here for about a week myself. Hopefully one of the others will join in this conversation soon. --S2 08:49, 13 December 2008 (EST)