Feb
Let’s build a climategate wiki together!
Good news. Climategate.com will very soon embark on building the most comprehensive wiki for information on climategate, and truth in climate change data.
It will not be a wiki that is open to everyone to edit–that just creates havoc. Instead, although any person will be able view the information, it will be edited only by invited and approved skeptics. Yes, skeptics only. Unlike Wikipedia which pretends to be unbiased, we will not hide our bias…for the truth. And we’ll be keeping the number of editors to a manageable number.
That being said, we have no experience with wikis. The software (very user firendly, unlike MediaWiki (which runs Wikipedia) has been selected, and is currently getting set up. We will provide a basic structure, and then let the editors go to town on it, keeping hands our off as much as possible (others are smarter than us, and we got enough work to do anyway). We’re not going to waste time getting the “look” of it perfect, we just want to start building information. The structure will be dynamic, as we learn about wikis along with some of you.
So, here’s what we need from readers now. We’d like some ideas on how to set up the basic structure of the site (think of a table of contents), and think about what types of information we should set the content structure up for. Then, once we get the structure pressty settled, we’ll open it up.
Some of the obvious things are:
Common questions (like we have in our Q&A section)
- People
- Organizations
- Scientific principles
- …
So, please think on this, and post in the comments what categories of information you think should be in the Wiki and how you think it is best structured.
Hopefully, we’ll get it up and running next week.
The reasons for the scam and the reasons to defeat it, including financial & social implications.
Please trawl our site if its any use….
This could easily get so far to the “right” that it loses credibility. Some of the “expert skeptics” may be WRONG on some things. You need a check/balance system. Maybe just a forum to discuss the “facts” provided.
I second this!
JAE, I agree. Above all we must not allow the science to be skewed by politicization as two ‘wrongs’ won’t make a ‘right’. A ‘comments’ or forum section would be best and done with total transparency – freedom of access to register dissent is always good way to ensure balance.
There is a problem with the notion “sceptic”. It has a negative connotation. I would propose the word “realist” instead. The climate realist community.
I’d love to contribute! I have tonnes of data that I have been collecting over the past 5 years and the clowns at wiki will not include it because it does not agree with their agenda. I have been banned many many times for no reason other than contrivances.
I am a scientist and an amateur solar astronomer, as well as a thermodynamicist. I have authored and had published scientific papers in materials.
I have signed the petition project petition and am not convinced that the world is warming unusually or as a result of human activity. Nor do I think it would be bad if it did.
I have an open mind on the subject.
1.Good idea but not as a substitute for Climategate.com but complimentary to each other.
2.Among the contributors very skilful “financial invstigative journalists and interpreters”
Best of Luck to you and thru you to the Mankind.
re: “basic structure of the site”
1/ Please start with the raw data, as much as you can get, both satellite and ground.
2/ The quality of the data is just as important as the raw numbers and how were measurements made. Did they paint the meteorological station box? What are the graduations, the errors in reading, calibrations, painting the sensor box white etc. What are the errors and conditions associated with satellites.
Sections 1 and 2 if you like.
Don’t forget the difference between measurement errors normally shown with error bars and the natural variability of the process variables normally denoted as sigma(=1 std dev).
Accuracy, precision, resolution and reproducibility are all different.
Boring eh?
The science is in the numbers.
From an very interested engineering physicist.
Good points, but please keep banging them home to us non-scientists. And don’t just monitor us – actively contribute wherever possible. We do welcome your expert guidance because we are bound to make mistakes. We want to ensure any such mistakes are quickly rectified so that warmists cannot readily debunk our work.
Layout could be:
A column with brief alarmist ‘facts’ on the left, click on the ‘fact’ and it clicks through to a truth summary, followed with another link (or side by side column)of more detailed scientific (real) facts
Great!
I’ll do my best to translate articles or excerpts from them into Spanish, or at least publish links to them, in order to spread skepticism amid Spanish talking people.
excellent idea, Heber!
You need an entry on scientific method. You need to explain how science has been practiced since Galileo. You need to explain that scientists formulate hypotheses and perform experiments to confirm or disconfirm those hypotheses. You need to explain that science is first and foremost an endeavor in criticism. Sure, any scientist can propose a hypothesis, but the number of hypotheses that capture the attention of a scientific community is tiny. Most scientists do critical work on someone else’s hypothesis or experiments. Within a scientific commuity, debate and disagreement are not only commonplace but the very energy of the community. Genuine scientists are happy to see their competitors get published because it presents an opportunity to advance the debate. Refusing to share raw data is the same thing as giving a fundamentally incomplete report on an experiment, and it is absolutely morally wrong.
At this time, Climategaters make outrageous claims. I will use Al Gore just to make the point. He has said that the science is settled. That claim is pre-Galilean. If it is true that the science is settled then it follows that no experiment regarding the behavior of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere could possibly be relevant to hypotheses about global warming and, therefore, the science has transcended all experimental inquiry. That would be a first since the publication of Galileo’s Two World Systems. It would contradict everything we know about scientific method.
Theo, I hope you are considering offering your services in this matter – the importance of scientific methods and ethics need to be brought home to everyone.
I second Theo’s comment regarding an explanation of the scientific method. To be fair to those who have not been fair the term “settled science” is a political bastardization of “we have enough knowledge to proceed” or as that idiot at the NYT Friedman said “I’m for it even if there’s only a 1 percent chance they are right” Apparently throwing the crap on the wall is enough to settle it in Friedman’s mind. Of course the political people tried to use it to push us further into the dark beyond the campfire of civilization. Maybe my concern about fairness is misplaced. Screw em. Lets shove that “denier” thing down their throats.
Sounds like a great idea, will get the word out!
[...] New balanced climate resource proposed [...]
[...] Climategate is looking at building a new climate wiki – more here [...]
Hi there!
We did just that, CHECKOUT
http://www.hidethedecline.eu
You are very welcome to use articles, it would be nice with a reference to us then. Hope you like.
K.R. Frank Lansner
You can find a lot of links to back articles on Climategate and the follow-up revelations of fraud from around the world at http://www.NewsWatchCanada.ca/climategate.html
At the heart of our work must be the math that supports all their claims. When it’s all on the table top for all of us to see and analyze, I think the rest will ‘>FALL<' into place.
We need archeive what these Alarmist say, and feed it back to them when they contradict themselves.
Maybe we ask one of the more articulate alarmist leaders to lead us through the gathering of the data, the validation of the data, and the mathlab or other code that produces this warming trend.
Then maybe we can have a discussion as to how it compares to previous periods.
Alarmists should jump at the chance to validate their case!
excellent point, gb. Genuine alarmist scientists should relish the chance to put their case in their opponent’s forum.
I also have archived a few things and will be happy to share. For the moment though, here is one website/article which really connects the dots. http://tinyurl.com/ycqa83t
Electronics 101, when troubleshooting, ALWAYS start at the powersource = when troubleshooting Global Warming/Climate Change ALWAYS follow the money trail first!
Is it really asking too much that you actually spend a whole minute or two proofing your copy before slapping it online??
You should be embarrassed!
Atrocious crap like that does not help your cause at all!
(signed)
your mother.
‘mother’ put down the Kool-Aid and take your proper meds, that’s a good girl!
If you need somebody in Germany (climategate is not known in Germany alot, Climateuse Merkel is still hardcore AGW) just tell me…
yup. we do need you! We need this to be translated in other major languages asap.
This is an excellent idea! I just hope that, unlike the warmer community, the hubris can be kept down to a minimum. No one trusts any of their sources now, so in order to be viewed as honest this really should keep to all of the facts. In fact, it might be a good idea to separate raw data, analyses and arguments. This way, the hubris can at least be contained and won’t muck up the logic of analysis.
The website includes a post of mine today but is not my blog.
It concerns a short (2 min) ‘skeptical’ flic I finished today, located at youtube.
I’d be happy to review & possibly contribute.
The “so what?” to the voter is in the money. You need to hammer the financial implications of AGW to the ordinary person. So have a section on money
(a) Taxes – actual and planned as paid by business/industry that must be passed on to us. There are 4 categories of tax with a 5th planned. Consumer taxes – the 10% on electricity is just start. Experts think that energy costs in Uk could rise to £5K per annum!
(b) Academic Rewards = in terms of career and stipend. I’ve read that young academic scientists are often told to go get sponsorship to pay for themselves. How strong is temptation to write b/s for grants? More studies, more papers, more kudos and then a professor (and made).
(c) Gov’t motivation. Explore and expose the thinking behind this multiparty headlong rush towards AGW. It can’t just be Taxes, especially if your planning to give most of proceeds away to underdeveloped countries.
Stew, perhaps you could draft something up in more detail and make a submission on this?