2011-02-13 15:33:56Editing Arguments
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.217.214

How to edit a skeptic argument

  • Click on Admin in the left margin to access "Super Admin
  • Scroll down to the search form which lets you search arguments. Search for your argument.
  • If your argument doesn't appear in the search results, try a shorter search. If it does appear in the search results, click on the argument title.
  • Then you can edit all the database fields for that argument.

How to edit a rebuttal

  • When you're looking at the rebuttal, look for the "Edit Rebuttal" link at the bottom of the rebuttal. This will take you to the Super Admin edit form where you can change the rebuttal author.

How to make a skeptic argument "live"

For an argument to go live, several conditions must be met (sorry about all the steps, it just kind of evolved this way):

  • The argument must have a Filename.
  • The argument's Argument Status must be set to Published.
  • The argument's Code must have a value. The Code is used in the sks.to short URL. Eg - http://sks.to/sun/
  • The argument must have a Fixed Num. If it's not already assigned, do so via Add New Rebuttal.
  • The argument needs a One Liner. Usually this is grabbed from the Basic Rebuttal or if there isn't one, do a simplified version of the Intermediate Rebuttal. Keep it under 100 characters.
  • It won't appear in the Arguments List unless there is at least one skeptic article submitted with this argument assigned to it. So you need to find an example of a skeptic article online and submit it via the Firefox Add-on.
  • It won't appear in the Taxonomy List unless it's parent argument is published and listed on the Taxonomy list. So make sure the Parent Argument is already listed.
  • And of course, it needs a rebuttal! :-)
2011-03-08 16:23:06Problem making rebuttals live
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.166.156

My “It’s not urgent” rebuttal still doesn’t appear on the Arguments or Taxonomy list, even though it fulfills all the above criteria. Is there a criterion I’m missing?

Dana has evidently had the same problem because several of his recent rebuttals don’t appear either:

  • IPCC disappeared the Medieval Warm Period (I tried adding a one-liner in the argument form, but it didn’t seem to make any difference)
  • Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
  • CO2 limits will make little difference

Similarly, how do you get arguments to appear on the Monckton Myths list? The following are still listed as unpublished on the Monckton Myths page:

  • Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
  • CO2 limits will make little difference
  • It’s not urgent
2011-03-16 23:07:07Two more
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.190

“Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater” and “Removing all CO2 would make little difference” also are not appearing on the Arguments list. What's going on?

2011-03-19 16:23:09All fixed
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.20.55

I did some tweaks to the code (which needed to be done to reflect changes to the database) so all these arguments are now appearing. Sorry about the delay in responding.

Note though - I changed the status of "CO2 limits will make no difference", "Ljungqvist", "West Side Highway" and "It's not Urgent" from Approved to Published.

Once an argument is set to Published, it will appear in Monckton Myths.

Ljungqvist was also not appearing because there were no submitted articles with that argument - I found one on WUWT.

I think we need to review the "10,000 years were warmer" rebuttal before its fit for public consumption.

Re "Removing all co2", I decided not to publish that rebuttal as Chris considered it more a standalone blog post than a rebuttal to an argument.

Oh and making these fixes has got our # of arguments up to 152! Just cracked the 150 mark, nice milestone :-)

2011-04-08 11:58:59"CO2 limits will hurt the poor"
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.165.139

"CO2 limits will hurt the poor" was missing from the taxonomy list so I recategorised it under "It's too hard".

2011-04-08 12:01:31Thanks James
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Hard to keep track of all these little glitches so appreciate you spotting and fixing this.

2011-04-11 16:41:02Technical questions
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.163.208

I've created a rebuttal out of Robert's Arctic 1940 post and made it live, but have a few technical questions:

  • At the bottom of the page it says "Rebuttal written by N/A", even though I listed Robert as the "user". Why is this?
  • What's the difference between the "one-liner" and the "soundbyte"? Do both need to be filled in?
  • What’s the difference between the argument “code” and “short URL”? I initially filled in the "short URL" field but that didn't work, so I tried "code" and that did work. This is counter-intuitive.

I've also made Dana's "Renewable energy is too expensive" rebuttal live and assigned it the short URL "expensive". Hope that's okay.

2011-04-11 16:53:14Rebuttal credit
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

The rebuttal credit is actually taken from the rebuttal database, not the argument database. I'm pretty sure the Argument credit is now defunct - it's an artifact from the old days when there were no multi-level rebuttals

Yes, fill in both the one-liner and soundbyte. The one-liner needs to be less than 100 characters. The soundbyte can be a bit longer.

Short URL is another defunct field - I'll delete that once I'm sure it's not being used anywhere on the website.

Thanks for adding the renewable energy rebuttal. Great work, James, thanks for keeping it all ship shape. Sorry about the messy database structure, it's evolved over time and like biological evolution, that leaves certain vestiges of older, primitive forms :-)

2011-04-11 17:02:31Rebuttal author
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.163.208

How do I change the rebuttal author then?

2011-04-11 17:05:09How to change rebuttal author
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

When you're looking at the rebuttal, look for the "Edit Rebuttal" link at the bottom of the rebuttal. This will take you to the Super Admin edit form where you can change the rebuttal author.

2011-04-11 17:07:41Okay, one more thing
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.163.208

What's the story with the "Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels" rebuttal? Is it ready to go live?

2011-05-10 23:20:07More unpublished rebuttals
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.143.197

The following rebuttals are still not live despite having been published as blog posts:

Is there any reason for these not being published as rebuttals or should I go ahead and make them live?

Also, should Monckton Myth #16 be used as a rebuttal for “Sea level is not rising”?

2011-05-11 02:10:20
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I published it's internal variability.

2011-05-11 06:01:31Unpublished rebuttals
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188
Yes, James, do please publish these. They haven't been published because no one has got around to it yet! Thanks for spotting these.

Dana, thanks for publishing internal variability.

2011-05-11 06:02:46
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

You're up early.  :)

2011-05-11 06:28:33
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I meant that I had already published internal variability, back when I did the associated Christy Crock.  CO2 limits won't cool the planet is also published.  CO2 is plant food basic and advanced were published.  So was Removing all CO2 would make little difference.

2011-05-11 12:06:22
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.167.138

In each case the Argument Status needed to be changed from Approved to Published, and the Code needed a value. I’ve published them all except “Removing all CO2 would make little difference”, which has no articles assigned to it.

2011-05-11 14:38:08Removing all CO2 articles
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

Doesn't Dana link to some articles by Lindzen where he argues removing CO2 makes little difference?

2011-05-11 14:59:30
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Hmm that's a bit tricky.  The argument is 'CO2 limits won't make a difference', which isn't far from 'removing CO2 won't make a difference'.  That's talking about removing all CO2.  We could apply it to Lindzen's 1992 article where he says CO2 is only 3 W/m2 while water vapor is over 100 W/m2.  If that were true, removing CO2 really wouldn't make much difference.  I'll go add it with Firefox.

2011-05-14 19:10:51Have added a quote, one-liner, and summary to “Removing all CO2”
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
121.79.12.89

Skeptic quote (I was unable to get the Congress video to work, so had to add a not-quite-relevant quote from Lindzen’s 1992 Cato article):

"Cloud cover in models is poorly treated and inaccurately predicted. Yet clouds reflect about seventy-five watts per square meter. Given that a doubling of carbon dioxide would change the surface heat flux by only two watts per square meter, it is evident that a small change in cloud cover can strongly affect the response to carbon dioxide." (Richard Lindzen)

One-liner:

Removing CO2 would cause most water in the air to rain out and cancel most of the greenhouse effect.

Summary for advanced version:

75% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds, which rain out of the atmosphere if it cools. This makes water vapor a strong positive feedback to any change in non-condensing greenhouse gases. CO2 constitutes 80% of the non-condensing greenhouse gas forcing. Removing CO2 would remove most of the water, cancelling most of the greenhouse effect and cooling the Earth by 30 C.

(Technical question: does the “SEO title” field need to be filled?)

2011-05-14 20:04:57SEO field
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188
The SEO field has one purpose - it allows you to change the headline so it's not just repeating the climate myth. Otherwise you might actually reinforce the myth. So I like to use an alternate headline that is more of an open question, if possible suggesting the answer. So not essential but advisable for messaging reasons.
2011-05-14 21:02:52MM#16
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
121.79.12.89

Dana, I have turned your MM#16 into a rebuttal of “Sea level is not rising”. I’ve made some edits to better fit the rebuttal format – you might want to check if you’re happy with them.

That brings us to 163 rebutted arguments. I remember when the site only had 70! Do we still have the to-do argument list ordered by frequency?

2011-05-14 21:54:13To do args
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188
Don't know, is there a to do list argued by frequency? This page does (bottom of page) for just Monckton usage: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

But two args that are long overdue a rebuttal are:

CO2 is just a trace gas
There's no link between global warming and extreme weather