2010-08-30 12:37:04First advanced rebuttal: Ned's blog post on surface temperature
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.125.135

I've just added the first advanced rebuttal. I took Ned's extensive blog post on surface temperature and used it as is for the rebuttal that the surface temperature record is unreliable:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Am loving the look of the 3 tabs with their ski icons :-) (I'm a bit of geek that way)

Anyway, Robert Way reminds me that there is a lot of gold in the blog archives that isn't currently being used in the rebuttals. So if anyone has suggestions on how we can integrate existing content into the rebuttals, I'm all ears. This can be to create new rebuttals or integrate into existing rebuttals, at all 3 levels. Suggestions welcome :-)

2010-08-30 15:00:16Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.188.138
It actually does look great to have the three icons and to have them clickable. I think it will be a huge advantage for consolidation and for people to really dive into the information. I'll have a look through some of the archives and see if there's any others easy to spot. It really can be an issue that we see great blog posts sometimes get lost with time.

I really have to say i'm quite enthusiastic about how all this has worked out so far with the forum!
2010-08-30 17:05:29Consensus infographic
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
58.105.164.221

I know I've made a number of these suggestions in the past. In particular, this infographic seems too good to leave buried in a dark corner of the archives. It compares the support for AGW among scientists, the media, and the public: around 97% for scientists, but only 28% for the US media and 26% for the UK public.

2010-08-31 14:07:15looks good
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99

I'd suggest changing the heading formats to Heading 3 instead of Heading 2, so they're smaller and will fit on one line.

Just a couple other minor formatting comments.  Your Figure 2 isn't centered, but all the rest are.  About halfway through where you say " One prominent claim (by Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts..." there's an extra space before the start of the sentence.  And I would suggest bulleting the 3 points above it rather than using stars.

No comments on the content though - a very thorough and good job.

2010-09-01 09:36:24Formatting tweaked
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.162.78
Thanks for the formatting tips, have made these changes. Always appreciate advice on improving the content, whether it be the text or formatting - it all makes a difference.
2010-09-01 09:59:33looks good
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99
I think those changes improved it a bit visually.  I'd say it's ready for publication.
2010-09-01 10:10:44Already published
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.162.78
This was actually a blog post from a few weeks back. The initial blog post formatting was a little scratchy - the revised rebuttal has fixed a lot of those little glitches.
2010-09-02 00:31:07
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
129.170.23.6

This was actually a blog post from a few weeks back. The initial blog post formatting was a little scratchy - the revised rebuttal has fixed a lot of those little glitches.

 

Sorry about that, John.  I think I've gotten better at this since I wrote that one.  I actually had a few problems with the editor at the time, probably due to my tendency to mix in html tags indiscriminately while I'm in WYSIWYG mode.  Perhaps as its way of protesting against that, the editor kept randomly deleting sections of my post each time I saved it.

I ran into much less trouble (none?) with the more recent posts on Greenland and the Great Lakes.  (That's not to say that there aren't goofs with the formatting in those posts, just that it seemed to go more smoothly while I was writing them!)

2010-09-03 14:31:16Scratchy formatting
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
Sorry Ned, no slight was intended towards you. The problem is, as you say, the editor - it has a lot of weird tics and quirks. Particularly when you import text from MS Word which brings it's own set of nasty baggage. I find the only surefire way to get things looking exactly as you want it is to edit the raw HTML code. And I don't expect any of the authors to have to be HTML experts to get their code pristine and markup perfect. I'm quite happy to go through and clean up the code. I'm just appreciative and immensely grateful for the fantastic content you and the other authors are providing.
2010-10-13 08:59:41
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
81.157.9.88

I thought this was great the first time around...