2010-08-10 00:09:45List of rebuttals and who's doing what
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.17.49

To ensure no duplication, I've created a new page that lists all the skeptic arguments, which have been claimed and which have been published:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arg_list.php

There's also a link in the left margin, Rebuttal List. It's pretty basic so far - the only functionality is it lets you claim an argument (eg - click 'call dibs'). So if you're interested in writing a Basic version of an argument, check the Rebuttal List to see if anyone's claimed it. If not, click 'call dibs'. Then once you've written your rebuttal, post it as a new thread on the Authors Forum (be sure to include the argument number, as shown on the Rebuttal List).

Over the next few days, I will develop the Rebuttal List so you'll be able to add in your content, actually start populating the database. Thanks to Graham for suggesting this.

2010-08-10 04:31:44Removal of dibs
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
24.224.230.112
Hello John,
I was going to do #2 Climate's changed before but have now decided I will stay away from it for now. I was wondering if you could remove my dibs. Also I have to tell you that you should warn those doing that particular one to stay away from Mann's 2008 paper if they take this topic as it seems it has actually been invalidated by climate audit (as much as I hate to admit it they are right about the issue of the study failing verification statistics past 1500 for one)


Thanks for your time.
Robert Way
2010-08-10 10:33:31I think that's actually Santer 2008 CA is commenting on
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

Covered here http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/09/mckitrick-et-al-2010-accepted-by-atmos-sci-lett/

Warning, a little science, a lot of email sifting. 

2010-08-10 12:30:27
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.181.139

http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-illusion/

Mann's own words in the supplementary information "In addition to the tests described by ref. S1 which removed alternatively (a) all tree-ring data or (b) 7 additional long-term proxy records associated with greater uncertainties or potential documented biases (showing the temperature reconstruction was robust to removal of either of these datasets), we here removed both data sets simultaneously from the predictor network (Fig. S8). This additional test reveals that with the resulting extremely sparse proxy network in earlier centuries, a skillful reconstruction is no longer possible prior to AD 1500."

So what this means is that
Under either method (CPS or EIV) it is not possible to get a validated reconstruction to before 1500 without the use of tree rings, or the Tijlander sediments. The tijlander sediments were used incorrectly and upside down from the original published version and a corrigendum by Kaufmann et al. (who also used it upside down) was issued pertaining to this. http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/26/the-kaufman-corrigendum/

I'm not one of those climate audit junkees and I certainly disagree with how Mcintyre handles a lot of the stuff but I've been shown before by even climatology profs in my university time that it might be best to stick clear of Mann's reconstructions until the dust settles (although this debate has been going on for 10 years). Nevertheless. I saw your link there for the atmospheric science letters post and it is actually relatively interesting that they're finally going to publish something new again. Interesting to see how this all comes across once it has been analyzed by those who are capable of doing so.
2010-08-16 18:42:10
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.211
How about adding the arguments not having any kind of rebuttal yet to the list also?
2010-08-16 18:46:08To do arguments
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.17.49
That is the dream, that we also tackle unanswered arguments. Love that Ned hit that satellite argument last weekend. Will get to that soon but still ironing the kinks with existing rebuttals first.
2010-08-19 06:43:10Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.181.139
Maybe eventually this site will be like a rapid deployment system just waiting to pounce on skeptic arguments haha
2010-08-19 17:08:50Rapid deployment system
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.17.49
You may joke, Robert, but I created a Climate Response system a few months ago for that very purpose. I haven't really developed it much since but now that we have this fantastic forum of super friends, I may start to explore linking the two system together.
2010-08-19 17:22:07
watchingthedeniers

watchthedeniers@optusnet.com...
203.41.179.162

@ John (JC) and all

I know of someone who is working on a rapid deployment concept, and has done great deal of work. Initially I was going to dedicate some time to helping him as well but then thought there is a natural fit between these projects.

I wanted so much more to help on this other project but 'm so stretched and time poor I feel I'm letting them down. It is also a very, very good project. Ari put me in contact with the developer of the project in June, but then I went on leave and got over committed with real life work. I've not been able to go back to it, but think about it a lot.

In essence it is a wiki based tool that catalogues denier materials as they are published and categorises them by their errors/arguments. It has enormous potential, and and over 5000+ articles in it. The guy is Peter Hartmann from Germany, and I reckon he could use the help. He has done a great deal of it himself and done a remarkable job. I've seen it and damn, it is a good start.  

Some great content ready to go on Peter's site while SkS has a "brand" that is known and trusted. A good fit? Is it worth exploring the possibility?

It could also "jump start" the concept you're toying with JC.

The power of the denial movement comes from sharing resources and networking (to evil effect). We're developing a community of passionate, dedicated individuals. If/when the community grows there are other initiatives that people could channel their energies into.

Thought I'd throw it out there.

JC, this is your baby so leave it up to you mate.

Mike

2010-08-29 18:35:19Could the list of rebuttals include links to the blog-post and argument?
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.137.101

Hi John,

could you - if feasible and as time allows - please enhance the list of rebuttals to also include the URLs to the blog-post and the argument itself instead of just the preview? This will make it easier to find the blog-posts and arguments when needed. I'm currently trying to prepare for the translations of the BASIC-versions and having the links readily available will speed this up.

Thanks much and Cheers
Baerbel

2010-08-29 21:54:00Peter hartmann
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.125.135
Mike, thanks for the reminder about Peter's wiki. It's a fantastic resource he's created. I'll invite him to the forum and we can explore ways to share resources.