2010-11-27 17:44:48Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism: LAUNCHED!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.20.155

Have assimilated feedback from scientists and SkS authors and made many small text changes and a few larger changes to produce Version 7. Thanks to everyone, there were many contributors, with special thanks to Glenn, Julian and James (who saved me hours of having to pore over Jo Nova’s blog post not to mention the distasteful job of having to visit Jo's blog - better you than me, pal :-).

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism v7

Lots more comments below, new version updated:

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism v7b

Hopefully final version (preview of launch page is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/guide-to-skepticism.shtml):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf 

Ok, it's finally officially launched (kudos and back slaps all round, thanx to everyone for all your help!):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

Some of the more significant changes made:

  • Page 1: Have added cites to the human fingerprints. Am a little concerned that it makes the graphic crowded but at least it will shut up critics who would bemoan the lack of peer-reviewed references.
  • Page 3: Vectorised Harries 2001’s outgoing radiation graph (looks much sharper, allows me to apply colour)
  • Page 6: Vectorised the Warm Days/Warm nights graph and combined the two time series from Alexander 2006, Figure 13 into a single graph that tells a clearer story. As far as I can tell, this technique is kosher but welcome any feedback if its inappropriately applied.
  • Page 6: Also updated the explanation of why nights should warm faster than days, making it easier to understand.
  • Page 8: Added new page “How sensitive is our climate?” – James makes the good point that a key (and valid) criticism of the original ‘Scientific Guide’ doesn’t address climate sensitivity which is the main bone of contention for more credible skeptics (credible only in the sense that the extremist nutters make them look good in comparison). So I’ve address this important issue.
  • Page 15: I shrunk the references font size to get them all into 2 pages, thus keeping the document page count to 16 (it’s a typesetter thing, old habits die hard).

A few discussion points:

  • The title “Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism” has copped some criticism. There have been a few other suggested titles. Eg - "The Science Behind Global Warming: Why Skeptics are Wrong" or "The Scientific Guide to Global Warming: Why Skeptics are Wrong" as this way "skepticism" is associated with "wrong" rather than with "global warming" and "science". Those alternative titles leave me cold however – I find them a bit alienating right off the bat. Welcome alternatives if someone has a better idea but I’m happy to leave the title as is – I don’t want to suffer ‘paralysis by analysis’ and overthink things.
  • Page 1: Glenn points out a few question marks over the human fingerprints – tropopause, less oxygen, shrinking atmosphere. If I had more room, I’d flesh these out later in the Guide. As it is, they’ll have to come to the website to get more info on these.
  • Page 2: I’m going with "Plants prefer the lighter...". Yes, it’s folky. It lacks scientific precision. Sometimes we need to be a bit more folky. I’m not saying we should finish all our paragraphs with “you betchya” but sometimes some plain English is a good thing.
  • Page 3: Glenn suggests "...many laboratory experiments, field observations and..." Don’t suppose you could provide a reference for field observations?
  • Page 6: Glenn mentions “You proceed from surface stations to satellites without the intermediate fact that 70% of the earth is oceans - SST's make up the bulk of the surface record, and just focussing on the land stations is a cherry pick. And there aren't any parking lots in the ocean.” Don’t suppose you have a handy reference for this? Give me a good pithy line with a peer-reviewed reference and I’ll throw it in.
  • Page 6: James asks “Any idea whether ocean and troposphere records also show nights warming faster than days?”  I did look for this, anticipating the UHI comeback. Nothing. Ocean measurements are probably too sparse to provide daily cycle data. Possibly satellites are problematic in that they only take a few data points over a daily cycle so not enough data for the same kind of analysis as you get for land measurements. David Karoly does address it briefly in his paper, saying that the warming trend from UHI is miniscule.
  • I’ve been adding references here and there so now the numbering is a bit all over the place. Should I go through and renumber them all so as you read through the Guide, the numbering is sequential? It’s a pain to do so I’m hoping people will say don’t worry about it but I suppose if it’s customary, I should do it.
  • James, do you want to be listed in the Acknowledgements?

So now we’ve been through the scientist wringer (which was not as tough as the Skeptical Science author wringer). I think we’re pretty close to release but if anyone wants to make any comments on this latest version before we send it off, speak quickly – I’m not sure when the Rapid Response guys will want to send this off but I’m guessing rapidly! :-)

2010-11-28 01:19:51
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.83

pag. 8
"It’s well established that the direct warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 1.2°C."
We should not assume people will interpret "direct warming" correctly. It would be better to say something like "It’s well established that, hypothetically keeping everything else constant, the direct warming from doubling of CO2 would be around 1.2°C" or any better and more explicit phrase.

I'm afraid you should do the numbering again, it's a pain to jump back and forth through the reference list.

If you can tell when you freeze the final version, translators can start their job. I alerted the pther italian translator, we hope to get the translation done quickly.

2010-11-28 01:54:53Freezing final version
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.183.214

I'll second Riccardo's suggestion to let us know once the version is considered final. I'll then create the reference document as quickly as possible and the translation-teams can get started.

Cheers
Baerbel

2010-11-28 04:40:42comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.16.174
Looks Great. Human Fingerprint 7 is my only concern. People without math background might not necessarily see that winters are warming fast than summers. Perhaps either show trendlines with really really light real lines around them or only show trend lines and call it trends in winter/summer warming... might make it easier?
2010-11-28 07:00:36Some typos
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.183.214

Page 4 (Hockey stick or hockey league?)
Graphic #3 (top right)
"Net Climate Forcing: solar + CO2 + aerosols
(Watts per square metre)"

==> CO2

Page 5 (The evidence that global warming is happening)
Graphic 1 and Graphic 2 don't show "Year" for the x-axis (even though the graphics on page 4 do show it)

Page 6 (More evidence of the reality of global warming)
Graphic 2 doesn't have annotations for the y- and x-axis. The latter is obivous: "year" but what about the y-axis, is this "temperature anomoly in °C"?

Page 8 (How sensitive is our climate?)
Text 1 / Paragraph 3
"These variety of methods paint a consistent picture - ...."

==> shouldn't this be "This variety of methods paints a consistent picture - ...."

"This means positive feedbacks amplify the initial CO2 warming"

==> CO2
==> the fullstop at the end is missing.

Page 9 (Shooting the messenger)
Graphic 1 doesn't show "year" for the x-axis (of course this is obvious - I'm just mentioning it as you might do this consistently - either with or without on all graphics) 

That's all I found while putting together the Overview-document in preparation for the translations (There'll soon be a "companion" Word-document which can then be used as a starting point for the translations - I only have to tidy it up a bit and wait for the official "go" before I'll upload it.)

Cheers
Baerbel

2010-11-28 18:12:50
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.181.73.184

John

The reference to field observations is essentially that spectroscopic data has been accumulated since WWII from both Lab and Field observation. The following is a link to the HITRAN website at Cambridge MA http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/HITRAN/. This mentions that the HITRAN database began life from the US Air Force Cambridge Research Loboratories in the late 1960's. But this builds on work begun in WWII. Glibert Plass, who showed that CO2 Saturation wasn't valid in the 1950's will have been working from some of this early data.

As to the 70% ocean part, that is simply the percentage of the Earths surface that is oceans. Data for this was originally from ships, then buoys, now satellites. You could link to GISS or HadCruT to show that the bulk of the temperature index is from ocean data. I suppose the point is that by focussing just on the surface stations they are ignoring that most of the temperature record isn't from surface stations at all. Pithy line. How about "There aren't any parking lots in the mid-Atlantic"

Glenn

2010-11-28 20:18:22Acknowledgement
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.142.173

Thanks John, I would appreciate an acknowledgement, as long as it’s not a problem that I don’t have any qualifications.

 

I’ll have some feedback on version 7 tomorrow.

2010-11-29 16:27:06Miscellaneous feedback on version 7
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.142.173

Regarding the title: I think “The Scientific Guide to Global Warming” or “The Science Behind Global Warming” would be fine if you dropped the subtitle.

Regarding Page 8:
·        I’d change “well established” to “well-established”.
·        Either use “between 2 and 4.5” or “from 2 to 4.5”.
·        The full stop at the end of the third paragraph is missing.
·        “Some assert” may give the impression that there are two equal sides to the argument – maybe change to “a small minority of scientists assert”?
·        “The key lesson here” might come across as a bit preachy. Still, I agree you should emphasise that Lindzen and Choi is outside both the consensus of scientists and the consensus of evidence.
·        The caption on the graph should explain that the circles mean best estimates, the wide bars likely ranges, and the narrow bars very likely ranges.

Regarding other pages:
Page 1 – The word “discernible” should be spelled with a second I instead of an A.
Page 2 – It occurs to me that in the extended edition you might want to add a rebuttal to the “volcanoes emit more than humans” argument.
Page 2 – It’s not clear whether the Gulf of Mexico analogy refers to human or total CO2 emissions.
Page 3 – Your positive feedback diagram actually contradicts the story you’re telling: the warming during deglaciations was initiated by orbital changes, not CO2.
Page 3 – When I showed the Guide to a relative, she was confused by the Human Fingerprint #2 graph because there was no time axis.
Page 5 – Why don’t you plot GISS, NCDC, and CRU in the same graph? That way nobody can accuse you of cherry-picking one temperature record over another.
Page 7 – I predict the contrarian response to this page will be that CO2 was much higher for most of Earth’s history but during some of that time there were ice ages (during the Cryogenian, Ordovician, Carboniferous, etc). Unfortunately we don’t have room to talk about the entire past because of its sheer length, so there’ll always be something else the contrarians can point to that we haven’t covered! Still, maybe you could do some sort of overview of climate history in the extended edition?
Page 9 – A note for the extended edition: contrarian responses to the troposphere/stratosphere fingerprint include 1) Ben Santer changed the 1995 IPCC report, 2) ozone depletion contributes to stratospheric cooling, and 3) we haven’t found the tropospheric hotspot.
Other – I suggest you add somewhere in the front or back that some of the more detailed/technical aspects of the evidence presented will be explained in companion posts at SkS, so people know where to go to get more info.

It’s also occurred to me that while you cover skeptic arguments 1-4 and 6-7, and sidestep 5 by focusing on empirical evidence, you make no attempt to rebut arguments 8-10: “Ice age predicted in the 70s”, “Antarctica is gaining ice”, “We’re heading into an ice age”.

Finally, I’ve been thinking about which pages will be facing each other when the booklet is printed out. I suggest if possible the order could be rearranged as follows (remember even and odd pages face each other):
1.      What does it mean to be skeptical?
2.      Humans are raising CO2 levels
3.      The evidence that more CO2 causes warming
4.      The evidence that global warming is happening
5.      More evidence of the reality of global warming
6.      Hockey stick or hockey league?
7.      What does past climate change tell us?
8.      How sensitive is our climate?
9.      Impacts of global warming (fingerprint #7 would have to be renumbered #6)
10.  Shooting the messenger (fingerprint #6 would have to be renumbered #7)
11.  The scientific consensus on global warming

This would create double spreads about the basic mechanism of AGW; observed warming; past climate change; future climate change; and the scientific community. And of course throughout you have the common threads of human fingerprints, empirical observations, and looking at the full body of evidence.

2010-11-29 22:40:33Version 7b
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.20.155

Updated with version 7b:

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism v7b

New version includes the following changes:

  • Went through and completely renumbered all the references. Riccardo, I was hoping you would say “no, John, that’s fine the way it is” but in my heart of hearts, I knew I’d have to renumber them. Wendy tells me I should move the whole document into Indesign so refs automatically renumber. Sounds like good advice.
  • Credits: Added James. BTW, great feedback, again, James. Damn, you’re sharp for your age!
  • Page 8: I updated the second line to “It’s well established that the direct warming from a doubling of CO2 (hypothetically assuming no climate feedbacks) is around 1.2°C.” I thought Riccardo’s “hypothetically keeping everything else constant,” might confuse people, have them wondering “keep what constant?” So I thought say it explicitly, “no climate feedbacks”.
  • Robert, re the winter/summer warming, firstly, I don’t have the actual data – I was emailed the vector form of the graph from David Karoly. Yes, we do have our own winter/summer warming which we generated ourselves. But I thought it was fairly clear – the blue line goes further than the red line.
  • Page 5,6: Added axes labels (thanks Baerbel)
  • Page 8: James suggested changing “some assert” to “a small minority of scientists assert” but I thought it was a bit loaded in tone. I went with a middle ground, “A few assert”.
  • Page 8: Added “likely/very likely/most likely” to the pic
  • Page 8: Removed the preachy “The key lesson here…”
  • James, I am a very big fan of your idea of swapping a few pages around, they group the Guide into themes quite nicely and kudos for noticing that. But of course that did mean completely renumbering all my references again. Augh! I should’ve switched to Indesign several versions ago.

Questions:

  • Page 3: “Your positive feedback diagram actually contradicts the story you’re telling: the warming during deglaciations was initiated by orbital changes, not CO2”. This is a tough one. I could change that graphic – show the first step being more sunlight (due to orbital variations) causing warming. But then it would lead to people getting confused – is he saying the sun or orbital changes is causing global warming?
    But then another (reasonable) criticism of the existing graph is that CO2 feedback is not a significant factor, at least yet – the increase in airborne fraction due to CO2 feedback is barely statistically significant. What I wanted to say is what skeptics cite as a reason not to worry (CO2 lag) is actually evidence for something to worry about (positive feedback).
    Plus I’m not 100% sure of whether its northern or southern insolation changes that initiate deglaciations – there are papers indicating either and I’m a bit confused about the whole issue at the moment!
  • Page 3: “When I showed the Guide to a relative, she was confused by the Human Fingerprint #2 graph because there was no time axis.”  I don’t know what to do about this except change “wavenumber” to wavelength, if you think that will make it slightly more intuitive.
  • Page 5: “Why don’t you plot GISS, NCDC, and CRU in the same graph?” Because it looks too messy and confusing. Keep it simple. That’s something for an extended version.
  • Lastly, have I missed anyone in the credits that would like to be listed? Baerbel? Anyone else? If so, post here, let me know exactly how you'd like me to list your name (eg - institution, qualification, etc, not that those are necessary)
2010-11-29 23:48:55
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
138.217.151.72

John

Page 3: “Your positive feedback diagram actually contradicts the story you’re telling: the warming during deglaciations was initiated by orbital changes, not CO2”. This is a tough one. I could change that graphic – show the first step being more sunlight (due to orbital variations) causing warming. But then it would lead to people getting confused – is he saying the sun or orbital changes is causing global warming?

This one is TOO HARD. The Ice Core thing can't be resolved sufficiently in a document of this scope. So go with the approach that is least confusing at this level.

Page 3: “When I showed the Guide to a relative, she was confused by the Human Fingerprint #2 graph because there was no time axis.”  I don’t know what to do about this except change “wavenumber” to wavelength, if you think that will make it slightly more intuitive.

Go with Wavelength if you can. The OLR spectrum is so powerful if we could get it inside peoples skulls. But it is sooo hard to get it inside their skulls. Anything that helps!

  • Page 5: “Why don’t you plot GISS, NCDC, and CRU in the same graph?” Because it looks too messy and confusing. Keep it simple. That’s something for an extended version.
  • Agree.

     

    Apart from other typo's and small details, I think this is ready to go.

    Well done John

    Well done All.

    Thunderbirds Are Go...

    2010-11-29 23:55:48Regarding credits
    BaerbelW

    baerbel-for-350@email...
    93.231.161.81

    Hi John,

    as far as listing names on the credits-page goes, I was going to suggest that the respective translation teams could simply add that information to the translation (which in this case would be an addition for that page). That way, they can decide in which way, their effort is shown in the translated versions (eg. "Ins Deutsche übersetzt von name1, name2, name3....")

    Cheers
    Baerbel

    2010-11-30 19:06:46Feedback on version 7b
    James Wight

    jameswight@southernphone.com...
    112.213.142.173

    Three things I noticed on page 9:

    ·        “Blue represent wet conditions” should read “Blue represents wet conditions”.

    ·        “Between 18 to 25” should be “Between 18 and 25”.

    ·        Some contrarians may seize on the word “smoothed” in the caption for human fingerprint #6.

    2010-12-01 17:30:27What's wrong with 'smoothed'?
    John Cook

    john@skepticalscience...
    124.185.20.155

    I received the smoothed 'winter vs summer' comparision from David Karoly, as is. However, before I got that graph, Robert Way generated a similar graph himself - unsmoothed (so a bit noisier), from the HadCRUT N.H. temp data. So I've been meaning to do a blog post about this topic - I'll probably include both Karoly's smoother graph and Robert's graph, as well as some info about Robert's methodology so others can reproduce the result if they wish.

    But how would they seize on 'smoothed'?

    2010-12-01 20:32:29List of "interpretable" words and what they actually mean?
    BaerbelW

    baerbel-for-350@email...
    93.231.130.120

    Could it make sense to prepare a post which includes words like "smoothed" and to provide the explanation of how they are used in science? This post could be prepared now and could then be published if "skeptics" try to attack the guide due to those words.

    There might be other words or expressions which could be collected in some kind of quick reference where they get explained (eg. "Not sure what a "sciency" expression means? Check here!") - basically a simplified version of the "SkS glossary" we talked about earlier.

    Cheers
    Baerbel

    2010-12-01 20:43:04
    Riccardo

    riccardoreitano@tiscali...
    192.84.150.209
    I don't think the word "smoothing" is a problem. Anyways, if the smoothing of the data is some sort of running average, maybe the word "average" is less frightening :)
    2010-12-06 23:12:14Rising tropopause
    James Wight

    jameswight@southernphone.com...
    112.213.154.195

    I’m not sure if this is the right thread to post this in, but I have an idea for how you could describe something in the Scientific Guide. On page 2 of Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes and Conway describe the rise of the tropopause as follows:

    “In fact, because the boundary between these two atmosphere layers is in part defined by temperature, that boundary is now moving upward. In other words, the whole structure of our atmosphere is changing.”

    It struck me that this was a powerful way of putting it – humanity has changed the structure of the atmosphere! I know you don’t mention the rising tropopause at the moment but perhaps you could add a sentence or two about it?

    EDIT: If it's too late to change anything, then just ignore this post!

    2010-12-07 15:35:50Moved this post
    John Cook

    john@skepticalscience...
    124.179.115.67

    James, I moved your post - that "Guide To Skepticism" forum will be a public forum for the public to comment on the Guide. Your comments on editing the guide are for the Authors Forum where we privately discussing developing the content.

    I'll see if I can squeeze in some extra text. I like the "changing the structure of the atmosphere" text.

    2010-12-07 16:02:21Fingerprint 6
    Robert Way

    robert_way19@hotmail...
    134.153.163.105
    Just a thought about the text.

    Perhaps we should say something like:

    "As the magnitude of Greenhouse warming increases it is expected that winters will begin to warm quicker than summers."

    Or something to that nature. My reasoning is that its a nice fingerprint tohave readers be able to identify the crossover whereby with more greenhouse warming you get faster warming winters. Hopefully explaining why they cross over. Just a thought.
    2010-12-08 13:09:52Promotion and distribution
    James Wight

    jameswight@southernphone.com...
    112.213.154.195

    John, what are your plans to promote and distribute the Guide?

    2010-12-08 13:27:08Plans to promote & distribute
    John Cook

    john@skepticalscience...
    124.179.115.67

    Scott's plan was to distribute to science teachers and his extensive list of media contacts. I've also been contacted by someone who might look to distribute this to a large number of environmental organisations. There is the possibility of distributing to U.S. politicians but details are yet to be confirmed. Lots of scattered ideas with more ideas being added to the mix regularly. Perhaps when it goes live, other ideas and opportunities will kick loose also.

    2010-12-08 13:29:09Final version (fingers crossed) uploaded
    John Cook

    john@skepticalscience...
    124.179.115.67

    Uploaded the latest and hopefully last version of the Guide:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

    Changes made:

    • Added Corinne Le Quéré to credits
    • Page 1: Added the line “The whole structure of our atmosphere is changing.”
    • Page 2, 6: Changed “now reached levels unseen for millions of years” to “now reached levels unseen for at last 2 million years”
    • Page 9: Tweaked the human fingerprint opening text to “As greenhouse warming increases, winters are expected to warm faster than summers.” (pretty subtle difference)

    Other comments:

    • Kim Prather comments “kids need to know there are other “agents” out there besides CO2 (other greenhouse gases, aerosols, clouds) all controlling our temps…even if that is just stated at the beginning (with a simple diagram)”. The only way I can think of doing this is to add a new page addressing the argument “CO2 is not the only driver of climate” which basically says “yes, there are other drivers but CO2 is the greatest and rising faster than others”. But there’s always going to be other arguments to add – we have to draw the line somewhere and perhaps add this in a later extended edition?
    • James suggests Page 11, “Between 18 to 25” should be “Between 18 and 25”. But “18 to 25” sounds right to me. Of course, I studied physics, not English lit.

    I’m ready (very very ready, frankly I’m over it!) to launch the Guide. I’ve got a launch page ready at:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/guide-to-skepticism.shtml

    So if everyone is agreed, I think we can launch unless there is any other reasons to wait. Will run this by the Rapid Response guys, see what they say.

    2010-12-08 13:30:01Incorrect reference
    James Wight

    jameswight@southernphone.com...
    112.213.154.195

    Reference number 34 should be to NOAA’s annual State of the Climate report, not to NOAA NCDC’s monthly State of the Climate report. Confusing, I know.

    2010-12-08 13:41:35Fixed
    John Cook

    john@skepticalscience...
    124.179.115.67

    Well spotted, have updated the Guide. Note - will continue to fix any of these tiny glitches if they continue to get noticed, even after the launch.

    Got the copy edited manuscript of our book from the publisher this week. Most of their corrections (in fact, all save one) was nitpicking the formatting of the references. So tedious, I hate that stuff!

    2010-12-08 13:50:07I was quick off the mark, wasn't I?
    James Wight

    jameswight@southernphone.com...
    112.213.154.195

    I was actually referring to version 7b!

    2010-12-08 17:24:37Guide is launched
    John Cook

    john@skepticalscience...
    124.179.115.67
    I've blog posted - and asked Scott to send to his contacts. Also the forum is now open to any Skeptical Science user - although they will only see the Guide forum, not the Authors forums. So I suggest we keep an open eye on the forum to see what happens there - I'll need to rustle up some moderation code to moderators can curtail any dodgy comments!
    2010-12-08 18:27:24
    Riccardo

    riccardoreitano@tiscali...
    93.147.82.88

    John

    any instruction for the translators?

    2010-12-08 20:30:29Prepared materials to help with translation
    BaerbelW

    baerbel-for-350@email...
    93.231.136.38

    Riccardo (and everybody else planning to translate the guide)!

    I prepared the following documents which should help with getting the translations underway:

    1. Overview-document with an annotated screenshot of each page. The text-blocks, graphics and insets have been numbered via annotations which are then used in the Word-document as a crossreference:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ScientificGuide-Page-Overview.pdf

    2. Word-document with a table showing the English texts in the left and space for the corresponding translation in the right column:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Guide_to_Skepticism-Texts-for-translations.doc
      This document should be used to send the translations back to John for the creation of the translated Guide. As noted in the Word-document, please use a the original guide to actually do the translations as there is a chance that the English texts get changed a bit here or there in the Guide and these changes might not always be reflected in the Word-document. The texts are current as of the latest changes, John incorporated for the final version.

    Should the translation into a language be handled by more than one person (as is the case for German), it might help to use a collaborative platform like the klimaschutz-wiki instead of sending Word-documents back and forth to prepare the translations. I have documented how this can work in a thread in the translators-forum. I have already prepared pages in the wiki for the Guide's translations but at the moment they are not generally visible as the Guide hadn't yet been published. If there is some interest to make use of the wiki, I'll change the setting.

    Please let me know if you have any questions!

    Cheers
    Baerbel

    2010-12-08 21:11:22
    Riccardo

    riccardoreitano@tiscali...
    93.147.82.88
    Thank you Baerbel. There will be just two of us, we'll just merge the two parts without the wiki support.
    2010-12-08 22:34:41Translations
    John Cook

    john@skepticalscience...
    124.179.115.67

    I think the next step was Baerbel would provide the 2-column Word document for translators. So Baerbel, once that's done, we'll make it available on the forum, I'll email all the translators and also let them know about your wiki offer.

    When the first translation goes online, I'll make the Word document available publicly.

    And Baerbel, you can't start translating into German until the Word doc is available to all the translators. I know German is always the first language translated but you have to give the others a sporting chance :-)

    2010-12-09 02:18:06Word document has been uploaded
    BaerbelW

    baerbel-for-350@email...
    93.231.171.97

    Hi John,

    I think you overlooked my post from earlier today ;-)

    I already uploaded the PDF-overview and the Word-document and posted the links to both. Here they are again:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ScientificGuide-Page-Overview.pdf

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Guide_to_Skepticism-Texts-for-translations.doc

    Cheers
    Baerbel

    2010-12-09 04:28:56congrats
    dana1981
    Dana Nuccitelli
    dana1981@yahoo...
    38.223.231.252
    Congrats on the launch, John.  The Guide looks great!
    2010-12-09 11:30:25Collecting links to the Guide to keep track of things
    John Cook

    john@skepticalscience...
    124.179.115.67

    http://digg.com/news/science/the_scientific_guide_to_global_warming_skepticism (should register a digg account and bump it)

    Repost by Eco logs: http://kindlingwood.co.uk/kindling-wood/the-scientific-guide-to-global-warming-skepticism/

    Kind review by Lou Grinzo: http://theenergycollective.com/lougrinzo/48277/doc-alert-scientific-guide-global-warming-skepticism

    Ecosocialism (not sure that's an ally I want to have but they did do a snazzy flash filter on the guide): http://ecosocialismcanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/scientific-guide-to-global-warming.html