2011-02-16 11:44:19Archibald sets a new record of myths?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
Absolutely stunning presentation by David Archibald reposted by WTFUWT.  I counted 21 myths in this one, and at the end, he concludes that Australia must start using liquified coal as transportation fuel (which would be an environmental nightmare).  And of course the brainwashed drones in the comments absolutely fawned over the steaming pile of crap Archibald presented to them.  Just makes you shake your head in bewilderment.
2011-02-16 13:30:50Kudos for adding this to the database
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
144.131.205.143

This kind of Gish Gallop is why our skeptic resource would be so useful. Without lifting a finger other than a few clicks with the Firefox Add-on, we've already created a near comprehensive rebuttal of this article:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/article.php?a=5137

Skeptic Arguments What the Science Says
"Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain" Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.
"Arctic sea ice has recovered" Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.
"Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009" Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.
"It's a natural cycle" No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
"Medieval Warm Period was warmer" Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
"Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity" Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.
"Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
"CO2 was higher in the past" When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.
"It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
"It's cosmic rays" Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.
"Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun" The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming.
"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated" Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.
"Oceans are cooling" The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.
"CO2 limits will harm the economy" Various economic estimates find the net economic impact of a price on carbon will be minor.

 

2011-02-16 13:33:24BTW, I've assigned this article to Archibald
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
144.131.205.143

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_David_Archibald.htm

The skeptic resource is still buggy and not fit for public consumption but in the meantime, when the skeptic big guns spew forth, we should add them to the database so that the skeptic resource can hit the ground running when it's ready for launch.

2011-02-16 14:47:41Few clicks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
More than a few clicks on this one. My finger was starting to cramp up there were so many myths! :-)
2011-02-16 14:55:05I've been thinking - how could we counter these kinds of articles
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
144.131.205.143

Should we have a "Skeptic of the Week" award or something like that - some kind of weekly blog post where we highlight the article cramming the most skeptic arguments in a single article? Or rehashes old material? Or have an automated page that just lists these kinds of articles in a top ten kind of list. List them by skeptic? We have same amazing data here that we need to make more accessible to people - just wondering if there's a way to promote/launch/structure it to give it a bit of x-factor, make it interesting.

The "Monckton Meander" Award? :-)

2011-02-16 15:00:36Monthly
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
Maybe of the month rather than week. That's a pretty good idea for highlighting the database. Especially once we get all the skeptic pages going.
2011-02-16 15:09:10The other thing I like about our collection of skeptics
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
144.131.205.143

Showing all their photos in the one place - without saying a word, shows how the fraternity of skeptics are a bunch of old, white haired men:

 

2011-02-16 19:46:13
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209
I like the idea of the skeptic of the month. We should also create a page with the list and the pictures.
2011-02-17 04:25:40wall of shame
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Sort of like a Wall of Shame, eh Riccardo?
2011-02-17 07:33:14
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.141

The Wall of Scientific Shame

But then we should rise a lot of money to pay for a good lawyer for John :)

2011-02-17 07:50:23Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
Personally I don't like this idea. I don't want to see them do the same to me or to see John's picture or Dana's or mine on their own "wall of shame".
2011-02-17 11:25:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.51.183

Robert,

- There is a difference: These are all very public people, who give talks and presentations. I don't think any of them would have a legitimate beef about being over-exposed.

- As long as we don't label it a "wall of shame," I don't think they'll even mind.

2011-02-17 11:52:49
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

There may not be a problem with them specifically redoing the deed, but perhaps with other less-known contrarians who might seek retribution for such a tactic?

I like the idea of a skeptic of the month, but a wall of shame might be pushing it.  Perhaps a wall of shame for the arguments put forth by them, though that's being redundant I suppose.

 

And in defense of the skeptics, they're not a group of old white haired men.  Some are losing their hair. 

2011-02-17 12:16:35Losing hair
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
144.131.205.143

I shouldn't talk, I am thinning on top.

It would have to be carefully done to avoid ad hominem but instead focus on the science. The point of Monckton Myths was not to attack Monckton but his arguments. This would be the same - a scientific resource but the science grouped around individuals.

2011-02-17 14:01:42shame
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
I wasn't suggesting that we call it a Wall of Shame, just that it would be like a Wall of Shame.  Calling it such would be too ad hom.
2011-02-17 14:04:51
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148
Perhaps a directory, with pictures and names, to rebuttals to their arguments?  Instead of a listing of the arguments, a listing of the skeptics.
2011-02-17 14:10:56Directory of skeptics
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
144.131.205.143

That's what I have here - a directory of skeptics:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptics.php?f=embargoed

But it's not live yet. Still building the database of skeptics plus their arguments. I also welcome everyone to add articles to each skeptic's page whenever you encounter an article written by a skeptic - so we can keep building this resource in a crowd sourcing kind of way (many hands...). Here are instructions on how to add articles to a skeptic:

How to assign articles to skeptics