2010-10-16 05:20:10my take on the Penner Nature commentary
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215

I drafted up a blog post on the recent Penner commentary in Nature.

When I mentioned the misinterpretation of the commentary by certain blogs, I wasn't sure if I should link to any examples (John provided some here).  It's that conundrum - I like to give examples of what I'm talking about, but I don't want to give the denier blogs traffic.  Thoughts?  Other comments?

2010-10-16 08:11:10
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.85.44

I'm always of the opinion that it's better to not link to denier blogs. Excellent post, by the way.

 

I really like how Sks is evolving, not only dealing with the various forms of long deceased zombie arguments, but quickly responding to the creation of new zombies, and also reporting on new studies in a manner that's accessible to the general public. Awesome!.   

2010-10-16 09:45:22NASA GISS on the subject
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Coincidentally, the folks at NASA GISS just published a relevant paper in Science on CO2 as "The Principle Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature".  Maybe I'll throw in a quick reference to it.
2010-10-16 17:41:13
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.75
It's good. The only addition could be to explicitly note that the low and high sensitivities are (almost) within the IPCC bounds and that the former gives 3 °C by 2100. Just in case someone may like to think that "low sensitivity" means "no problems" ...
2010-10-17 01:56:52thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Good point.  It would have been nice if they'd used 4.5°C instead of 5°C for their higher sensitivity parameter so that I wouldn't have to qualify that it's slightly outside the IPCC range!
2010-10-17 02:05:28other comments?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Any other comments?  I think it's looking pretty good - will probably publish tomorrow morning while John slumbers.
2010-10-17 08:02:50Great work, Dana
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

Have whipped up a skeptic argument for this one:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

I've used your blog post as the intermediate rebuttal. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit. I'm also loving the evolution of the SkS forum - it was my hope that we'd evolve towards rebutting new skeptic arguments and this is indeed what's happening. Exciting stuff!

The general rule of thumb I have re linking to skeptic blog posts is to avoid it if you can as you only send traffic their way and give them attention. So if you're doing a general rebuttal to a skeptic argument, do what you did here, just mentioning the skeptic argument. But if you're responding to a specific instance, then you should link to the blog post but use a rel="nofollow".

BTW, I just realised every skeptic argument links to a source article but with no rel="nofollow". So all my skeptic arguments are sending google link kudos to skeptic blogs! Argh!! Will correct this as soon as I get time, will whip up some code to fix it all in one fell swoop.

2010-10-17 08:52:34thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215

Oh, interesting, I didn't realize the 'CO2 only accounts for 35% of global warming' was a sufficiently popular argument to merit a rebuttal page.  So here's a question - how do you decide when these sorts of arguments simply merit a blog post, and when they merit a full-on rebuttal page?  Probably just subjective eh?

Also, what does rel="nofollow" do, and what would the HTML code look like?

2010-10-17 19:12:38Any excuse to create a new rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198
If it's something that gets spread around various blogs and can be summed up as a brief skeptic argument and doesn't seem too transitory, I'll add a new argument. No real rule here, pretty subjective. I'm keen to add more skeptic arguments so they'll be readily available for people using the firefox plugin.

Whenever you link to another website, you give them "link kudos". Google use a complicated set of factors in how they rank web pages, but the backbone of it is link popularity. The more links to a webpage, particularly from big websites, the more search engine ranking you give them. That's why I designed SkS the way it is - to encourage people to link to each particular skeptic argument. But if you use rel="nofollow", then you don't give any link kudos to the page you're linking to.

Note that WUWT avoid linking to SkS at all - in their last post where Watts used excerpts and screen grabs from SkS, he didn't link to the site at all. Watts is very keen not to send any traffic our way, let alone link kudos.

The code looks like this:

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.website.com">