Just had a quick look at the peer-reviewed paper tally:

User	# of links
John Cook	590
Rob Painting	420
Ari Jokimäki	115
James Wight	48
Ned	21

Rob is closing fast. Don't suppose anyone else is going to give him a run for his money?

Sorry, John, I've been pretty busy in the last few days. I was never going to catch up to you and Rob though!

I was just perusing the list in the hyperlink that John provided and noted that Poptech is listed as adding 8 papers.....now I feel especially bad for not contributing.

Given that I am embarrassingly inept at this kind of stuff, John can you or someone else help.  Say I find a paper on the AMS website (just the URL of the abstract), is that the URL that I paste?  Also, is there anyway of determining a priori whether or not the paper has already been submitted.  Finally, does one have to select a myth?  What if the paper does not specifically address any skeptical myth?

Sorry for the dumb questions.

Congrats to Rob , Ari and James, and too you too of course John....

I'll try to summarise everything you need to know here - if there's any feedback, I'll update this:

1. To submit a URL, either use the Firefox Add-on (http://sks.to/firefox) or submit via the web.
2. Generally try to submit the official abstract URL on the journal website. This is more likely to not go stale whereas full papers on a server somewhere tend to disappear over time.
3. You have to select at least one myth - worst case scenario, find something tangentially related.
4. Currently only way to find if paper is already listed is to check http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreview.php
5. The default date entered is today's date so you'll need to edit this date by going to http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreview.php, find your paper then click the Edit link. Note - a new version of the Firefox Add-on will have the date field added - I specifically requested this because of the peer-review papers.

Suggested sources for papers:

Moth Incarnate's 310+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/

Here's the tally of how many papers submitted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/stats.php?Action=peerreviewlinks

NOTE: The deadline for the contest for the signed book will be either May 15 at the earliest or when The Ville finishes the animation (if after May 15). Don't give up, people, you can still take Rob! Remember, every paper added to the database makes it a more robust resource and makes The Ville's animation more powerful.

Many thanks John....I'll see what I can do.  

It isn't that long when I was in a clear lead. John and Rob have been busy, I see. Hmm... perhaps I should start adding links again.

Brutha, I'm aiming to add 2000 papers minimum!. Unless you have that sort of relentless staying power, just yield now!. 

It seems that I should take down my site while the contest is on. :P

Depends, Rob hasn't revealed his secret source of peer-reviewed goodness.

BTW, just added a new paper, then noticed Rob has added 21 papers since I started this thread! Perhaps his nick should be The Accumulator.

Well, I have added 74...

I did a mistake regarding the publishing date (actually twice :)

Global negative vegetation feedback to climate warming responses of leaf litter decomposition rates in cold biomes
2011-04-07

Circumpolar Arctic Tundra Vegetation Change Is Linked to Sea Ice Decline
2010-10-20

How do I change it?

Another question.

I come across an article from 2005, I can only read the abstract and one of the conclusion in the abstract goes like this:

"...A positive and significant correlation between our SST record from the North Icelandic Shelf and reconstructed solar irradiance, together with modeling results, supports the hypothesis that solar forcing is an important constituent of natural climate variability in the northern North Atlantic region."

Do I add the paper with a bias of skeptic or neutral? I don´t know if it is truly a skeptic paper.

I decided to go for the skeptic arguments - "It's the sun" and "Climate changed before". Is that correct?

Ok, I'm at 300 now, time to go to bed. Hurry up, Rob, I'm closing fast. :)

You keep at it Ari, I gotta go to work.

Rob is closing on me fast but Ari is closing on him.

Ari, instructions on changing dates is given in the "tips" post earlier in this thread. If in doubt re bias, go neutral.

Hoskibui: I had a look through of the paper you're talking about, and I would agree that it is neutral.  It doesn't mention anything at all about current AGW and instead focuses on pre-modern data and the Sun's role in natural SST variability around Iceland.  I think this last bit, the focus on past *natural* drivers, is what especially sets this apart as being neutral because AGW otherwise deals with a non-natural system (if you will).

Wait, you can only see the abstract?  Here if that helps.

User	# of links
John Cook	591
Rob Painting	512
Ari Jokimäki	300
James Wight	50

Latest from peer-reviewed paper tally. To think this thread only started 24 hours ago

John, I just submitted my first :)  I will not likely do as many as Ari or Rob, though I will at the very least try to get ahead of PopTech ;)

Edit: Hm, updated submitted link to the *actual* paper, not just the discussion on it.  I need to be cautious....

Very nice update to the Firefox Add-on - they were upgrading some background technical bits & pieces so I asked if they could add a date field as well. It's just in beta-testing mode - works fine for me but they won't submit it to Firefox till it's been tested on a few systems. Anyone who's submitting papers, I strongly recommend you get the new version.

To do so, just email me or post here or post a comment on Call for beta testers of the latest SkS Firefox Add-on. I'll then email you the file.

BTW, did a few tests with the new add-on to make sure it works okay. So I started at the top of Moth Incarnate's 310+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern and moved down the list, looking for papers not yet on the list - submitting enough papers to get me up to 600 papers. I didn't get very far down the list either - most of the papers at the top of the list weren't yet submitted. That's a rich resource! :-)

I keep an excel spreedsheet of the papers in my list (no links in that however) if it's of any use.

Feel free to contact me on wow.the.moth@gmail.com for anything.

@ moth

Do you mind emailing me the spreadsheet?

yooper49855@hotmail.com

Thanks!

Glad you've found my list useful mate!

Still very much a work in progress.

BTW Nature have released their new journal: Nature Climate Change - I'm sure it will be another great resource for papers.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html

John: "Ari, instructions on changing dates is given in the "tips" post earlier in this thread. If in doubt re bias, go neutral."

Thanks, but I think these instructions were for Hoskibui. ;)

Ari, yeah I guess so :)

John - in the instructions you say:

The default date entered is today's date so you'll need to edit this date by going to http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreview.php, find your paper then click the Edit link.

The problem is that I don´t see any Edit link. If anyone can edit the dates for those two articles above it would be much appreciated :)

Hoskibui: The edit link should be right after the hyperlink to each paper.  I'm not exactly sure why you cannot see it, but I changed the first one for you and will get the second in just a sec... done, both should be fine now. 2007-05-14 for the first, and 2010-08-20 for the second.

I think John has to give editing rights before you can edit links.

Thank you Alex - and yes Ari. That is probable the case, guess I have a limited translation admin rights :)

Honk! Honk!

Ari - 513

Rob - 512

For us average people - the challange is to make it to the top 5 list ;)

Well, well...

Ari - 605

John - 600

Rob - 512

Woo-hoo! :)

Ari has appeared like a dark horse out of nowhere. I must admit, when Rob was steadily accumulating, the main intrigue was when he would overtake me but now the question of who will prevail is much more interesting.

Of course the real winner is climate science... And The Ville whose animation is getting more kick arse every day :-)

Judge rules: no foul!

This is getting pretty interesting.  A three way race, but I'm guessing John won't be in it for much longer :-)

Just edged ahead of Ari. I know there are lots of things I should be working on but sometimes that competitive nature just takes over. I expect I'll fall away from the pack soon but I'll try to keep up as long as possible :-)

User	# of links
John Cook	606
Ari Jokimäki	605
Rob Painting	512
James Wight	56

Can 'we' get to 2000+ papers? :) Way to go guys, a truly inspirational and superhuman effort.

Is someone using ZVON to data mine the IPCC report?  Would that not be a quick way to ID a whack of papers?

That might be Rob's secret weapon. Interesting...

BTW, we have 1926 papers so far.

Maybe we can have a big reveal afterwards ;)

I tried the whole "do it for the team" argument but no dice. The man is an enigma.

If he stays quiet, I'm going to assume it's Zvon.org Guide to IPCC AR4. I mean, check out hundreds of papers on radiative forcing! Hundreds of papers on the cryosphere! And thousands more, as far as the eye can see.

Kicking myself that I didn't think of going there before.

"Just edged ahead of Ari. I know there are lots of things I should be working on but sometimes that competitive nature just takes over. I expect I'll fall away from the pack soon but I'll try to keep up as long as possible :-)"

Sorry, I thought that book contest was to get to the top of the list. Is this a new competition or did I understand wrong?

Ok, from reading the competition setup, I didn't understand there was a finishing date for this thing. Go ahead, do your best and go grazy, I have plenty of papers still to come. I won't do another 300 link day, though. ;)

All your competition breaths a sigh of relief at that news :-)

BTW, Ari, whenever you used to tweet new papers on @AGWObserver, I'd follow the link then add it to the database. The last couple, I followed the link but found you'd already added them. Dang, one of my sources cut off upstream!

I decided not to tell you that I started adding them also, because it takes some of your precious time when you try to add those papers - all means are allowed in a competition. ;) By the way, I'm also adding some new papers that I don't tweet.

You know, it's easy to find a lot of papers but it's much harder to get them to fit in those arguments. There's lot of basic research that don't fall under any arguments (for example on precipitation and wind).

You rat!

One thing I'm constantly wondering is that should there be a field for author of the paper? I'm currently adding the author and the year of publication to the end of the paper name field.

I'm open to different alternatives on this. I lean towards making the title solely the title, without the (Author Year) appended at the end. So if you want to have the author, I wouldn't put it in the Firefox Add-on as that window is getting complicated enough - but I could add it to the database so when we edit it on the website, the Author field is available there.

But we should really nail this down here and now so there's more consistency. So what should we enter as title?

• Title

or

• Title (Author, Year)

If the first option, do we need to also have an Author field? Is it really that necessary? Can we be bothered editing it for every single paper?

Another thing for consistency is what URL should we use? I notice ZVON uses a doi link for all of their papers. Eg - http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5364.725 which then redirects to an "official" page. Should we consider using the same system? Is this standard for linking to papers?

Papers are quite commonly referred to by their author and year, not so much by their name. Therefore, at least to me, the author and publication year is important. It also might help to distinquish peer-reviewed papers from other documents in the argument link list.

Dx.doi.org is commonly used but for example in Science Direct these links don't seem to work for brand new papers (which is rather painful as Science Direct's own URLs are about one kilometer long).

Edited to add: I'm not using Firefox Add-on so it makes no difference to me what is in there.

>>>Papers are quite commonly referred to by their author and year, not so much by their name.

Especially here, where virtually every reference is, e.g., "Hansen 2008."

It's not "necessary" per se to have it, though it would facilitate the usage of these papers down the road should any of us choose to use them in rebuttals, blog posts, so on.  A separate section would be easiest as that would make pulling the author/year combination out that much simpler.

Perhaps a possibility for sorting by author, year, and so on to that webpage?

...will later allow easy access to papers by the same author. So, from that perspective it might be useful.

I can help with the "legwork" (or is it "fingerwork"?) to copy/paste the author into the new field.

Cheers
Baerbel

Trawling for papers?

Didn't someone tell me not to feed the trawls?

Aw! Shucks!

The climatological Bulletin Index is not hot-linked, but is a great source of older climate paper titles and authors names:

http://www.cmos.ca/ClimatBullindex.html

Here is a list of 450 papers that are said to be peer-reviewed and are said to support the deniers.  Might be worth checking to see if they are genuinely peer-reviewed and to see if they say what the deniers' hearsay says they say.

( Try saying that last bit after a beer or three. )

http://cfact.eu/2009/10/30/450-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-support-climate-realism/

Abandon all hope, ye who enter his lair...

1000! :)

Yeah, you're just lucky my local exchange was upgraded, putting me out of action for 3 days. Hmmmmm, sounds like there could be a conspiracy there!.  

Has anyone contacted ZVON to see if we could get a dump from their database, get the entire IPCC set in one hit?

Okay, it’s not quite as impressive as Ari’s 1000, but it’s still a milestone.

Rob is also advancing quite fast. I have trouble keeping my lead in 200+ papers.