2011-04-09 05:27:07Hot off the press - data visualisation news
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

OK be prepared to be amazed.

I have got the basic visualisation working with the time line slider.

I thought it was going to take longer, but once the slider was moving, adding and removing circles was easy.

This is literally only a few minutes old, so it has only been tested in Firefox.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/podnoid/SKS/cluster24.html

Still quite a lot of work to do, to tidy up.

The code has got a bit messy, so need to work on that.

But it seems to work really well. Looks cool.

Apart from adding the details, tidying up etc. I need to add a scaling algorithm for the circle creation.

2011-04-09 05:33:05IE
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Works well on Internet Explorer.  The slider is very cool.

2011-04-09 05:50:17
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Fixed the sticky circle problem. The link hasn't changed though, couldn't be bothered to up the file number.

2011-04-09 06:01:48Wow, the slider is cool
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
It really adds that dimension of depth and interactivity to the display and scrolling along actually tells a fascinating story. I have one thought but I don't know how difficult it is. When it first loads, would it be possible instead of showing all circles at once, but to instead start with the slider at the earliest year and steadily move from left to right so more and more circles appear on the screen, steadily building up the display?
2011-04-09 06:35:18
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I had thought of that John.
It shouldn't be to difficult.
But I think I'll focus on the essentials before doing that.

2011-04-09 07:18:33Further thoughts
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

The slider to me is almost the star of the show now. I wonder if the display should be called "The history of peer-reviewed climate science" as to me the primary narrative is the growth of proAGW papers. And it communicates that what we've done is assemble an entire history of climate papers, which is pretty impressive.

Here's another thought - just throwing this out there, a subtle point. Should proAGW be to the left and skeptic to the right? Is there some visual rule about putting the most important thing to the left of screen as this is where the eye starts? I don't know if this is true or not - can anyone confirm?

2011-04-09 07:51:37
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Putting the denialist side on the right would put them in a similar position to the extreme conservatives in the US.

I know some cultures read right to left (Chinese?).

The point will be made appropriately by the asymmetry of the visualization.

2011-04-09 08:06:00
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

If you want to change the order. All you have to do is change the order of the 'meta' entries in the XML file. Although I should really test that.

2011-04-09 08:13:09
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Actually just did a quick edit of the XML file here and the neutral-proAGW-Skeptic order looks quite good.
But I think you can guarentee that there will be a flurry of skeptic entries once it goes live.

BTW I have incorporated an algorithm that assigns a proportional space based on the totals of each bias. It results in a more balanced looking display.

2011-04-09 08:45:28
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Daniel...  Modern Chinese is generally read left to right.  They're pretty ambidextrous though.  Older Chinese text is right to left so everyone is comfortable with that but pretty much all modern printed Chinese is left to right.

Arabic is still exclusively right to left.

2011-04-09 09:52:56
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Yeah, Arabic was the one I could not remember...

2011-04-09 12:37:26
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Works in SAFARI too.  That slider function is really neat.  Can someone remind me what the colours mean? I'm assuming "pro" AGW (don't like that term, that is what the "skeptics" like to say we are) circles are green and skeptic blue? 

2011-04-09 12:41:22
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Maybe say papers "supporting theory of AGW" or papers "in support of theory of AGW" or papers "affirming AGW".

2011-04-09 14:37:42Not AGW, needs to be more user-friendly
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Imagine a person who clicks on a link straight to our animation, with no SkS context - it needs to work out of context, with no acronyms or big technical words like anthropogenic. So how about somethign like:

Green: Papers supporting human caused global warming
Blue: Papers neutral about human caused global warming
Red: Papers skeptical about human caused global warming

Although even that is problematic. Many of the papers aren't specifically about human caused global warming - the idea that GW can be attributed to global warming. Some are about whether global warming is happening. Some are about impacts about global warming. Some are about basics of radiative physics.

Strangely enough, Poptech's 850 list is the closest definition I can think of. He posts papers that are "skeptical of AGW alarm". That hand waving definition covers the whole gamut of "not happening", "not us", "not bad". Hmm, this is tricky.

2011-04-09 15:29:28
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.107.62

So when we classify papers on certain argument, should we classify them based on how they see AGW or how they see the argument in question? Some arguments are such that all the papers relating to that argument are pro-AGW even if they would seem to support the argument (because many of the arguments are straw-men). So far, I have classified the papers based on how they see the argument in question, so there are too much "skeptic" papers in that sense.

2011-04-09 16:24:32Yes, you're doing it right
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Papers should be classified based on how they see an argument. So if you're submitting a paper about sea level rise measurements, does it validate the skeptic argument "past sea level rise is exagerated" or does it confirm that sea level rise is significant? It's not about whether humans are causing global warming or the general question of whether global warming is happening. All that matters is whether it confirms the skeptic argument, rebuts it or is neutral.

2011-04-09 18:15:58COOL!!!
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
58.166.40.63

I Like it.

 

Some little niggly things. When I got to 2011, the blobs were so big the different categories overlapped. Perhaps an auto scale if they clash (gee thats probably such a small feature to code) Also, not enough visual distinction between the colours. Maybe Green Yellow, Red. Also perhaps a text reinforcement below the slider, centered below each cluster - Pro-AGW, Neutral, Anti-AGW.

 

Next, wish list, DEFINITELY not do now. Some method of weighting past papers by something like Citations Count. Maybe only a few early papers, but perhaps influential. Also we need to find as many as possible early Pro-AGW papers. Or papers that highlight the paradigm shift in thinking in the 50's from Saturation limits it and the Oceans will absorb most of the CO2, to No it doesn't and no they wont.

 

2011-04-09 18:36:08Early papers
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
121.79.18.8

I've been adding a few early papers, from "The Warming Papers" and "The Discovery of Global Warming".

2011-04-09 18:58:48Breakdown of pro-AGW papers by time period
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
121.79.18.8

Currently we have:

  • 5 pro-AGW papers from pre-1950
  • 6 from 1950-1959
  • 5 from 1960-1969
  • 28 from 1970-1979
  • 34 from 1980-1989
  • 100 from 1990-1999
  • 293 from 2000-2006
  • 85 from 2007
  • 141 from 2008
  • 154 from 2009
  • 302 from 2010
  • 92 from 2011
  • 56 undated

As I was counting I discovered several duplicates which I deleted. I’m sure there are plenty more in the database so we’ll have to make sure we weed them out before the visualization goes live.

2011-04-09 19:11:12
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Re-colours I will be making that clearer when I get around to it.

Certainly before it goes live, details like that will be tidied up.

2011-04-09 19:13:48
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

BTW thanks for the feedback. This project has taken over my life somewhat for many hours/days. But it's something I like doing.

2011-04-10 02:30:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John C., thanks.  The current colour scheme is not intuitive to me. I was wondering maybe given that the 'skeptics" think that we are about to enter (or already have entered) a period of prolonged cooling, maybe they should be "blue", "green nueutral" and orange/red papers which support the theory of AGW? Just a thought.  Also, maybe the shading could be darker so as to have more impact?

What happens to papers like G&T and McLean et al which were soundly refuted after publication, and that goes for the other side too of course?  Surely they still do not count for the 'skeptics' side?  Although I understand that applying that constraint complicates matters.

Great work The Ville!

2011-04-10 06:35:24
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Glenn:

"Some little niggly things. When I got to 2011, the blobs were so big the different categories overlapped. Perhaps an auto scale if they clash (gee thats probably such a small feature to code"

Auto scaling the circles is a feature that I am going to programme into it. Currently I have a temporary fixed scaling factor. Also if I can get it working, I will have a go at collision detection between the clusters, so there is no overlap. Although at the moment I'm not sure if that will work. It will also slow things down.

"Also, not enough visual distinction between the colours. Maybe Green Yellow, Red. Also perhaps a text reinforcement below the slider, centered below each cluster - Pro-AGW, Neutral, Anti-AGW."

Labelling the clusters is a task to be done. Colour choice is Johns, it is encoded in the XML file. I actually think the faint colours are good.

2011-04-10 07:05:57Debunked skeptic papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
Good point but I think we have to keep it as is. If you wanted it to reflect reality, you'd have these skeptic bubble appear then they'd pop (or shrink) when they were debunked. But that kind of idea is crazy talk for all sorts of reasons. But it is an issue. Maybe down the track, we'll connect papers with followup rebuts but that's an idea for another time.

just had a thought. Wasn't it Angstrom who 'rebutted' Arrhenius with the saturation argument shortly after Arrhenius' 1896 paper? Did Angstrom publish a paper on his saturation experiment? I don't think it's in there.

2011-04-10 14:58:23
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.107.62

John: "just had a thought. Wasn't it Angstrom who 'rebutted' Arrhenius with the saturation argument shortly after Arrhenius' 1896 paper? Did Angstrom publish a paper on his saturation experiment? I don't think it's in there."

It's there now, among some other related papers I have mentioned in my article on the issue. I also added a new argument: "Water vapor masks CO2 effect", which relates to this issue.

2011-04-10 21:33:28
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Glenn said:

"When I got to 2011, the blobs were so big the different categories overlapped."

I think I have a solution to this. As well as the scaling factor which I will work on next, I have tested a simple algorithm that might tackle the issue of overlaps.
I thought it might slow down things, detecting collisions between clusters. However by simply only checking circles that are furthest away from their cluster points (this is possible because they are already ordered in the code according to distance from the cluster points), it is possible to stop overlap and not slow the animation down much. However there is a danger that circles of the wrong colour can be trapped by other circles at the wrong cluster. This can be minimised by changing the points at which circles initially appear on the screen. I'll experiment a bit more.

I'm also considering the possibility of draging circles around using the mouse.

2011-04-11 03:06:07
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

What are we going to call this thing??

Do we have a title?

2011-04-11 03:27:44Random ideas for titles
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.177.33

Just some words/ideas to get some brainstorming started...

bubbles

bursting someone's bubbles

Bubblesize does matter

Paperbubbels

Scientific papers per year - an animated visualisation

2011-04-11 03:31:25
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Latest version:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/podnoid/SKS/cluster28.html

Changes:

1. Scaling factor introduced based on total number of papers in XML file. This means as the number goes up, then all the circles will get smaller so that they fit in the canvas area. This needs more testing, with test data, to check it out.
2. Peripheral collision detection added so that there are no overlaps between clusters.
3. Clusters are labeled (text is in XML file)
4. Minor slider bug fixed (didn't affect the function of it)
5. Width of app set to 900 pixels.

2011-04-11 11:41:40Angstrom 1900
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.163.208

There’s a skeptic paper in the database by Angstrom from 1900, but it doesn’t appear in the animation. Neither do the next three skeptic papers. Is this because the dates have “00” in them?

2011-04-11 14:03:09YYYY-00-00 date
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

No, those papers are appearing in the feed:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerfeed.php?f=years

But I think The Ville is not using a live version of the feed - he's uploading it to his website and using a local version. So it only gets updated every now and then. Look forward to seeing it with the new early skeptic papers.

I'm also very keen to see the animation begin with the slider moving from left to right, giving a history of climate peer-review as more and more papers get added to the body of knowledge. That will be a fascinating story to tell, I think.

I wonder when we launch this if it might be worth doing a YouTube capture of the history?

2011-04-11 15:29:17
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

It seems to me that the skeptic portion is way too big. It probably has to do with classifying papers for skeptic view even when the argument in question is a straw-man and the paper doesn't actually go against AGW even if it seems to support the argument. This introduces a bias to this presentation.

What does the sizes of balls present? I wonder if there should be a number of papers showing somewhere also.

2011-04-11 16:55:35Skeptic portion
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

We need to clearly communicate somewhere that skeptic papers aren't necessarily skeptical that humans are causing global warming - we're casting a very wide net.

The number of papers does show - you click on any ball and it shows the year and # of papers in that year.

I think all Energy & Environment papers should be reclassified as "Online articles", not "Peer-reviewed Papers" also.

2011-04-11 17:36:05
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

So the size of the ball tells the number of papers in a specific year.

One thing about publicizing this: if this is to be published soon, it has to be noted that this is only a scratch at the surface. There's huge amount of papers not yet included to the database.

2011-04-11 17:43:22
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Re: data.

Yes, due to inherent security features using http and xml I am using copies of the data for testing puposes, rather than the latest. When the app is on the SkS server it will be able to use the latest data.

2011-04-11 18:04:18
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

John:

"I'm also very keen to see the animation begin with the slider moving from left to right, giving a history of climate peer-review as more and more papers get added to the body of knowledge. That will be a fascinating story to tell, I think."

I was wondering about this.
As new papers are added the 1 paper circles will get smaller and smaller, this means that potentially if the slider starts on the left in 1824, you might only see a single dot.

I don't mind doing that, but will it be puzzling for anyone seeing it for the first time??

2011-04-11 18:33:45Tiny dots
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
Currently looks good, the current size of the 1 paper years. But if it gets smaller due to a bigger database, I guess we just see how it looks.

Yes, definitely promote this not as a comprehensive db but just a first step. Maybe publishing the animation will lead to a big influx of even more papers. Nevertheless, it will be pretty kick arse when it first comes out, with over 1000 proAGW papers already. Not bad for a first step:-)

2011-04-11 19:40:57
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Latest version:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/podnoid/SKS/cluster29.html

Changes:

1. The scaling factor was naff in file 28, fixed in this version. Now if the canvas size is changed, the circles are scaled up or down depending on the canvas size. Also as more papers added or removed circles scaled accordingly. eg. circle scalling is completely automated. Added: the slider will also automatically scale based on canvas width. The text is currently fixed font size.

2. Stuck a title at the top.

Will work on Johns request next.

I'm wondering about knocking back some of the black lines and black text to a grey colour??

Also the title is just a dummy, something to discuss and home in on an agreed title.

2011-04-11 20:19:19
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Actually the cluster labels could also indicate the totals for each cluster.

eg. 125 skeptic papers

2011-04-11 20:24:27
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

I wonder if "Meteorology" by Aristotle could be considered as peer-reviewed source? Aristotle writes a little about climate changes and could be placed under "climate's changed before" as skeptic paper - written in 350 B.C.E.!

2011-04-11 20:49:09
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I hope you are joking Ari!

That will really mess up the slider.

2011-04-11 20:50:57
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Can more papers be added to the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s??

2011-04-11 21:46:22
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

Problem here is that the arguments only cover limited amount of papers, some papers don't fall under any arguments so they can't be included. This is especially the case with older papers. But we'll see what we can do to add more old papers.

2011-04-11 21:57:40
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.236

I like the idea of including Aristotle: It shows that the skeptics include the oldest fogies ever!

You don't have to extend the bar to the left as far as 350 BCE: Even if the bar only goes as far as 1850, what happens in that the Aristotle paper never drops off. So what?

2011-04-11 22:07:00
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I'm not changing the way the slider works. In any case you would have to include an indication as to whether the date was BC or AD which would complicate the coding.
It isn't worth it just for the sake of a single text that pre-dates the scientific method, it also wouldn't have an impact on the overall numbers.

2011-04-11 22:51:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.236

The Ville,

- If you add the Aristotle droplet as a permanent feature of the display, you don't have to change the slider at all. Aristotle just stays on, no matter what. Leave the slider as it is, at 1824.

- The addition of this old paper would add a touch of scientific humor to the situation; which plays to our advantage. We don't want to always look like the guys with the doom & gloom, who have no sense of humor.

2011-04-11 23:04:08Aristotle
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.163.208

Aristotle's writings weren't peer-reviewed.

2011-04-11 23:10:27Aristotle
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

"Aristotle's writings weren't peer-reviewed."

 

Not enough Hemlock to go around?

 

Edit:

My bad; that was Socrates.  Need coffee #3.

2011-04-11 23:23:57Aristotle is crazy talk
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
Ari, you're just trying to pad out your list of peer review :-)
2011-04-11 23:55:06Nonsense
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.107.62

I have no need for that, there's thousands and thousands of papers just waiting for me to add them. ;)

2011-04-12 03:29:06
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Latest version:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/podnoid/SKS/cluster31.html

Changes:

1. Slider can be positioned at either end of the slider at start up.

2. Colour scheme changed

PS I don't really like the title, does anyone have a better one?

2011-04-12 04:24:45
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Just tested it on my nephews Wii.

It even works on that. Bit slow though.

2011-04-12 04:31:24
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.236

"Aristotle's writings weren't peer-reviewed."

Aristotle's writing didn't need to be peer-reviewed: They were accepted wisdom for centuries.

2011-04-12 06:22:56
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Perhaps "The Evolution of Climate Science."  Don't really need to include data in the title that the app will tell you through its function, e.g. you don't need "papers," "per year," so on.

One quick comment: when there is only one paper in a bubble, it says "1 papers" - plural for one?  I think this shouldn't be too difficult to fix.

2011-04-12 06:24:47
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Thanks Alex. It's the details that make the difference.

2011-04-12 06:35:34
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Alex Cs suggested changes incorporated:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/podnoid/SKS/cluster32.html

2011-04-12 07:50:10
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I believe a measure of strength of papers is the number of times it gets cited by other papers.  Right?  Do you think there is anyway to build this into the graphics here?  Maybe the intensity of the color of the bubbles?  (Providing that data is available.)

2011-04-12 09:00:33
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I can imagine some issues arising from that idea, such as you'd have to decide if you'd give darker colors to circles that have larger per-capita citations, or to circles that have the most.  Perhaps a bicameral legislature? ;) Not to mention the sheer amount of info that such a feature would call upon.

There are further developments that could probably also be incorporated, such as popularity or reliability (not sure of best word to use there) of journals, pertinence to arguments we have at SkS.  Heck, maybe even a tally of the number of unique researchers published in each category (though double-counting between categories might be a problem).  These are rather large undertakings though, and I don't really recommend them now as they're merely butter to the bread, or icing on the cake, pick your poison.

 

 

A thought too: would a "total" figure for each category also be another function that could be incorporated?  Updated each time you move the slider?

2011-04-12 09:05:37
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I also notice that the most recent pro-agw circles overlap with the category label quite often.

Picky picky me :)  I like the app though, it's very cool and I'm definitely looking forward to when it is officially released.

2011-04-12 17:51:20
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Rob Honeycutt

"I believe a measure of strength of papers is the number of times it gets cited by other papers.  Right?  Do you think there is anyway to build this into the graphics here?  Maybe the intensity of the color of the bubbles? (Providing that data is available.)"

It can only be as good as the data.
This sort of thing has been discussed previously. The current database would have to be retrospectively updated.
Maybe this is a second project, with a redesigned database??

2011-04-12 18:01:20
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

Citations are only limited indicator of quality. Very bad and controversial papers invoke lot of responses, so they also get lot of citations.

2011-04-12 19:51:20Citations
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
Not to mention authors like Pielke Sr have a penchant for gratuitously citing their own papers
2011-04-12 20:21:38
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Nothing new in this one, just tidied up a few things internally:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/podnoid/SKS/cluster33.html

John, when do you want to launch this thing??
I'm happy with it so far.

I think the version with the lists of papers and links, and possible search form is for a next version.

2011-04-12 21:32:52
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Slight improvement. Border and title are rendered first, whilst waiting for the data to download.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/podnoid/SKS/cluster34.html

When data has downloaded then the labels, circles and slider appear.

ADDED: just testing a downloading data message, which displays whilst the data is being downloaded. This will be good, just in case there is a comms problem. The user can then decide to abandon the page if it takes to long.

2011-04-12 22:00:23
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Test this version:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/podnoid/SKS/cluster35.html

It will display a 'downloading' message when the XML file takes a while to download. If the download is quick, then it won't appear.

(Apologies for the frequent small updates, guess I am making final minor tweaks)

2011-04-12 23:46:11
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.47.120

I still think you should add one permanent dot for Aristotle's paper.

2011-04-13 08:54:52Aristotle's paper
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Neal, don't suppose you could provide a link to this paper or a summary - I'd like to check what it says exactly.

Re when to launch, originally my thinking was sometime around May 15 - solely because that's the time of our book launch so I can get my coauthor Haydn to sign the book that will be the prize for the peer-review winner. I didn't think you'd get the animation done so quickly!

Do you mind if we wait, give everyone more time to submit more peer-review papers? I'm also talking to Zvon about possibly importing some of his data into our database which will help us improve our information.

What do you think of the idea of being able to click on any bubble and it links to a webpage that lists all the papers in that year (probably popping up in a new window) - I would generate this page using PHP so the URL would be something like http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerlist.php?bias=skeptic&year=2010

2011-04-13 14:43:14
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

I wouldn't really even put Aristotle's paper as skeptic paper. I think that papers on "climate's changed before" should only go to skeptic bin when they claim that claimte has changed before and therefore the currect change is natural. Papers only presenting evidence of past climate changes should go to neutral bin and if they present evidence of past changes and that CO2 was partly involved changing the climate, then I would put them to pro-AGW bin.

If we would put every paper discussing past climate changes to skeptic bin, that would make hundreds, probably even thousands, of skeptic papers.

2011-04-13 23:16:11
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.77

The link to Aristotle (Ari I) previously provided was: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.html