2011-04-27 00:32:52Suggestions
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

I'm not sure where this should go, so... new thread.

This may be far too much work to be done, or something that can just be filled in over time, but a big difference between a scientist who is active in the field, and the dabblers / hobbyists who make up "them" (skeptics) and "us" (most SS regulars) is that active scientists are aware not only of the papers, but of which papers have been properly or improperly refuted.

That's a pretty big area of ground to cover right there, because there's no "scorecard" that shows "Lindzen/Choi 2009 0, Rebuttals 3" or whether or not those rebuttals themselves really stood up against rebuttal-rebuttals.

My suggestion would be one-stop shopping for important papers (no need to do it with everything) showing when a paper has been rebutted, how effectively, and where things stand now (e.g. has a revision been published?  How did it change?  Did that stand up to scrutiny?). 

For example, I think I remember seeing 3 actual published rebuttals to Lindzen/Choi 2009, while their follow up paper has been stalled and possibly abandoned (apprently unable to adequately address concerns and get past the review process this time).

This would be an invaluable resource when a denier throws a paper at you, and you have no way of knowing whether or not the paper's conclusions were or currently are valid.

Again, I don't know if this would take too much work, or how far it could extend, but I'd like to see it.

2011-04-27 00:34:56
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

One more suggestion, related to the idea of listing the standing of papers... another denial tactic is to misinterpret the content of papers, based on cherry picked phrases from the conclusion or abstract.  I've seen this done a lot, and found that whenever possible I need to go back and read an entire paper to be sure it actually says what the denier says.

It would be good, along with the standing of papers, to list important takeaways/conclusions, and perhaps highlight what the paper appears to say but does not.

2011-04-27 00:48:28Nice suggestion
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Good idea on the "scorecard"/"tally board" idea.  Unsure as to the best way to actualize it, tho.

Welcome to SkS!

2011-04-27 02:08:14
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.40.134

You would need the active cooperation of at least two professional experts in the area to be able to come to a trustworthy "state of the field" evaluation of the papers.

2011-04-27 03:35:26
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.108.14

You mean something like this?

2011-04-27 06:23:40
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

Looks like a good start Ari :-)

You should update your Miskolczi rebuttal - 3 new articles at scienceofdoom which I have read very carefully (not).