2011-04-18 14:44:03So many peer-reviewed papers submitted, I had to scale down the display
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Ari and Rob had submitted so many papers, the peer-review bar chart was going off the right edge of the screen so I've scaled it down:

User # of links
Ari Jokimäki 1140
Rob Painting 928
John Cook 606
James Wight 100

Also, I've uploaded the latest version of Ville's visualisation onto the SkS server (version 37) to test his new feature where clicking any circle brings up the list of papers below the visualisation. Very clever from Ville, and very functional and cool (I am really loving this visualisation):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate_science_history.php

2011-04-18 15:06:00BTW, just heard back from Zvon
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

They will be able to provide a dump of their database of peer-reviewed papers. We still need to manually look at each paper in order to categorise bias and what skeptic arguments apply. Nevertheless, Zvon's database could make this quicker and easier (hmm, could make the numbers in the last few weeks leading up to May 15 look very interesting) and just as importantly, would enable us to get meta-data like authors, journals and DOI numbers into the database for existing papers. That possibility, I find very interesting! It would mean we could display the papers in a much more comprehensive, informative (and professional) fashion.

Will keep everyone posted when I hear back from Mila at zvon.org.

2011-04-18 15:48:10
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Only 168 "skeptic" papers, but andrew says that there are 900 and counting ;)

Seriously though, that would be great if Mila could provide a dump of their database.

2011-04-18 16:05:59Andrew's 900 papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Firstly, I don't want to count E&E papers as peer-reviewed papers. There probably are still some in there so 168 may be an over-estimate. Once we get Mila's dump, we can hopefully display the journal of each paper in one fell swoop. Then we can quickly see the E&E papers and recategorise them as "online articles".

Secondly, Andrew counts any paper that says climate has changed in the past as skeptic, I think, when it actually implies high climate sensitivity. So according to his definition, they support "climate alarmism" once you understand the science properly. But we would need to go through his list thoroughly to assess whether his list matches our list. Is it worth the effort? Depends on how much traction Poptech's list gets - it is getting more widespread.

Carbon Brief is working on a post to rebut it that sounds actually quite effective in concept - getting quotes from the authors of the papers. If they do it properly and get enough quotes, would be a devastating response.

I did think about scrutinising Poptech's list before we launch this but it's probably not required - this could be something we do down the track, after the launch. Perhaps I'll add a "poptech" field to the database so we can identify all of Poptech's papers, then display them all on the one page, with links to edit each entry. So we can crowdsource Poptech's list, categorising whether the paper is actually skeptic or not, whether it's peer-reviewed or not, etc.

2011-04-18 16:44:39
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

>>>So according to his definition, they support "climate alarmism" once you understand the science properly

Hehehehehe

>>>I did think about scrutinising Poptech's list before we launch this but it's probably not required

No need to do any scrutiny as part of a separate project.  He's already done most of the work for us: we can just go through his list and add in the papers as they actually fit bias-wise, or not include them as peer review if their status as such is (at best) unknown (like E&E) or not at all (*cough*E&E).

I've got an Excel file of ~600 of his papers, color-coded based on various disqualifying (as I saw fit) criteria, because I wanted to start a comprehensive rebuttal a while ago, but I stopped because I got involved with robotics.  I will start this listing if you'd like, adding some in if they're not in.

2011-04-18 17:21:44Excel file of Poptech's papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

We need to consolidate our Poptech info - we had an extensive discussion at one point (http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=80) leading to the creation of a spreadsheet (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Poptech-peer-reviewed-with-Pivot.xls). I would like to consolidate all this info to ensure no duplication of efforts. I think I speak for everyone when I say the least amount of unnecessary effort we expend on Poptech, the better! Alex, I don't suppose you could email me your spreadsheet and I'll make it available here on the forum for everyone to peruse?

I'm going to make a tweak to the database, enable us to tag papers as Poptech's so its possible to spit out how many of Poptech's papers have been added to our database. I guess it would be ideal if we did have them all in our database at the time of the launch as you can put money on the fact that one of the first comments posted will be to say "hey, shouldn't there be 900+ papers in the skeptic list?" (in fact, hmm, would be a good way to identify whether Poptech has an alternative user account using a spoofed IP address :-)

2011-04-18 17:31:12
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Yep, exactly what I was thinking.  Well, not the alternative account bit, but you know.

It is very likely that we do have a fair number of the papers already that PopTech had put into his list, either in the neutral or skeptic sides (heck, maybe even pro-agw).  Tagging them as you said and adding in the non-duplicates would, I think, be all we have to do.  Maybe a slight nod of the head to PopTech during the release that we used his list.  That will likely make him go berserk, but it will be too late for him by then as he will be irrelevant.  Along with every other reblogger posting the list without doing background checking or science checking.

2011-04-18 17:38:18
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I like the Excel sheet too.

2011-04-18 17:51:44I've updated the SkS database - you can now tag Poptech papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Started a new thread on tagging papers in our database that belong to the Poptech list

2011-04-18 23:30:29Whoa
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.167.140

Now the neutrals are ahead all the way up to 2004.

2011-04-20 16:39:27Rob hits 4 figures!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.72.92
User # of links
Ari Jokimäki 1206
Rob Painting 1000
John Cook 601
James Wight 100

Popcorn, anyone?

2011-04-20 18:09:56
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.127.59

Woohoo, halfway there!.

2011-04-21 00:35:39
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.102.190

You can't go half way, you got to go all the way. :) So, you're going to stop at 2000?

2011-04-21 05:36:56
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.24.149

No Ari, I want to reach at least 2000 by May 15, it's my birthday!.

2011-04-21 06:12:32
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Psh, I'm just happy I'm ahead of PopTech :)

Happy early Birthday (I'll be sure to remember on 5-15 too)!

2011-05-01 00:49:21
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I tried it out on an iPad in a shop today.

Looks good on that, the listing of the papers below the app works well with that screen format.

2011-05-01 02:22:10
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.105.143

I have added papers to "Soil microbes provide negative feedback". There were a few that I inserted as "skeptic" papers, but as I'm not very familiar with this argument, it would be good if someone would check the papers I inserted to skeptic bin.

2011-05-03 06:59:19
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Had a look at a couple of the three papers you posted Ari.  The first seems quite fine where it is, but this one does not seem to have anything to do with climate at all.  The negative feedback that they are referring to is the tendency of soil pathogens to, when introduced to a plant specie, limit the growth of that specie as it spreads within its community.  It has to do with plant diversity and what affects it, nothing to do with climate or climate sensitivity.  I would recommend removing it from the database completely.

2011-05-03 07:10:07
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Also, this one: while this would work well for a skeptical paper on the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant production, it does not appear that this deals with a climate feedback.  The feedback discussed is soil-based carbon and nitrogen dynamics: the increased (or decreased, depending on direction of course) activity of soil-based bacteria in response to increased carbon storage due to more CO2.  This leads to the greater nitrogen availability (I assume nitrogen that is useful to plants?  Not sure).  The authors then mention that more work is needed to establish if there might be a negative feedback to this process due to some other changing variable.

So, again, nothing to do with climate (change to climate, anyways).  This would fit better under "CO2 is plant food," whatever the exact wording of that argument is.

I also had a quick peek at the WUWT article that is there, and recommend having a look at the paper that Watts cited - perhaps that could be added to the database.

2011-05-03 14:52:41
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

Thanks, Alex. I didn't find a way to remove links, so I just changed first one to neutral bin (after all, it discusses soil microbe dynamics, so it is related to the issue). I put the second one to the CO2 is plant food as skeptic paper, although we should think what kind of papers we should put as skeptic papers in that argument because it's a straw man. It is known that elevated CO2 will be good for some plants in certain situations, but it is not against AGW.

2011-05-03 15:31:32Co2 is plant food
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188
I guess the specific skeptic argument is "raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere will be good for plants". So the question is does the paper support that particular myth?
2011-05-03 18:02:31
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

The paper says that elevated CO2 increases soil processes which increase N availability so in that sense it supports that myth. Problem is that I don't think that myth is against AGW. Also, as this paper deals with only one plant species, it might be better to put in neutral bin.

2011-05-03 18:16:49Myth against AGW
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

What do you mean by "that myth is against AGW"? Remember, one can agree global warming is happening and caused by humans but be skeptical that global warming is a bad thing. "Plant food" falls under the "It's not bad" category.

If ever in doubt, throw it in the neutral bin.

2011-05-03 20:14:23data model
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.107.23

Something to keep in mind: Someday, even the crazies will drop the issue of whether or not AGW is happening. They will fall back to the "It won't be too bad"; and later "It won't be soon"; and later "It's too late."

Maybe we should define which stage of denial is being promoted by each paper?

You may not want to display it, at this point; but it might make sense to mark it in the database entry, so that later you can adjust the software without having to re-visit the entire database.

2011-05-03 21:05:07
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

"What do you mean by "that myth is against AGW"?"

Myth is against AGW if it cenuinely presents an argument which goes against AGW theory. I'm saying this in a context of classifying papers as pro-AGW, neutral or skeptic and here the skeptic is the "against AGW". As we have discussed before, some denier claims are straw men and it is pointless to classify papers as skeptic if they support an argument which is a straw man. Standard example is climate's changed before - huge amount of papers exist saying that climate's changed before, but that doesn't go against AGW.

It's the same with this claim. We all know that CO2 is plant food, so what? There are huge amount of papers supporting that too, but it is not against AGW, i.e. not genuinely skeptic. Big question here is: do you want us to classify papers at the face value of denier claims, which will give us huge amount of skeptic papers, or do you want us also to consider the sensibility of the claims while classifying papers, which in my opinion would result in more realistic result?

2011-05-03 22:14:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.107.23

Ari,

My earlier point addresses this. If you're saying "CO2 is plant food," the message is really "It won't be that bad," which is a later stage of denial.

Taking this into account now may save a lot of time changing the database and the database entries, later.

2011-05-04 06:39:48
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

It's getting closer to the 15th May!

I'm getting a bit impatient to see it placed in a proper SKS style page.

BTW if any help is needed in launching this thing I can probably help.
eg. if there is a press release, I can probably email it to various places.

2011-05-04 14:15:50
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

Neal, I don't think the stage of denial makes any difference to the fact that the argument is a straw man, which my comment addresses. I think it's a separate question.

2011-05-05 04:13:24I disagree that this is a straw man.
Alex C

coultera@umich...
64.88.86.200

At least, it can be categorized under a "vegetation growth will increase" argument.  I think that is a subset of "CO2 is plant food."  Yes, the more general category is a straw man, as nobody says that CO2 is not food for plants, but there certainly is the argument that, for example, crop yield will fall due to global warming.  In this sense, papers that support the stance that vegetative growth will increase support a skeptical stance on AGW.

As to papers on individual plant species, I don't quite agree with that assertion that it belongs in Neutral just because it discusses experiments performed on only one specie.  Firstly, the paper discusses increased N-cycle dynamics due to increased carbon storage - while a single plant specie was used, the tendency of (at least C3) plants to store more carbon in their root systems in response to increased CO2 is a rather widespread phenomenon (the authors mention this in their abstract).  Secondly, it's the soil microbe community that matters here, not the plant specie.

Down the road too, when we might see a study that says sugar will grow less due to AGW, will we have to claim that is neutral?  A study does not really have to be comprehensive to demonstrate a point.  Of course, this study itself doesn't discuss implications toward any key crops, only perhaps C3 plants in general.  It wouldn't apply to corn, for instance.

Of course, is that the argument?  That crop yield will rise?  Or just vegetation?  I guess it depends on how you categorize it.  I would think that since it does not even discuss crop yield at all, only tendency of C3 plants to cause increased subsoil C- and N-cycle flow, it would be best to generalize it as pertaining to vebegation growth rates only, and as being skeptical.  It can't necessarily be applied to crops.

I do agree that putting papers in the "CO2 is plant food" category is the wrong thing to do.  I think simply renaming the argument to take a non-fallacious stance would be easiest.

2011-05-05 16:04:56
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

"Yes, the more general category is a straw man, as nobody says that CO2 is not food for plants, but there certainly is the argument that, for example, crop yield will fall due to global warming. In this sense, papers that support the stance that vegetative growth will increase support a skeptical stance on AGW."

I disagree with this. The paper doesn't address the whole situation. It only addresses one tiny aspect of it. For example, it doesn't analyse how drought situation develops. It is impossible to say based on this paper, how the crops (using your example) will actually develop. AGW also doesn't say that elevated CO2 alone would not increase vegetation. Therefore neutral. ;)

If you want that all papers giving support to the claim that elevated CO2 increases vegetation would be placed to skeptic bin ignoring that the issue is more complicated than that, then there eventually would be hundreds, if not thousands, of skeptic papers.

"Firstly, the paper discusses increased N-cycle dynamics due to increased carbon storage - while a single plant specie was used, the tendency of (at least C3) plants to store more carbon in their root systems in response to increased CO2 is a rather widespread phenomenon (the authors mention this in their abstract). Secondly, it's the soil microbe community that matters here, not the plant specie."

Agreed on the first point. On second point, I think it was you who suggested that this paper should be taken out of the soil microbe argument and placed to CO2 is plant food. Should I move it back there then? It would fit there as neutral paper quite well, as it discusses microbe processes but is not actually climate feedback, although, here the microbe processes increase vegetation at least for this one specie, and the increase in vegetation is a carbon sink which is a negative feedback to climate.

2011-05-05 20:45:12
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.12.2

Well, I'm not getting tied up in knots about this. Yes, it is hard to categorize some of the arguments, but I look at the canard trying to be spun by the skeptics. For example the "Soil microbes will provide negative feedback" argument - yes it does in many instances, but no where nearly enough to offset human CO2 emissions, which is the bogus picture the skeptics are trying to paint.  YMMV.

 

2011-05-06 04:05:51
Alex C

coultera@umich...
64.88.86.200

>>>Should I move it back there then?

No, since that argument was parented (if you will) by the "climate sensitivity is low" argument.

To the other points you brought up about complexity, I'll agree with you here.  I still think that if a paper concludes that AGW will support one type of (relevant, as with crops) plant specie, then that could be placed as a skeptic paper.  Several, again a skeptic paper.  I think you bring up a good point though, that this paper does not include the complex array of changing variables, and instead focuses too much on only CO2, to be applicable to AGW as a whole.  In that case, I agree with placing it in Neutral.

This is going to relate to Idso papers that I've started to go through in the PopTech list too: Neutral?  They almost all deal with CO2 being used to increase growth.

In that case, if you and others agree, perhaps these change to the arguments database:

- Eliminate the "CO2 is plant food" argument, as it is a straw man argument.

- If a paper looks at the whole situation and concludes that AGW will increase the growth of one (or more) important crops or other plants, then it should be Skeptic.

- If a paper concludes that plants grow better in CO2, without addressing the complex factors in a changing climate, it is Neutral.

- If a paper concludes that AGW will lead to the decreased growth in one (or more) important crops or other plants, then it should be Pro-AGW.

I think that's a fair summary, what do you say?

2011-05-06 11:28:49Just throwing down another bar-chart marker
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

I don't keep track of when submissions get added to the database (although I plan to - bit late now though) so here is a marker on the current peer-review horse race:

User # of links
Ari Jokimäki 1687
Rob Painting 1409
2011-05-06 12:26:59
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.96.188

John, you're making it hard for me to spring a surprise in the finishing straight - ala the racehorse Kiwi in the 1983 Melbourne Cup!. I remember because I had a few bucks invested on him. 

2011-05-06 13:29:22Ah, is that the plan then? So you're just staying ~200 papers off the pace till you make your big move?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

In that case, I better set a firm finish time. Originally I was talking May 15 as the Sydney book launch is then but I don't actually get back till late Tuesday night on May 17. So what do you guys think of Wed 10am, May 18? Which converts to Tuesday midnight UTC-time.

2011-05-06 14:58:52
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

No Rob, I do take a peek at the situation every now and then - there will be no surprises. ;)

2011-05-06 15:15:13
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

I wonder if there's a limit of how many papers is shown in the page of one argument? I inserted by mistake a paper to neutral bin of "animals and plants can adapt" and tried to correct it, but the page only shows pro-AGW papers. I have added piles of papers to neutral bin there so they should show. Were there some page that shows all the added papers?

2011-05-06 16:29:36Can I make one suggestion on good papers to add before May 18
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

To add as many papers from Poptech's list as possible. Would be great when the inevitable comment comes, "hey there should be 900+" skeptic papers, we can say "been there, done that, they're already listed - but we did it *properly*"

2011-05-14 06:27:14
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.111.66

2000+. :)

2011-05-14 06:37:59
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Great job!

2011-05-14 06:41:38
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

We now have 4407 papers.  Why do I remember hearing once that the IPCC's AR4 had about that number?  Is that correct?

I think that's a big milestone to hit, either way.

2011-06-11 03:58:45
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.110.190

"Ari and Rob had submitted so many papers, the peer-review bar chart was going off the right edge of the screen so I've scaled it down:"

I'm far off the right edge once again, at least in my browser. :)

2011-06-12 20:07:00
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.117.136

Heaps of room left in my browser. Slacker!