2011-05-14 17:32:58History of Climate Science web design done - feedback?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

Okay, it's all programmed up, ready for perusal:

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

There was divided opinion on which design to use - so I went to a higher authority (Wendy). Sorry guys, the ref has spoken.

So I'll be away from Sunday to Tuesday. Wednesday morning Brisbane time (if I recall correctly, corresponds to Tuesday midnight American EST) will be the deadline for when the peer-review race ends. Over the next few days, please post any feedback on the History page in this thread. In particular, welcome suggestions on wording for the various "How papers were categorised", "Who created this", etc. I rushed those words, am run off my feet today preparing for the launch trip.

During Wednesday, I will finish off the History page, write a press release then post a blog post promoting the page, then email off the press release. Note - my media list is mostly Australia but if anyone has any US media contacts you think would be interested, let me know.

Personally, I really like how it's all come together, look forward to launching on Wednesday. If anyone could add more Poptech papers over the next few days, would be good.

2011-05-14 20:12:20
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.111.66

It seems that you only get lists of papers for the years with bigger circles when you click the edge of the circle but not the center.

2011-05-15 00:24:49Resetting bubbles
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.155.238

Would it be possible to not reset the bubbles to the year 1824 whenever one of the links ("How papers were categorised", "Who created this"....) is clicked? Keeping the display on the already selected information would seem to be the more intuitive behaviour IMHO

2011-05-15 00:56:35
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Suggestions on wording changes:

• How papers were categorised:

I think that there was some debate earlier on what the actual classification criteria should be (here and here).  Some problems arose when we tried to tie to arguments specifically, as some are direct contradictions to each other (eg "Greenland is losing ice" v. "Greenland ice loss is natural/unprecedented").  I think the agreement though was that these papers would be neutral.  Skeptic fallacies also came up, and whether we should pander to those.

Then there was the issue of local v. global conclusions.  Local ones have been placed in neutral as well, even if they say "AGW will cause so-and-so here" or "This location is not showing a response to AGW."  This should also be brought up.

Also, they aren't labeled as "myths" in that link, but as "arguments."  This would also be more appropriate, I think, since there are some papers that do support "myths."

So to sum up, I think: papers were labeled with a bias if they were global and took a stance, neutral if no to either; papers were tied to arguments if they were applicable to them, not necessarily if they supported them or refuted them.

Maybe such an addendum:

"All the peer reviewed papers in our database were categorized based on the following criteria:

- Stance on anthropogenic global warming; if a paper expressly took a position on the response of the climate to human emissions of fossil fuels [*or, human actions?*], it was categorized appropriately (Pro-AGW or Skeptic).  If it took no stance, it was considered Neutral.

- Local, or global; all papers that took stances that also did so on a global scale were labeled under either Pro-AGW or Skeptic.  If a paper was of local trends or effects, then regardless of its stance, it was categorized as Neutral.

- Applicability to skeptic arguments; papers were also linked to specific skeptic arguments that they applied to.  The applicability to arguments was not necessarily considered for categorization you see above, as papers could support one skeptic argument while at the same time refute another (eg "Glacier melt is natural" v. "Glaciers are growing").

These rules of thumb are not meant to set papers in stone.  The categorization of papers is meant to be dynamic, and discussion on the appropriate bias each paper has is expected."

Whether we include that last bit can be discussed too.  I think it's worth pointing out that things will change.

2011-05-15 05:45:54
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Ari, I'm not sure what problem you are highlighting. Clicking on any circle will show a list (eventually).
I have tested it with most combinations of browser and platform and haven't seen that. What browser/platform are you using?

2011-05-15 06:05:08
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

BTW is this going to be the URL for publishing??

2011-05-15 06:16:01
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

John:

"Personally, I really like how it's all come together"

Bit of a miracle really!
There have been times when I thought it wasn't going to work.

2011-05-15 06:17:51URL for publishing
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188
What about http://sks.to/history ? That redirects to this URL?

Baerbel, your suggestion of not reloading is better but requires JavaScript. I was in a mad rush and didn't have time to do that - hopefully when I get back, I will.

2011-05-15 07:12:37
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I just wanted to know if I could use the URL to pass on to friends etc.

2011-05-15 07:17:28URL good to go
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188
Feel free to pass it on - sks.to/history is good to go
2011-05-15 07:20:16
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I'll change my profile name to Paul D.
You can use that as the author name.

2011-05-15 15:31:28
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.163.77

I think Alex has a point – we shouldn’t try to pretend that the categorization of every paper is perfectly consistent. Then a contrarian only has to find one incorrectly categorized paper to “discredit” the entire project. We need to be clear it’s a work in progress.

John, shouldn’t the short URLs page include all these extras like sks.to/history?

2011-05-15 16:52:53
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.111.66

Paul: "Ari, I'm not sure what problem you are highlighting. Clicking on any circle will show a list (eventually).
I have tested it with most combinations of browser and platform and haven't seen that. What browser/platform are you using?"

For me the box that shows the number of papers in the year in question only shows when I point exactly to the edge of the circle of that year. If I move the pointer towards middle of the circle, the box disappears. If I try to click the paper list open for that circle, it only loads when the box is showing.

Perhaps the most important thing about this, which I just noticed, is that it only happens for Pro-AGW circles. Skeptic and neutral circles work just fine.

The browser I use is Internet Explorer version 9.0.8112.16421. The platform is Windows Vista Home Premium.

Regarding other discussion here, I think that it should be emphasized that paper database is far from complete in every aspect (classification, number of papers,...).

 

2011-05-15 17:00:49
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.111.66

I have inserted at least one tongue-in-cheek paper to the database. It's in the neutral bin here. Just to let you know - these kind of things are what deniers could pick on.

One more minor nitpick on that page: when paperlist is clicked for pro-agw, the title has the word "proagw" which should be "pro-agw".

2011-05-15 17:34:36
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

OK, I can't test IE 9, my PC isn't up to it.
The code isn't different for pro-AGW. But that might give a clue as to the cause. Alternatively, it could just mean that the latest version of IE continues the tradition of being crap.

Maybe there should be an additional instruction "designed for all browsers except Internet Explorer" :-)

From my testing of the graphics, the best browsers in order of prefernece seem to be:

1. Chrome
2. Firefox
3. Apple iPad
4. Opera
5. Safari
6. Internet Explorer
7. Nintendo Wii

2011-05-16 15:37:19
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

Looking at this from my office computer, I realized that there's another symptom, my home PC didn't show colors for the circles, they were just black and white.

2011-05-16 17:21:00
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Can someone else try IE9?

Might clarify the problem.

2011-05-19 17:44:13
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I think the issues may be due to the fact that Microsoft has introduced SVG to IE9 and Raphael hasn't been updated for IE9 (not that it should require it!). I don't know if the author of Raphael intends to make any changes. I'll monitor the situation.

Looking at the Raphael forum, there appears to be work going on developing Raphael 2.0 and making it IE9 compatible.

http://groups.google.com/group/raphaeljs/browse_thread/thread/f76614f79da88478

The version I have been using is 1.5.2

The last post on that discussion has the author saying he is busy in a new job so has postponed the release of Raphael 2.0.