2011-06-20 17:17:03Suggestion for next step
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

As everyone gets so confused by our definitions of skeptic/proAGW - how about our next step is this? Republish the interactive history but with skeptic/proAGW using Naomi Oreskes' definition. Eg - they either endorse or reject the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In other words, narrow our search to papers under the "It's not us" myth. Easy enough for me to do that without any extra programming from Paul.

So it's simple, easy, intuitive. Only one problem - we don't have many papers under those categories:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=125&peer=1

However, I'm sure there are a few papers already added that could go in the "not us" category. Thoughts/comments?

2011-06-20 19:03:33
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.211

So, are you suggesting we move a lot of papers to that category?

Alternative would be to add parameters to the database so that you would have separate classification for the argument and for the AGW theory. Both could be classified as pro/neutral/against. Re-classifying papers would be a lot of work, but I'm not afraid of that.

2011-06-20 19:50:27Not move
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229
We can categorize papers under more than 1 argument. So if there are any climate papers that touch on attribution, they can probably be added to "it's not us".

Although I can see one problem. If there's a paper that blames global warming on the sun, this could definitely be categorized as "it's not us". But a paper that rules out the sun doesn't necessarily endorse AGW.

I have to apologize for getting us into this quagmire - while there are great advantages to grouping papers by climate myths, I've also tied us into great knots by making the visualization so complicated. I'm tempted to go with Ari's idea and add an extra attribute so we can create an SkS version of Naomi's Science paper. But I don't want to rush into such a huge commitment just yet.

2011-06-20 20:23:08
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.211

I don't think it has to be a huge commitment. You can just add another classification parameter and we can start classifying papers slowly in the background. It doesn't need to be done in a flash.

2011-06-20 23:48:22
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.136.119

“It’s not us” might suddenly appear at the top of the rebuttal list – or not, if there are not many papers that classify as skeptical.

2011-06-21 03:17:28
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Hi John

Unfortunately there is a small change needed in the Javascript code.

Remember I had to hard code the loop that looks through the XML.
It's set to 3 at the moment, I think it will have to be set to 2 if you remove a cluster.

On the positive side, if you get rid of the neutral cluster, all the circles will increase in size.

Actually if you confirm you want to do this, it might be a good idea if I test it out.

Or have I miss interpreted the idea????

2011-06-21 05:02:22
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

   I'm not clear what is intended here??
Are you wanting to remove the idea of neutral papers?

If so, to reduce the visualisation to two clusters just change the for loop (line 393 or around there) from counting 3, to 2 eg:

 

    for (var i=0; i<YearEntries.length; i++)
        {
            for (var n=0; n < 2; n++)
            {   
                // Check cluster bias against year entry bias. If there is a match then create a year instance and store the data

 

 

Everything else will work itself out as long as the XML also reflects the reduction to skeptic and proAGW (remove neutral entries).