2011-07-15 17:41:26SkS2.0
John Cook


The Science 2.0 site got me thinking about what SkS2.0 would look like. Funnily enough, I think we're already well on the way but wanted to try to crystallise some thoughts on the matter.

SkS1.0 was simply a series of climate myths, each accompanied by a rebuttal. 3 levels of rebuttals was an amplification of the same simple system.

SkS2.0 is a more comprehensive examination of climate denial. It takes our existing database of climate myths and adds to it a database of deniers, of quotes, of contradicting climate myths and climate articles. It then connects the dots between all these different elements. And that's where interesting results emerge:

Just as the human brain develops by forming neural pathways between the various neurons, I think our picture of climate denial is developing and the narrative we can tell about denial strengthens when we join the various data points to create interesting and illuminating results.

By connecting articles to deniers, we can list all the climate myths they use, their pet arguments.

By connecting quotes to myths, we provide a easy access window into denier's arguments and our one-liner responses.

By recording different types of articles (peer review, blog posts, mainstream media), we can determine how many peer-reviewed papers each denier have published. We can take this further and compare how many blog posts or MSM articles denier publish compared to peer-reviewed studies (this hasn't been done yet, just an idea).

By recording proAGW quotes by skeptics, we can build a database of climate myths debunked by skeptics.

There are limitless ways this data can be mined. I think there are possibly several opportunities within the data to write peer-reviewed papers, possibly published in a social science journal or a climate journal, that examines the phenomena of climate denial. It just requires fleshing out the data.

Anyway, I'm not advocating a particular path of action here - just fleshing out where my thinking has been going with SkS and hopefully stimulate some thinking on other creative ways we can mine this data to tell compelling narratives about climate denial.

2011-07-16 02:58:08My gut reaction
John Hartz
John Hartz

Too much emphasize on climate deniers and what they say, and not enough on communicating climate science directly to SkS uesrs. 

2011-07-16 09:42:24
Same Ordinary Fool


................Badgersouth's split focus provides an interesting way of looking at the mission of Sks.  The recognition of skeptic falsehoods, which includes communicating climate science, versus the debunking of individual deniers in series (and denier misc).

This would be represented in the above diagram, whout changing any arrows, by simply raising the 'Articles' box, to associate Myths&Rebuttals&Articles.  And by positioning side by side:  Contradiction Pairs&Deniers&Quotes.

...............By my imagination, before the general acceptance of AGW, there must be acceptance of AGW by 'decision makers':  reporters, columnists, politicians and their staffers, etc..  And they are more likely to be convinced by a denier series, like Christy Crocks.

Quantity is especially effective in technical arguments.  For those who don't want to follow the details, all they have to do is count.

...............In other words, I think the first part of the diagram would be of greatest interest to regulars.  While the second part would be more convincing to 'decision makers'.

2011-07-16 10:21:12Same Ordinary Fool
John Hartz
John Hartz

Acutally. I was commenting more on John's text than on the diagram itself.  

Because John states that we have already morphed SkS1.0 into SkS2.0, we should start a dialogue on what SkS3.0 should be.

2011-07-16 12:15:05SkS3.0
John Cook

Actually, I do have thoughts about that as well :-) If SkS1.0 and SkS2.0 could both be considered content creation, then I would see SkS3.0 as going beyond content creation. Eg - the 3 stages discussed in our mission statement. Stage 1 is finding the questions people are asking, Stage 2 is writing answers (SkS 1.0 and 2.0) and Stage 3 is disseminating the answers.

Badger, you're right that there needs to be emphasis on communicating climate science. But that's explicitly involved in rebutting denial. The most effective way to rebut denial is to concentrate on the facts and your core message. Our core message, our facts, is the climate science.

But to rebut misinformation, you also need to replace the myths with an alternate narrative. By joining the dots, we are building a clearer picture on climate denial and communicating compelling narratives.