Comments 1 to 20:

1. MarkR at 22:18 PM on 22 April, 2010
   The 'skeptical papers' bit is a little weird. 'Is the basin-wide warming in the North Atlantic Ocean related to atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming?' is hardly 'skeptical', unless you think that 'skeptical' means 'doesn't think EVERYTHING is CO2 related'! They conclude that CO2 warming contributes ~half of Atlantic warming - I don't see how this makes them a 'skeptical' paper, they're simply adding to a body of evidence on AMO & climate...
   0 0
2. thpritch at 23:20 PM on 22 April, 2010
   I am assuming that the paper you are referring to was listed as a "skeptics paper" because it is one that could be used by the deniers given their tendency to re-interpret peer reviewed research to fit their preconceived notions. In the case of the above referenced paper, the deniers could reinterpret the findings along the lines - "because this paper shows that CO2 warming can not account for a significant amount of the observed warming, the models must be wrong and none of the warming is caused by increased CO2 levels."
   0 0
3. shdwsnlite at 23:42 PM on 22 April, 2010
   Wow! I thought this site was pretty good when I first came across it. Now I am pretty much blown away by how much detail and depth of resources are here. Thank you again John for putting this all together, and thanks to those who help with the features of the site and to all those who contribute to the discussions. It has given me a much better understanding of just what is happening. Though some of the discussions are way out of my league I appreciate the effort to make this site comprehensible to all knowledge levels.
   0 0
4. VoxRat at 23:58 PM on 22 April, 2010
   "So this allows you to check out all the skeptic peer-reviewed papers published in the last month. Or if you want to keep up with current views, check out the skeptic articles published in mainstream media over the last week." Both the links are to the same (mainstream media) list.
   0 0
   Response: Oops, fixed, thanks!
   
5. CBDunkerson at 02:36 AM on 23 April, 2010
   Looking forward to the Android app. The peer reviewed feature is great, though I notice that the classification isn't 100%. For instance, one of the 'peer reviewed pro-AGW' items is a BBC blogger sounding off about how the 'evils of Climategate' are being whitewashed. On the flags, I'd suggest translating the tooltips into the relevant languages. "View skeptic arguments in Portugese" isn't much help to someone who doesn't speak English and might not recognize the flag of Portugal, but speaks the language... like say, most of Brazil.
   0 0
6. tobyjoyce at 03:32 AM on 23 April, 2010
   I notice that of the 18 "skeptic" articles or media stories from the last month, over half (10) are from Fox News(3), Daily Telegraph(3), Daily Mail(2) and the Washington Times(2). These organisations have a well-known political tilt. Two other organisations share that tilt, the Wall Street Journal and the Australian, which published 1 "sceptic" story each. Now, can anyone tell me if these were balanced with "positive" stories about climate science? I thought so.
   0 0
7. Jim Eager at 03:39 AM on 23 April, 2010
   VoxRat, you have to set the three search parameters at the top your self.
   0 0
8. scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 23 April, 2010
   John, I might be missing the obvious but how do you find these links from the main page? Its not obvious to me. I would have expected this under Links (Resources) page, but no go. Is this just failing eyesight?
   0 0
   Response: The navigation system needs a serious overhaul - hopefully the next housekeeping effort will include a bunch of navigation dropdowns drilling directly to all these hidden nooks and crannies.
   
9. Ari Jokimäki at 14:51 PM on 23 April, 2010
   There was one thing I was missing. You used to have a good set of links to useful websites and such in the "Links" page but now it just contains the argument links. I just noticed that in the bottom of the Links-page there is a link that says "Links" which leads you to the old Links-content. That should be more visible somehow, I think.
   0 0
   Response: I'll add it to the navigation drop down. Am going to have to come up with better names for everything - I can't call all these different pages "Links".
   
10. Ari Jokimäki at 14:54 PM on 23 April, 2010
    Also, the "Latest climate articles & papers" could use an "all" option to all search parameters.
    0 0
11. James Wight at 23:44 PM on 23 April, 2010
    Do the dates refer to the date the article was added to the database, or the date the article was published?
    0 0
    Response: Published. It automatically prefills it with the current date but you can manually update it. It's not that big a deal for recent blog posts or mainstream media posts but for peer-reviewed papers published in previous years, good to get the year correct.
    
12. physicalscientist at 06:22 AM on 24 April, 2010
    John - Thank you very much for the collated links to peer-reviewed papers. This is a valuable service and it will be very helpful for students and others less familiar with the list of reputable journals to find appropriate material. Don't worry too much about the skeptic, neutral, pro-AGW classifications, we can figure it out. Although I would probably fall in the 'pro-AGW' camp, I definitely am not really pro-AGW. It actually would be much better if the deniers were right and we had nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, we definitely do.
    0 0
13. Alexandre at 07:55 AM on 24 April, 2010
    Now that we don't have that "skeptical article of the week" anymore, how's the argument ranking position defined?
    0 0
    Response: On the latest articles page, they're ranked by date from latest to earliest.
    
    If anyone misses the Skeptic of the Week feature, I can easily add that back in - I just commented out the code.
    
14. damien at 14:16 PM on 24 April, 2010
    This repository is awesome. Can you publish statistics on the number of articles published in each "camp" for comparative purposes? For example a plot of number of articles in a category for each month, with the option of comparing graphs side by side. Also, it would be helpful for the Peer Reviewed articles if it listed the actual journal/conference it was published, not just springerlink.com, which could be any number of journals.
    0 0
15. kdkd at 09:37 AM on 25 April, 2010
    Would it be possible to do an RSS feed of comments for the site?
    0 0
    Response: It's already available - look for the RSS icon in the left margin with 'Comments' below:
    
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments.xml
16. Ed Davies at 08:07 AM on 26 April, 2010
    Sorry, but I'm afraid a bit more housekeeping is needed. The ampersand character in this post's title is not being escaped properly in the RSS feed: feedvalidator.org which breaks it for my feed reader (RSSOwl). Sorry also if this is a duplicate of a recent similar report here. I know I've seen a problem very like this recently but can't remember where. Whatever, the programmer who wrote the feed generator needs a bloody good talking to - XML's been around long enough that this sort of basic mistake should not be being made any more.
    0 0
    Response: "the programmer who wrote the feed generator needs a bloody good talking to"
    
    That would be me :-) Every little bit of Skeptical Science was built from the ground up - no pre-packaged blog scripts at all - so inevitably it's a little unpolished. With only so many hours in the day, I tend to take a 'bare minimum policy' - do whatever programming is required to get the job done. As Doug Bostrom said when he helped me improve the website's security, my code is 'idiosyncratic'.
    
    I'll look further into escaping non-XML compliant characters.
    
17. Ed Davies at 05:19 AM on 27 April, 2010
    Ah, right, err, sorry. Maybe that should have been "any professional programmer who writes a feed generator like that needs a bloody good talking to". Still, generation of markup, whether it be HTML or XML, needs a bit of care with this sort of thing - there wouldn't be so many cross-site scripting loopholes if everybody got it right.
    0 0
18. kdkd at 11:32 AM on 27 April, 2010
    It might be an idea to put the source code for SS up in a version control repository somewhere. That way you can get your code autited, and members of the community might want to add features. Good work on the site by the way.
    0 0
    Response: Being a novice at the whole open source community, my initial question to this is wouldn't it also be an opportunity for hackers to peruse the code looking for vulnerabilities?
19. JulianRGP at 01:09 AM on 29 April, 2010
    The "Post a Comment" box does not appear for the most recent post which is "Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?" I'm logged in OK and obviously the Post a Comment box appears in this article otherwise I would unable to post this comment! Can someone check/fix it? Thanks!!
    0 0
    Response: Now fixed. The last comment had some dodgy HTML.
    
20. James Wight at 15:24 PM on 30 April, 2010
    For some reason, neutral links aren't showing up on the resource pages.
    0 0
    Response: The reason was because I hadn't programmed it to show neutral links yet. I've just remedied that and while I was in there tinkering with the code, I added a feature I've been wanting myself for a while - a "peer-reviewed" link so while you're in there looking at links for a particular argument, you can select to narrow it down to purely peer-reviewed papers.
    

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.