Green World Trust

[Lucy Skywalker]

Pretty well since I started my "reclaiming Climate Science" work I've been dreaming about a wiki for "real Climate Science", on and off.

With Anthony Watts' post about needing to slow down, it has come up again for me. I shall add more but right now I'm a bit short of time.

[Lucy Skywalker]

From the superb thread Adjusting Temperatures for the ENSO and the AMO authored by contributor Bill Illis

[Lucy Skywalker]

Time to bring up the wiki project again.

RealClimate have now got a wiki where I can read all about what rubbish Miskolczi / Anthony Watts / Jo Nova / etcetcetc are spouting. And kudos to them for doing this. Someone also mentioned it again on Unthreaded at Climate Audit. I think we owe it to ourselves to organize our own wiki. First, we need volunteers to set up the right format - I think we gotta have a MediaWiki Wikipedia-lookalike.

ANY VOLUNTEERS??? ANYONE KNOW SOMEONE WHO MIGHT KNOW SOMEONE???

Then we need the right structure. It's got to be "post only by application and being accepted" - not because we don't want freedom of speech but because this has unfortunately become necessary in order to put right the abuse of freedom currently enthroned at Wikipedia, the Met Office, the Royal Society, Nature magazine, etc etc.

Big trees start with small seeds. And this forum is a reasonable place (I hope) to discuss how we can get such a project to work.

[Mike Davis]

Lucy:
I think you have read my opinion on the science currently being discussed regarding climate.
It only takes one or two paragraphs to disprove all supposed facts regarding the global climate. The first sentance being: There is no factual proven evidence to prove or disprove the existence of AGW/ACC/CAGW. The only information avalible are opinions that have not even made it to the hypothisis state yet to be properly tested. (Well okaay two sentences)

[Mike Davis]

I am going to add this. Which was a reply to people arguing both sides on another site.

1.It has been assumed that adding CO2 increeses temperature. Not proven in reality.
2. Venus has nothing to do with earth climate.
3. WE do not know. we assume=aas u&me.
4. Water vapor turns into clouds which turn into rain which removes CO2 from atmospher in form of acid mixing with rock to lay on the ocean floor eventually.
5.Increasing water vapor also raises humidity and lowers temp.
6. Models=POS/They have very little similarity to reality.
7. I could find data that could be manulated to prove any point I wanted to that is not proof of aqnything.
8. I think that this guy needs to spend time watching nature and viewing reality rather than fantasy. One could wonder what he is drinking/ smoking/ popping to have these delusions.
9. If you throw in reality you get fluctuating climate on various scales in the past and that will continue in the future.
10. I reached my conclusions by looking at historic and reading the opinions of geologists and real scientific research. Including that of some climate people. My conclusion is that the climate will continue to fluctuate way beyond or concept of time. We are currently on the back side of an interglacial (as proven by geographical and long dedro studies) Looking at ice core records one can observe the pattern that we are currently slowley sliding towards the next glacial maximum. However there is need to prepare as we should reach that climate condition in 60 to 80 thousand years.
11.Wrap up: If for some reason the weather continues to warrm for the next 400 years then we need to be concerned. Until that time it is a non issue blown out of proportion.
I have used statements made by others and paraphrased my oppinion of what some said as I forgot who said what I appoligize for not giving credit were it is due.

[Lucy Skywalker]

Mike
You and I know that all that you say is true. However to AGW's who are steeped in the science-lookalikes, it looks like bad science. Without links to clinching evidence, it is bad science. And without the human scale (we need clear organization, pictures, friendly ref. points, and not too much in one go!) it becomes unusable.

Skeptics have done so much work, collected so much. But we are still like ships passing in the night. The conversations fail to engage, mainly because AGW still have this "authority" eg RealClimate, which they can turn to, and it's... unchallenged. It's not enough to say, Chris Monckton has answered it all. AGW say, what, him? we've dealt with his "proofs" long ago.

I believe we need a wiki that deconstructs, without single authorship, each major AGW statement, piece for piece, just like the NIPCC is set up to do with the IPCC.

There is a huge quantity of skeptic material by now. But we don't need more volume. We need to aim it better, and IMHO this means visible, recognisable, unavoidable DECONSTRUCTION, item by item, of the central authorities and issues AGW turn to. We need to produce material of quality; if we work together it could be feasible.

The reclaiming of true science would surely be worth this effort.

[Mike Davis]

As the science they can not be replicated in real world experiments. Can not be falsified. As they are using questionable measurements. Questionable statistics. We as realists only have to spread the knowledge that their whole theory is questionable.
Attempts to use science against them only results in their pointing out how the science is inappropriate. That I agree with the so called science is unappropriate to prove anything one way or another.
It would be best to repeal regulations, taxes, restrictions, et. al. and let this whole thing fade away. I also feel that anyone who has gained financialy should return the money or give it to govt so they can recoup losses due to this fiasco.

[Lucy Skywalker]

heck, you make me wonder, am I wasting my time?

I believe that positive thoughts have a powerful effect and that this can be the driver of what comes into existence in the physical world...

Now a lot of current scientific thinking follows along the tracks of a belief that such belief in the power of positive thinking as I maintain, is unreal... or that it belongs to Religion not Science. It's often best not to mention such things in the halls of science.

But I think this is important here. I believe there is potential for a good wiki and I believe that, holding up this thought, I may help to actually bring such a creation into physical existence.

I also believe that the practice of compassion is germane here. One way of extending love and compassion to those who believe in global warming is to listen. Listening then makes one formulate one's replies out of the spirit and substance of what the other person has said.

So if, say, certain pages in the RealClimate info resources are considered in good faith to be the acme of good science, as I have often encountered, it would seem like a good idea to start there, to present other perspectives - rather than just storming in and saying rubbish.

Having said all this, I get the feeling that since the AGW bad science has been established on many fronts (like the many-neaded Hydra of Greek mythology) there are many places where the fatal crack might open up; I also get the feeling that, just as the USSR block crumbled very swiftly, so it could be the same with AGW. Maybe a wiki won't be necessary. But it is fun thinking it into near-existence - and it could still happen and be good, IMHO.

[anna v]

Lucy, it seems that there is a WIKI over at Climate Audit.

http://climateaudit101.wikispot.org/Front_Page

Maybe two would be too much?

[Lucy Skywalker]

Yes Anna, I'm aware of this Climate Audit 101 wiki. Way back I was in contact with Philip Mulholland who runs it, and I emailed him yesterday again, to resurface the possibility of collaboration.

It seems possible that his wiki could work - but
(1) it needs to come out of hibernation, and become something everyone in our skeptics' community KNOWS about and WANTS to get involved in;
(2) it needs to widen its remit from supporting Steve (great) to supporting the whole of the real Climate Science
(3) IMHO this means it needs to include "fringe" and standard research that has failed to make the mainstream publication
(4) this means that standards need to be good and seen to be good
(5) in the name of true freedom of speech, in order to offset the damage of Connolley at Wikipedia and others who are acting similarly in other positions of responsibility, we actually need to limit those who publish on the front pages to those who clearly support proper scientific openness as well as excellence.
(6) We must therefore also have space for OPEN DEBATE as well as closed front-page editing rights. And even that would be one step ahead of RealClimate's wiki, since you need to be accepted to post anything there, even on the debate pages, it seems.

I'm waiting for Philip to respond. Hope to see him here perhaps!

[Mike Davis]

Lucy:
There are and have been people who make/made money teaching the power of positive thinkng. There are even (religious) groups that belive in this theory and spend time daily practicing/excercising.
We each must take the paths we chose to experience life and fulfill our purpose of being. Thoughts are powerful things. I see smoke and mirrors when I look at the study of climate. I see people who are trying to make something out of the reality hiding therein. However there are people who need to keep the illusion going long enough to achive their goals. What those goals are I know not. Who those people are and who are their puppets are, time will seperate the directors from the actors.
This is a personal opinion based on reading of history and years of analizing situations.

[Lucy Skywalker]

Thanks for your thoughts Mike.

I'd now like to focus here on what will move forward my ideas and plans for a skeptical Climate Science wiki. I still feel this is a project that is needed.

We need a platform (an appropriate affordable friendly host, an uploaded wiki, and preferably supportive techies on call) and we need a gatekeeper who can ensure that the project stays sweet and on target. We don't need perfection or total agreement, but we do need to aim for excellence and for interest and collaboration right through the skeptics' community.

I would be happy to be a gatekeeper - but we really need three things first
(a) acceptance of the gatekeepers' roles in a wide enough section of the skeptics' community
(b) sufficient mastery of the technics plus an appropriate setup of editing and contributing rights, to know we can keep trolling at bay
(c) other gatekeepers - I do not have sufficient scientific expertise for the excellence this project needs, beyond kick-starting it and supporting it over time.