do you think this wiki resource will be useful in debunking duff links put up by deniers and skeptics?

For debunking, yes. For getting people to admit they've been debunked, no.

The problem is that the site has the word "wiki" in it. Anything with that word is automatically dismissed.

Case and point, the wikis I wrote on Huddler. It's the exact same information I'd write in my usual answers here on YA, it's got the links to global temperature datasets, peer-reviewed studies, scientific artciles, etc. embedded within the wiki so that as with any wiki, you can check on the source information yourself rather than relying on the authors. It's no different than a standard answer I'd give to a YA question, yet because it's hosted on a website with "wiki" in the URL, it's automatically dismissed as useless. If I copied and pasted the information without referencing the URL, it would be fine. In fact as you know, most deniers just make claims without any references whatsoever, and apparently that's better than citing wikis.

Heck, today Sam even said my wiki is worthless because on a completely different section of Huddler, people had given 'An Inconvenient Truth' good product reviews. You've just gotta laugh about that one.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aij9l...

When it comes to debunking global warming myths for those who simply aren't aware of the facts, this looks like a useful site. And better than sourcewatch and exxonsecrets, which focus on individuals and their sources of funding, rather than the science. However, this obviously won't convince any deniers (not like anything would). In fact, I'm certain that anytime you link this site, the deniers will make it a point to dismiss you offhand (i.e. "alarmists can only reference wikis").

Wiki is a horizontal multi-user software application that can be used for anything that requires access to a database. It manages access control, assigns different security profiles to users, etc.

You know what?

This is just like being high school girls fighting,

I had it, it's a total waste of our so precious energy.

I personally am no longer concerned with debunking duff links or any of the nonsense offered up by the mules in the denier camp. Anyone who calls themselves a skeptic at this point has either had their head in the sand or been visiting another planet.

That said, for those who are in various stages of learning about the subject and want information to confirm or refute things they've heard, these sites can be very useful. They give one tools to respond. The mules will stomp and snort and, like Ethel, try to make it personal. Yeah, Northern Logger, you may think her comments were right on, but they could have been said differently.

Gov. Brown is still pretty cool. He's California's Attorney General right now and seems to work pretty well with our Governator.

They really didn't need a wiki site, realclimate is a mainstay and I link to it often. They even debunk peer reviews if they don't think it has merit. Or to put it another way, they at least try to justify it in context.

Well I wanted to see how useful it was so I looked up a link on the hockey stick

They said: "What's going on today is understood via study of today's data and today's best scientific theories. Reconstructions of past temperatures are about, well, the past. Study of the past can be informative for scientists, but it is not explanatory of the present nor is it predictive of the future."

It went on and on without providing any useful or new information and essentially didn't reveal the truth about it, that it was a hoax, perpetrated either intentionally or due to incompetence. That is fine as long as the source proposes human caused warming. Mistakes don't matter as long as they push your side.

Don't you see a problem with sort of reference? I do.

Note to Pegminer:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/monthly_ac...

Is Florida lying about this? It seems alarmists believe what they believe in spite of the facts (heavy accent on spite).

wikis are good for literaly anything, you can create one and load it with all your attacks to other members, but you many need to get a mainframe computer for that.

You reap what you sow, "dear"

Deniers and skeptics? Is that the same as non believers and heretics? Science is always up for debate. You couldn't have science without debate.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of objective information.

The theory of Global Warming has bocome highly politicized.

It does seem useful, although certainly not to "skeptics" and deniers on here, who care little about science or the truth. However for people that are actually inclined to use it it is worthwhile.

Unfortunately it seems that the deniers live in their own little denial world, one in which there were less hurricanes than usual this year (there weren't) and in which there is more arctic ice than average (there isn't) and now the latest nonsense--growing seasons are getting shorter!

I think it's hard to argue with people that not only don't know science, but also don't know what words mean (see almost any answer where they use "hoax" incorrectly) or that block anyone that might contradict them (Randall and Dr Jello), are obviously delusional (I won't give those examples), or just plain lie and then hide their questions and answers to make it harder to call them on it.

EDIT: jim z, I don't think this guy at Florida State is lying about the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE), but that is for the entire Northern Hemisphere and includes typhoons and cyclones as well as hurricanes. If you scan farther down his web page you'll see that ACE for the Atlantic is 141% of normal. Additionally if you look at climatological averages, you'll see that the Atlantic basin has had more named storms, more hurricanes, and more major hurricanes than usual this year.

However, if you want to throw in East Pacific hurricanes I'll grant you that the total is slightly (one, I think) below normal, but the season is not over. To be honest, I don't think there's any conclusive connection between climate change from global warming and hurricanes, although eventually if the amount of water with temperature greater than 80 F expands, range of hurricanes should go up.

But of course as you said in another answer "in spite of what Kool Aid drinkers say, there isn't much to worry about when it comes to hurricanes. " So I guess the 30 billion dollars in damage and people that are still living in tents in Houston are nothing to worry about, or since you like to look at the entire world's tropical cyclones, neither are the more than 100,000 dead in Myanmar this year.

"Long live the queen" my dear "robber girl"-friend...-smile-

Well...the opinions are quite different "above".... I took out the time and checked all your links...and personally I think Wiki is a pretty reliable source (at least I use it quite often and receive decent information)...- also this "Source watch" seems like a good "institution" - to me "at first glance"....

You've also put a big smile on my face with your remark to "Mike" about..."CA über alles" ----soooo cute----(I'm still grinning) LOL....But, seriously honey, we ----ALL---- should be concerned about the global warning issue and the government and industry is definitely NOT doing enough to reduce the CO2 emissions, etc.

Just now in the news....The request of 30 BILLION $$$$$ for the "Big 3" automobile builder's ( I used to live in Detroit and the whole area is "living of the car industry) bail-out request....GRRR !!! They should have produced hybrid car's 2 decades ago...instead of depending on those "oil-sheiks" in "Arabia"....Ohhh Lord...I could go on....and...on...about those profit vultures ....fooling the public !!!! GRRR !!! Let me stop, honey....Keep up your search for good reference, sweetie !

Sending you my best greetings "across the Chanel" and all my love and care for our "suffering" planet....your friend....Annette***