Slashdot Mirror

There's a link to the online, scientist only, real time editor for climate publishing at ClimateFeedback.org. If you install the browser extension, you will be able to see the edits, with redlines, and links to sources including name and bio of the posting climatologist, geologist, paleontologist or other reputable, published scientist with academic credentials (this leaves out the charlatans at Heartland, of course, none of them are academically qualified to comment on climatology)

the people producing this tool are not scientists. So I am not attacking scientists, just people that continue the hype without substance.

The annotations are added by scientists. If you really are against hype and pro-science then you will be a fan of this site. You really should take a few minutes to check it out. Your preconceptions will be challenged.

Like any such 'auditing', this tool runs into a "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" problem.
1) granted, I didn't dig deeply into the site more than a skim of the 'about' information, but I'm not sure I understand what sort of credentials qualify someone to contribute?
2) this - and the meta-narrative - suggests that the commenters are somehow objective. Scientists (contrary to some anecdotal experience, for sure) are humans like the rest of us. They have motivations, biases, and varying levels of tendentiousness, *particularly* when it comes to a subject important to them.
3) I see that anonymous reviews are also allowed, which means that this tool is fundamentally no more credible than, say, any comment system that allows anonymous cowards. And we all know how those can suck.

To use what's probably a good example:
http://climatefeedback.org/eva...

Lomborg is a divisive figure among the Global Warming movement; a credible, well-informed, reasonably charismatic spokesman for "the enemy", his point in recent years has been consistent: YES, it appears that warming is happening; YES, it appears that humans are to blame, but NO, it's not worth addressing with limited funds and resources - not even in the top 10 'big' subjects we should try to attack.

For example, the criticisms of his article reflect this:
"The author tries to rebut the narrative âoethat the worldâ(TM)s climate is changing from bad to worseâ. In doing so, he erects a straw-man, cherry-picks studies and misrepresents current climate science. Furthermore, the logic that since things are not âworst-than-we-thoughtâ(TM), we shouldnâ(TM)t take action and do the things we would do if things were simply âbadâ(TM), is lost on meâ¦", "Tries and fails to make a convincing case for why humans need to worry about climate change less than they currently do." and "The author on multiple occasions presents blatantly inaccurate information and otherwise uses selective information to argue his point, which is highly misleading." is NOT 'scientific' criticism. That's just bitching.

Moreover, on a technical note, the shorthand 'rating' system of the tool seems to vary as well.
Other articles are rated from +2 (very high scientific credibility) to -2 (very low scientific credibility) while his strangely goes from 4 to 0 (excellent to very poor).

Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.

But if no reputable scientists are saying that climate change is a death sentence, why do articles like the one below keep appearing? It's about Christiana Figueres, leader of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Figueres was trained as an anthropologist, but doesn't do anthropology professionally; she's a Costa Rican diplomat. (Being the daughter of the President of Costa Rica probably gave her a leg up here). I'm willing to add a stipulation that anthropologists who have never actually worked as scientists shouldn't be considered as "reputable scientists" on climate models.

It's titled, "The Woman Who Could Save Humanity". http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Well, if you actually read the article, it doesn't anywhere quote her as saying that climate change will be "a death sentence". In fact, it's primarily an article about how hard it is to get diplomats to agree. The closest it gets to any such statement is the title of the article (and article titles aren't written by the reporter), and a sentence in the article saying that on the well of her office is a picture of the Statue of Liberty waist-deep in water. I'm not sure if we should judge people by the satirical pictures on their walls.

Sounds like what we really need is a tool to annotate extremists on both sides. Why does this tool do that?

I absolutely agree. Accuracy is desired in both directions. We're in luck, though, the tool discussed here does annotate both sides! Here-- from the link in TFA-- is their tool applied to the Rolling Stone article "“The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here”:
http://climatefeedback.org/eva...
--along with the reply by the author, the very first point of which was "I didn't get to write the headline; the headlines are written by the editor."

What is not clear from the summary and the Climate Feedback tool website is that they are using the hypothes.is platform to allow the annotation of website. It sounds a good use of hypothesis, having experts in the field of the article to fact check. It goes both ways.