Comments 1 to 10:

1. actually thoughtful at 12:21 PM on 6 February, 2012
   I like the idea of the series, about a particular person, with a common graphic.
   
   I tend to read the articles as they come out and I have yet to use the button to access the series. In fact, I tend to (visually) ignore that whole area of the page.
   
   If I am typical, maybe the thermometer should get a promotion (great visual, and I have used the "View all arguments" link.
2. Stevo at 14:11 PM on 6 February, 2012
   Have downloaded and, so far, half read the CSIRO Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia booklet.
   
   Very useful and easily digested, well formatted resource.
3. Sapient Fridge at 22:19 PM on 6 February, 2012
   Personally I'd prefer if there were a single page listing all the "skeptic" scientists and linking to a page for each one, in the same style as the "Climate myths from politicians" page. Doing it like that keeps it dry and avoids accusations of unprofessional attacks from SKS.
   
   I would also really like the short links to be available from the "Link to this page" selection of links e.g. http://sks.to/sun to be included in the "Link to this page" selection for http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm.
   
   The reason being that when answering misinformation on comment pages (e.g. the BBC) space is often a premium so the short links are really useful, but finding the appropriate link for an argument page is currently awkward.
4. Michael Whittemore at 00:37 AM on 7 February, 2012
   A link to a list of skeptical peer reviewed papers that have been found wrong or not up to scratch would be great. Have them in alphabetical order from the title of the paper (to make them easy to find). With a brief description of why they are not accepted. Then when you click on the paper there can be more detailed reasons with links to where on Skeptical Science the papers have been debunked. Even have them categorised, for example, sensitivity and proxy records. Deniers just keep on repeating the same papers and to be able to link them to a detailed rebuttal of the work would save a lot of time.
5. Biophilia at 05:04 AM on 7 February, 2012
   I second Sapient Fridge's ideas in his/her first paragraph.
6. Jose_X at 08:51 AM on 7 February, 2012
   With respect to the cartoon, yes, it is funny, but it's rather extreme to consider the middle position to be unacceptable, no questions asked. Consensus comes from a position somewhere in the middle. The IPCC didn't pick climate sensitivity to be 10. It took something of an average (which necessarily would fall in that "abyss" section). We don't pick a most extreme value as the representative of a group. People know this lesson, that the middle ground is likely where it is most likely to be correct or to lead to some sort of peace among the feuding parties. If the message intended by the cartoon is a different one (eg, about professionals in near consensus vs the full population), then that point should be a little clearer. Plus, the cartoon makes it look as if picking an extreme side is healthier than trying out the middle. How is someone supposed to move from say the right side to the left side in a responsible fashion? Should we blindly accept what "central power" dictates? You know that view doesn't fly at the polls.. and for good reason (and popular polls do count in a "democracy"). If I value democracy, I find it valuable to be convinced personally (convinced to some extent), and this means I need a path if I currently happen to be on what might be the wrong side. Suggesting an extreme position might be the right one looks (eg) elitist from the outside since that is a position saying that you aren't fallible. People who take extreme positions have a history of not being able to argue on merits (eg, because they don't really understand or have a dishonest agenda).. that's what extremism suggests to many people in the middle (falling into the abyss) who you probably want over on your side.
7. Rob Honeycutt at 09:01 AM on 7 February, 2012
   Jose... I think you're overanalyzing. I believe the intent of the cartoon is to say that by ignoring the science and trying to find the middle ground between these "two sides" politically is a perilous thing.
   
   This is not a matter of do we fund more highways or more transmission lines. We can vote on what we believe the right path is. We have a serious problem when one side of a debate is saying we should vote against science (i.e, "knowledge").
   
   Science is telling us we have a serious problem. Let's vote on how we address that problem rather than trying to vote on whether or not to believe the science.
8. John Hartz at 10:53 AM on 7 February, 2012
   Jose_X:
   
   The character falling into the abyss is Uncle Sam. Toles is critiquing the "middle of the road" position taken by the American people and its government.
9. Bob Loblaw at 14:14 PM on 7 February, 2012
   Jose_X:
   
   Where is the "middle ground" between "flat earth" and "round earth"? Which is closer to an oblate spheroid (the best model)?
10. Michael Whittemore at 19:15 PM on 7 February, 2012
    Jose@6 The middle of the cartoon is not half way between the expected climate change, the abyss is denying the science, there is no middle, rather you accept the science or you dont. United States is taking the roll of not listening to the science, you are suggesting that the United States are going to be accepting the science half way, this is not the case. Even if they did the bare minimum of what the IPCC suggest would be good enough.

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