I’m teaching a course on Web 2.0 (for college teachers) here in Quebec and I’d like to use your image (web 1.0 to Web 2.0) for it. I would translate it in French and post it on my course. I would give this webpage (link) as the place where i got the original. Is it ok?

Raymond

Gary: “The advantages I see to crowd-sourcing peer review are 1) raising the likelihood of getting valid criticisms, 2) acquiring new collaborators, and 3) improving the research before it has progressed very far. What gets traded off is the credit for your work… In terms of science advancing, this is a good thing.” Absolutely.

Coincidentally, right now I’m using my own resources (phpBB forum plus website) to develop the same idea of collaborative online research. I’m endeavouring to start to knit together and clarify the climate skeptics’ positions, to help develop an agreed body of skeptical science that can rebuild the real Climate Science. I started with writing a primer, then I could see my own limitations – we need (a) enough agreement on issues, in order to (b) have statements that refute all the AGW straw-man refutations which constitute their fuel lines.

I’d ask Anthony to run a piece on this work – but am not sure yet about coping with the mass influx that might create! However, do have a look HERE, since it is all interesting work in progress… and hopefully will help reclaim Climate Science…

Leon Brozyna (15:48:40) :

This reminds me — next week we should see if the debate on global warming continues at one of the APS newsletters (15 Oct?):

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/index.cfm

I wonder who’ll be battling it out this time around.

Debate? From A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

Further:

We will not review the scientific literature, as that path is well trod. Rather, we present some basic physics models, to shore up basic understandings.

> Those of us who grew up with Usenet and NNTP news-clients find Web
> 2.0 a pretty inadequate substitute for a newsgroup. Apart from the
> lousy ergonomics of trying to use a web-browser to navigate a
> blog-based discussion,

or copying text between text area and real editor and back when
adding to a comment. (Mostly fixed by a Firefox plugin called
“It’s All Text!”)

> there is the truly massive problem of not
> being able to fork discussions.

Perhaps one thing that could be done is to create a new “Off topic”
post each week as a breeding ground for new articles.

Another problem is I wold read a News thread until replies got
5-6 deep, by then the topic would be lost, the detail too nitty-gritty,
or lost in a flame war. Any new offshoots would have a new
subject line. Doesn’t happen on a forum like this.

> … I can easily compare the
> depth and range and vigour of the discussion on one newsgroup is [I?]
> still follow, with the brief and superficial discussion I see on a
> blog that addresses the same community.

This blog and many others like climate audit are okay. A lot,
especially news media blogs, seem to turn into teenage-instant messaging
or cell phone text messages. I hope we aren’t raising a generation that
can only think in sound bites or words with single character
abbreviations.

> … The web is like a glossy
> magazine: slick but thin. Web 2.0 is not the best we could do. It
> isn’t even as good as what we already had.

Unfortunately USENET was taken over by the spammers after moderated
groups had picked up an ugly stigma. Imagine how bad blogs could be,
and the current dysfunction looks pretty good.

Ah, it’s so nice using “proper” quoting style instead of HTML. :-)
At least, assuming this formats okay….

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/index.cfm

I wonder who’ll be battling it out this time around.

And I think you know who these ‘scientists’ are, and what international organization they are associated with. It’s sad, because if the pursuit is ultimate truth, the open science way is best — “The Wisdom of the Crowd” is the best way to engage humanity in any pursuit.

In the end, it’s probably blogs like this one, and others, which will lead the way into the future, and pursue real science.

‘Government of hens, by the foxes, for the benefit of foxes’ — Very appropiate.

Indeed. An example, Charles Johnson’s comparison of the Burton Word doc “typed” on an IBM Selectric; his photoshop autopsies of AP pictures of Beriut burning, etc., seem to indicate an adjustment to Churchill’s metaphor, to wit:

“Rumour and falsehood travel around the globe before Truth get’s its pants on.”

Science defined by scientists and administered by journalists securing the remuneration of both is something akin to ‘Government of hens, by the foxes, for the benefit of foxes’.

I think this development is promising if unfulfilled as yet. A lot of people have pooh-poohed ideas that worked which at the time were in their infancy. History is littered with them. It may not be a comprehensive immediate improvement, but it does provide an avenue for that over time. With any revolution its usefulness with prove or disprove itself with the passage of time. Even the current state of blogging needs to undergo some evolution. But that takes a broad spectrum of cooperation on a scale we have not yet seen. If it is properly done, it has the potential for fantastic success on a wide array of fronts. And it may lead to revolutions, if it becomes popular enough, in web browsing and computing in general for popular consumption.
One thing I can say for certain, if people see the need for an improvement, they will do it. If a USENET-style of operation provides some advantage, it will be integrated. For now, however, we are talking merely on a scientific plane. This will be much like an online journal (I read National Review for instance) but with the more free structure of a blog, yet it sounds as if they may organize it like a BBS. We shall see. But the greater exposure and interaction of ideas has never, to my knowledge, been a bad idea. That principle has brought us to where we are now.

The link doesn’t work.

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com