TCP Reanalysis, Volunteers

Hey guys. You may remember last week I proposed an idea for a reanalysis of the Skeptical Science Consensus Project. There was some disagreement as to whether or not it’d be a good idea, but there was a fair amount of interest. That’s good enough for me. I’ve decided I’m going to set it up.

Of course, creating a web rating system from scratch can take a little time, and there are bound to be hiccups along the way. One thing that would help is if had some volunteers. Feedback is helpful, and extra eyes are almost necessary for testing things. I could open the system up to everyone, but it’s easier to work out kinks on a smaller scale.

So, would anyone like to volunteer? Does anyone have suggestions on how I should pick volunteers? Let me know. Also let me know if you have any suggestions for the project, or for how I should update people about it.

And if you’d like to support this effort, feel free to:



  1. I hope you can gather support for this. The amount of effort going in to criticising cook13 would be much better spent trying to remedy perceived problems. I speculate that it will have minimal impact on the 97 result and I suspect most people realize this. I also think this is why you are having a hard time finding people who will invest time in this. People probably realize that the end result will still show an overwhelming consensus. This is why they feel that it is a more powerful counter attack to simply find some minor design flaws in the cook13 methodology rather than trying to show that it should really be 96.5 instead of 97.
    Ofcourse this is speculation.

  2. Anonymous 1942, I suspect a larger reason I have trouble finding volunteers is few people follow my blog. I mostly suspect that because there is no possible way my idea could produce results like those you describe.

    (There should be a emoticon there to indicate the humorous tone of my response. It’s missing because the thing creeps me out.)

  3. I think it’s interesting how one-dimensional so many people are, that they think of notion of a consensus on climate change as being measurable by a single number.

    I be if you get this rebroadcast on WUWT, you’ll not lack for volunteers.

  4. Carrick, a number of people on WUWT indicated they’d be willing to participate in a project like this. I just don’t want to widely broadcast a request for volunteers for what’s basically alpha testing. I’m confident plenty of people would rate abstracts, but I don’t think as many would want to just make sure they can create accounts, log in, see abstracts and stuff like that.

  5. Hi Brandon,

    I’m a an IT professional of 30+ years standing currently working as a TDA/Solution Architect. I’ve got a pretty wide background in all sorts of development and testing. I’m currently in a contract but could probably find a few hours a week. The paying job would take precedence of course.

    On the thread where you introduced this topic I was a little sceptical of the value of your results. That’s not to say I’m not willing to help you get them 😉

  6. David Sinfield, thanks for the offer. Right now all I think I’d need is for a few people to register accounts, log in and try rating some abstracts. It’s not much. I just want to make sure things work for other people like they do me.

    I still have a bit more work to do before I have anyone test it though. I need to make sure people can log out and add code to sanitize inputs. I’d also like to modify my code so people don’t get the same abstracts more than once and create a small profile/results page.

    My goal is to get that stuff done this weekend and have people run through it during the next week. Where things go from there will depend on what people say.

  7. I wouldn’t. As it stands, I’ll probably have a preliminary system ready by Monday. I can just have open testing at that point.

    Most of what I need to do right now is small, detail type stuff. I might as well get that done before having too many people test things out.

    I’d be happy to give a preview to anyone who’s interested though.

  8. I think a few beta’s should read say 20 abstracts and from them make rubic that would allow them to categorize them, in some set of categories. (perhaps initially weakly defined by the reader} and submitted. (including how the criteria was met.) THen have persons who have NOT READ they then read and organize them into ‘proper categories’ with the given indicators that imply such and critique the categories and criteria written.”Such as bad category needs fewer criteria” etc.. . then ask how them how they think the new people could synthesize their ideas with the first 20 betas. So on on a the third go round you have refined set of category and criteria that a read through should go reasonably well.

    But I think the paper that tips there hat: We all know climate warming is damaging to .xy….now I study OEK and there we find..
    Or worse: “the consensus indicates an acceleration in sea level. We study the consequence of that 80 years in the future.”
    will require a statement like: ‘assuming global warming allows author to write a paper without evaluation the global worming idea.” Do we assume someone choosing to write a paper on someone else if-then has lots of priors. Papers based on the validity of the classification of simple groups or, If the Reimann Hypothesis is true then…. have yield some fun papers.

    Perhaps a category “I can publish based on assuming some guy is write and with those assumptions create publish material dependent on a unknown / unconfirmed fact. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s