Dr. Svalgaard, with no intent to offend I must join Raven in asking what climate science blog you would recommend. I hope you realize that it is because of my respect for you, that I ask.

WUWT?

Leif likes to throw a wobbler every now and then because some people come out with junk that doesn’t fit the science.

Other than that he’s seems happy with his research work.

Another year and the Air Vent might manage to combine both razor-sharp and broad sweep – especially with the possibility of real dialogue with warmist scientists who sincerely believe in their work and results. But I don’t think tAV is quite there yet.

DaveE.

I’ll vote in the blog wars, I’ll do.
I’ll vote Climate Audit. Like you?
For Anthony Watts
Helps us fill in the dots,
But McIntyre tells us what’s true.

I agree that this blog isn’t really much about science, my evidence is the number of people who have voted as seperate entries rather than using the (+) buttons.

Perhaps they where just replicating and therefore confirming the validity of the previous data signals.

Sean Houlihane (08:37:06) :

I agree that this blog isn’t really much about science, my evidence is the number of people who have voted as seperate entries rather than using the (+) buttons.

Exactly. And on top of that there are the people who can’t spell “separate”.

savethesharks (19:20:18) :

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Chris, do you each time responding forget to close your italics with the close italics tag < /i > (with no spaces of course) ?

It makes it difficult to discern quoted text from your response, makes it difficult to parse mentally … it is too time consuming sometimes to go back and attempt to separate the two, and, I do like reading your responses but sometimes for the difficulty entailed therein.
.
.
.

Unless I am mistaken, science is not merely a body of truth which is past down from one generation to the next. With the new instrumentation, the new discoveries, and the wonderful technology, there are bound to be questions raised about theories which are many decades old. There is nothing dysfunctional or abnormal about it. In fact, when differences arise, each side should be delighted at the oportunity to make a better case. And it does enormous credit to WUWT that the policy has not been to do the thinking for the readers by snipping interesting discussions, but that the conversation is facilitated and lively! Many of us have enjoyed watching a good row, besides–all science aside :)

What a terrific website. I am glad to see Cap and Trade delayed and Copenhagen cancelled with all of you.

We’ve learned much from you, but you seem to have learned little from us — or so you imply:-) Me thinks thee protest too much. Einstein found an answer he was searching for on a walk one day. Keep walking Leif, you may not learn anything at WUWT but perhaps you’ll find something.

Science is the destroying of ‘beautiful theories wth ugly facts’ and WUWT does that. I think of Leif and the planet cyclomania.
Anyone who can benefit from CA goes there already.

I think Steve has gradually narrowed his sights to conserve his energy to force a breach in the AGW bad-science fortress with its serial evasions and crucial data unavailable for auditing. It feels more like Steve is heading the Special Operations Executive crack team, blowing up the heavy water installation in Rjukan, stopping Hitler making an A-bomb. This is the future of Science at stake.

Both blogs deserve the award.

Leif – dear Leif – I’m still mulling over your homework. I’m profoundly aware that we need a “citizens’ science” to provide a “commonsense” intelligent balance to vested professional interests – and to bring a fullness of humanity and warmth, which makes Science bearable and accessible. Most learning requires repetition, seasoned ideas can be mistaken, and “every heresy is the revenge of a suppressed truth”. God forbid that the climate science “tower of Babel” should continue, where an incomprehensible and uncheckable speciality can hold all the others to ransom.

I would find it a lot easier to follow solar issues if all OT, OTT, and tendencies to ad hom were snipped very hard very early on – and if all posters on all sides counted to ten before even posting, kept as short and fact-filled as possible, and literally didn’t post at all unless vital. And primers (on all sides, regularly re-referenced, perhaps under the poster’s name) would also be helpful. I don’t want to lose the dialogue with those who disagree with Leif, but I’d like these provisos to sharpen the science. Steve’s snips at CA have IMO improved the flow and development of the science. But it’s tiresome to do.