Voting is closed

The 2008 Weblog Awards

Voting closed TODAY Jan 13 at 5PM Eastern, 2PM Pacific time.

Preliminary ending numbers are available here

Thanks to everyone who participated. The results won’t be final until reviewed by the judges/operators. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.  – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating
524 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alex
January 12, 2009 7:11 am

I urge everyone to vote WUWT, tell your friends, co-workers, family, distant relatives, distant relatives’ friends etc etc to vote! I would rather see RC win if i had to choose between that vile, non-sensical pharyngula blog and RC.
A win would surely boost viewer hits for WUWT and consequently allow the spread of solid science.

Michael D Smith
January 12, 2009 7:35 am

Counterattack begins!
Pharyngula is gaining serious ground, seemingly a well coordinated attack which started this morning. Latest stats indicate a good sized burst earlier in the morning that could close the gap in 0.92 days, however it has recently fallen off to a gap close in 2.6 days (too late). If they can recruit more and hold the gains, it’s a good possibility WUWT will not win. Remember to vote every day!!!

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2009 8:08 am

Would, except the site won’t load.

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2009 8:12 am

Pharyngula has only gained about 3%. I don’t think they have a chance.

Michael Ronayne
January 12, 2009 8:22 am

I hate to dash anyone’s fantasies but it is so incredibly easy to rig these online beauty contests that I don’t know why you would want to waist your time. Give me a college computer lab and a decent batch scripting program such as WinBatch and I can control the outcome of any election. In the end the only thing you are voting on is who controls the most number of computers.
Right now the Weblog Awards website is incredibly slow. Do you seriously believe that these are live humans voting?
Mike

TerryS
January 12, 2009 8:22 am

Votes are appearing at a significant rate (about 1 every 10 seconds) and the voting site is slow to respond.
As of 16:12:00 GMT on 12th the tallies are:
Pharyngula: 7493
WUWT: 9881
Total: 26,798
Looks like Pharyngula suddenly has a whole host of new fans or there is some tactical voting going on (I wont speculate on other reasons).
Wasn’t there a similar flurry of activity last year at the end of the voting?
I’ve done my bit and now have to wait 24 hours before I can contribute again.

Retired Engineer
January 12, 2009 8:25 am

As of 0925 MST, the weblog award site did not respond. Overload?

Alex
January 12, 2009 8:57 am

I quote directly from pharyngula:
“So go ahead and punch a button if you feel like it. But I will remind you: no cheating of any kind. The people who run this award have some weird rules, but they aren’t dummies, and they do scrutinize sources and voting patterns very carefully, and will throw out votes that have a hint of illegitimacy. The only thing more embarrassing than winning this contest might be losing it because a large number of votes for me were discarded.”
——-
Wow, that’s just basically begging to do the opposite. ( a Hint hint, nudge nudge),,,
I smell a rat. After reading some posts and comments, I would absolutely not be surprised if one of pharyngula’s loyal readers have taken such action.

Pierre Gosselin
January 12, 2009 8:58 am

First time around I voted for ClimateAudit. But now that I see the site has no chance of winning (only 13% for such an excellent site is an outrage) I’ve switched to voting for WUWT.

Robert Wood
January 12, 2009 8:58 am

Well sunspot 1010 is gone. Not the one I think that was not numbered 1010 a week or so ago. You had to be quick to catch it. It made maybe a 1/4 rotation around the Sun.
It’s the SUN not the SUV

Pierre Gosselin
January 12, 2009 9:18 am

These sceptic websites are popping up everywhere…a regular cottage industry has sprouted. Thanks to GLOBAL COOLING.
Here’s the latest I’ve found: GoreLied.com
Interesting video!
http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2009/01/video-skeptics-skeptic-sen-james-inhofe.html

David S
January 12, 2009 9:39 am

Here’s my scientific projection:
“Watts Up With That” blows the doors off second place Pharywhatever.

January 12, 2009 9:43 am

Jeff Alberts:

Pharyngula has only gained about 3%. I don’t think they have a chance.

At 9:07 the totals were:
WUWT: 9979
Pharyngula: 7605
15 minutes later:
WUWT: 10028
Pharyngula: 7664
The gap is closing fast. Keep clicking on the voting page to vote: click
You’ll get through if you keep trying.

January 12, 2009 9:54 am

I’ve noticed that the site – especially to the science blog page – is loading extremely slowly. I am suspicious…it shouldn’t load that slowly.

Jim B in Canada
January 12, 2009 9:56 am

I have to ask a question here, since so many are talking about pharyngula. Please Anthony block this post if you wish, and I want to say I have absolutely against atheists and I firmly believe in evolution. But I went to pharyngula a couple times this week and looked at the comments and and it’s seems more like a hate group then a science blog?
Again talking about the middle east today, talking about a Rabbi?
“No moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Thank you for the carte blanche, God. How about raping? Is that OK? Baby butchering? Raping butchered babies? I’m sure it’s all good.”
This is science?
To be honest that website scares me, maybe because I’ve read mein kampf.

Jim B in Canada
January 12, 2009 9:58 am

absolutely nothing against atheists, I missed the nothing sorry.

Spence_UK
January 12, 2009 10:17 am

Chill, folks, I don’t think there is any dodgy voting going on just yet. At around 18:10 GMT (about 2 hrs after Terry S above), the counts are:
WUWT: 10,080
PZ: 7,713
That’s an extra 199 votes for WUWT and 220 for PZ over two hours. But this surge coincides with PZ putting a blog post up at Pharyngula (no starting flame wars now boys and girls…), so it is probably no great surprise. Even if this was maintained, which it probably won’t be, it would take 4-5 days for PZ to catch up.
No need to panic, just keep voting…

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2009 10:23 am

Smokey (09:43:12) :
At 9:07 the totals were:
WUWT: 9979
Pharyngula: 7605
15 minutes later:
WUWT: 10028
Pharyngula: 7664

Well there’s only 10 votes difference increase between the two. At that rate it will take a looong time for them to catch up.

Ian
January 12, 2009 10:27 am

Wow, that’s just basically begging to do the opposite. ( a Hint hint, nudge nudge),,,
I smell a rat. After reading some posts and comments, I would absolutely not be surprised if one of pharyngula’s loyal readers have taken such action.

I just wandered over from Pharyngula. The reason for the admonition not to cheat is that Pharyngula regularly engages in “crashing” online polls by ridiculously swaying them in a more favorable direction. Since the polls are viewed as meaningless to begin with, “cheating” is par for the course.
In this case, I think the warning is probably sincere. If PZ wanted his readers to vote excessively, I doubt he’d have any qualms coming out and saying it.

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2009 10:29 am

Jim B in Canada (09:56:55) :
This is science?
To be honest that website scares me, maybe because I’ve read mein kampf.

I really don’t have anything against those posts, but they don’t belong on a science site.

Richard111
January 12, 2009 10:30 am

I try to vote every day but have only managed two so far.
Don’t always see the vote buttons, just results.

MartinGAtkins
January 12, 2009 10:30 am

Alex (08:57:11) :

I quote directly from pharyngula:
“So go ahead and punch a button if you feel like it. But I will remind you: no cheating of any kind. The people who run this award have some weird rules, but they aren’t dummies, and they do scrutinize sources and voting patterns very carefully, and will throw out votes that have a hint of illegitimacy. The only thing more embarrassing than winning this contest might be losing it because a large number of votes for me were discarded.”
——-
Wow, that’s just basically begging to do the opposite. ( a Hint hint, nudge nudge),,,

Let’s not put our own interpretations into others words. Jennifer Marohasy has moved into third place as Best Online Community over the last couple of days.
Best Consevative blog is neck and neck between Ace of Spades and small dead animals.
Presumably no one bothered to recommend a best Liberal blog because being Liberal precludes them from being interested in the complexities of life and the universe?
Allow the cards to fall as they will.

Richard111
January 12, 2009 10:31 am

Can’t post anything!!!

EW
January 12, 2009 10:32 am

7:32 CET : The requested site did not respond to a connection request and the browser has stopped waiting for a reply.
There must be a great overload on the Awards site.

Ian
January 12, 2009 10:33 am

Jim B in Canada:

Again talking about the middle east today, talking about a Rabbi?
“No moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Thank you for the carte blanche, God. How about raping? Is that OK? Baby butchering? Raping butchered babies? I’m sure it’s all good.”
This is science?
To be honest that website scares me, maybe because I’ve read mein kampf.

The rabbi claimed that “indiscriminate killing of civilians” was morally okay during the Gaza offensive. Are you saying that a blog post protesting this statement bothers you more than the statement itself?
Reply: Both of you cease and desist now. Middle East politics will not be a topic on this blog. No appeals to “but I was just questioning where he was coming from about blog descriptions” ~ charles the moderator.

Phil's Dad
January 12, 2009 10:37 am

The “Real” story is the number of multiples more popular this site is than RC. 10X and counting. Could be because it is 10X more pleasant to hang here. Could be because its 10X more honest.

tallbloke
January 12, 2009 10:38 am

realclimate has less than 10% of WUWT’s total. Lol.
Good luck Anthony.

January 12, 2009 10:58 am

I used to subscribe to Pharyngula, but unsubscribed from it due to the excessive frequency of posts and excessive percentage of political and anti-religious posts.
Best of luck on this!

Alex
January 12, 2009 10:59 am

Okay, okay maybe I was being abit harsh.. likely they are not cheating,,
But still like JimB I was disturbed by the hate speech and the utter defamation of character of other blogs, including this one.
It angers me how such disdain for research from other sides of the debate is being supported by people such as those at phar.
Instead of looking critically at the research and trying to understand where there could be weaknesses or truths, there is an attitude of total hostility and claims of mere “denialist nonsense”. The future of science is quite worrying.

January 12, 2009 11:02 am

RE: Ian (10:33:11) :
‘Atta boy, charles!
This is a SCIENCE blog, doods, and (today) a cheerleading team for WUWT!
Yay.

You never count your money,
When you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ –
When the dealin’s done.

Sam the Skeptic
January 12, 2009 11:10 am

Can I put in a plug for “Junkfood Science”?
Sandy does as good a job at debunking the non-scientific research scams as anyone around. She needs a few votes!

Jim B in Canada
January 12, 2009 11:27 am

Ian, the point is, it’s not science, and that was the point I was trying to get at.
I apologize if I implied any bias to any group or organization in the middle east, I was simply quoting someone else, and was not my personal opinion. Here, I have absolutely no opinion on those matters.
Reply: Let’s let this one die quietly please ~ charles the moderator

Fernando (in Brazil)
January 12, 2009 11:39 am

The winner is Mr WUWT
and…Ms WUWT: What Should She Wear? (WSSW).
http://www.wwd.com/fashion-news/dressing-the-first-lady-1875632?module=featured_1875632
OK: outstanding in January 2009 the contributions go to $ 20.00 (minimum).
The Rev…. you are my champion. ( the best)
Sorry for the bad english (SBE…. one more)

Craig D. Lattig
January 12, 2009 11:53 am

May I please share something TOTALLY off topic? JunkScience reports that PETA wants us to rename fish “Sea Kittens”…on the theory that no one will eat sea kitten sticks…is it only me, or do others see the headline: “PETA wants us to eat Cats!”
Sorry…sanity is slowly returning………
cdl

TinyCO2
January 12, 2009 11:55 am

What odd bedfellows an atheist site and AGW followers make.
Richard Dawkins is supposed to have defined faith as “blind trust in the absence of evidence”. Surely there’s enough evidence against AGW to open a chink of scepticism in most hearts? Ahhh, but I’m forgetting, the Church of Global Warming does not brook any deviations from the righteous path or surely you will burn on Earth everlasting.
Reply: It’s been very very loosely enforced (as in none), but posters might want to avoid characterizing believe in AGW or MMGW with religious fervor. Let’s try and rise a bit above it shall we? This applies strongly when one is talking to or about a poster on our site, probably less for describing a blog master such as PZ~ charles the moderator

Les Johnson
January 12, 2009 12:07 pm

Phils dad: I have tried to point that out, at RC, that they have less than 10% of WUWT’s votes. So far, they have declined to publish this.
As a proxy to confirm the accuracy of said vote, I also suggested that they Google:
Climate Change is
or
Global warming is
…and look at the given suggestions by Google. Google ranks the suggestions by the number of hits for each suggestion.
Note: put a space after “is”, to show its not part another word.
(my apologies to the original poster of this Google search. I have forget who by, and where, this was posted.)

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2009 12:47 pm

Phil’s Dad (10:37:50) :
The “Real” story is the number of multiples more popular this site is than RC. 10X and counting. Could be because it is 10X more pleasant to hang here. Could be because its 10X more honest.

Exactly right. I have no problem with WUWT “losing” to Pharyngula, since they cover vastly different topics. As PD says, it’s about RC getting so little support. Phenomenally hilarious!

crosspatch
January 12, 2009 12:51 pm

I think the extent to which most people compare AGW to “religion” has nothing to do with any opinion about anyone’s own religion. I think it has more to do with the notion that in matters of faith, arguments of logic fail, as they must if one is to remain faithful to their religion. Only a very few would think that is “wrong”, it just is, I think people mean to say that the people with “faith” in global warming might tend to be unswayed by a logical counter argument. The fact that no physical proof has ever materialized to support the claim that warming is due to CO2 does not diminish their “faith” that the models are correct despite their never agreeing with the direct observations.
I don’t think people use the term to be against religious people, but maybe some people who are against religion have now keyed in on that. Having faith is not a bad thing in a cultural sense. What the warmers need to recognize is that at this point with no direct observations to back up their hypotheses and models, their continued clinging to those notions makes them seem more like matters of faith than science and I think that is where the “religious” angle comes from. I don’t think it is meant to knock religion because a person of religious faith would willingly accept that one can not prove certain things with science and would be fine with that.
Reply: We know the background. And AGW proponents can make similar arguments for the term denier. Both concepts are primarily pejorative and that is what we want to avoid, or to use the term currently in vogue, ad hominem. My earlier comment was not meant to open a discussion on the subject. This site exists to promote respectful debate. The use of the religious comparison is not respectful and has nothing to do with challenging religion. It is an accusation of blind faith. Unless Anthony overrules me this is not open for discussion ~ charles the moderator.
REPLY2: You’ve got it, let’s leave this one alone. – Anthony

tallbloke
January 12, 2009 12:56 pm

It’s seems the fair weather supporters of AGW from last year have woken up to real climate in the cold light of (a winter’s) day. 🙂

January 12, 2009 12:58 pm

tried to vote numerous times today for WUWT but all I get is timed out message
REPLY: try close to 5PM EST today…lots of people leaving work

Michael D Smith
January 12, 2009 1:21 pm

The surge has leveled off… No chance of overtaking WUWT at current voting levels (last 3 hours). But I never say never… I’m getting lots of timeouts too. I’m keeping track of the voting just for fun in case anything absurd happens.

Wondering Aloud
January 12, 2009 1:22 pm

I am also unable to vote, tried twice now and can’t get to the voting site at all. Now that the “recounts” are over in Minnesota maybe a bunch of people had nothing to do and they are busy “correcting” the vote here as well.

Basil
Editor
January 12, 2009 1:31 pm

I just got in to vote for WUWT. They are at 37.1%, vs. 28.6% for the site who shall not be named. Together, WUWT and CA are polling just over 50% of the total.

Robert Wood
January 12, 2009 1:48 pm

So, as I was saying about sunspot 1010.

Michael D Smith
January 12, 2009 2:00 pm

I didn’t realize junkfood science was in the running… I’ll have to find that. I wish Junkscience.com had a blog feature. Steven Milloy also does a good job debunking all-too prevalant junk science there as well. (and often links to WUWT) Thanks for the notice…

January 12, 2009 2:12 pm

I just voted for WUTH!

Ron de Haan
January 12, 2009 3:59 pm

I just voted as well without any problems.
I only found out WUWT is loosing ground and now leads only by approx. 2.500 votes.
wattsupwiththat?

Chris Knight
January 12, 2009 4:18 pm

In this poll, I have not voted for anyone.
After all, the result is meaningless.
Cream rises, and detritus sinks.
This haiku deviates from the norm in many ways.
It does not matter, since in Japanese,
It could be made to fit.
Who is WUTH?
The lonely meteorologist wends his weary way, …

January 12, 2009 5:17 pm

WUWT – 10,838; XXXla – 8,432 as of 20:15 EST

Les Johnson
January 12, 2009 5:33 pm

An open letter to G. Schmidt, M. Mann and W. Connelley:
I tried, several times today, to post on Real Climate, regarding the Weblog Awards, and on the Weblog thread. It was as follows:

Currently, RC votes are running at less than 10% of the votes for WUWT.
As a proxy to show the accuracy of this vote, use Google to search the following terms, and then look at the “Suggestions” offered by Google.
Global warming is
or
climate change is
Use a space after “is”, to show that its not part of another word.
Google ranks the suggestions by the number of hits each suggestion receives, from higher to lower.


Each time, I received a message saying the above was awaiting moderation.
None was published.
What do you think are the reasons that you are trailing WUWT by 10 to 1, and are behind Climate Audit by 3.5 to 1?
Perhaps it’s related to the fact that when a post is; polite; accurate; objective; on topic; with references; and a suggestion to review the data to draw your own conclusion; but then this post is not published? And this is not the first time that this has happened to my posts, on your blog.
Is that how you define “open science”? Is that how you “communicate science”? Through censorship?

Jack Simmons
January 12, 2009 5:45 pm

One of the really great attractions about this blog is the open and polite discussions one finds here.
Here is one of my favorite observations on the benefits of toleration, if you are really interested in understanding the truth about anything:
Paraphrased from the writings of John Stuart Mill:

Mill’s general argument for freedom of thought is based upon a recognition of human fallibility and on the need for dialogue and debate. Mill’s argument for freedom of thought in On Liberty contains the following claims. (1) Silenced opinions may be true. To assume they are not is to assume that we are infallible. (2) Even false opinions may contain valid points of contention and parts of the truth. To know the whole of truth we might have to weave together parts of truth from different sources. (3) To claim to know the truth means that we are able to defend it against all vigorous opposition. Thus we need to be able to hear and respond to false opinions in order to know all of the arguments for a proposition. (4) Truth that is not continuously and vigorously contested becomes mere superstition. Such dogmatically held superstitions may thus crumble before even weak opposition and will not be heartily believed or defended.

I’m projecting the winner to be WUWT.

Johnnyb
January 12, 2009 5:46 pm

I would just like to express my thanks to Anthony Watts and team for maintaining this excellent blog. It has been a great refuge of truth in these times of universal deception and economic woe. I am interested in other areas of life such as politics, philosphy and religion, as well as other things, but it is so nice to come in here and see what else is going on in our physical world where the people conveying this information have no political or social agenda. Unlike Climate Audit, you do not have to have an advanced degree in Earth Science to understand what is going on, although several contributors and bloggers are real scientists who give incredibly kowlegible insight into the various systems.
Too everyone at Wattsup, from the top dogs, resident scientists and common layman offering insight and observation, thank you.

Gary
January 12, 2009 5:47 pm

Although the Best Science blog poll has only about 30,000 total votes, all the blogs together have over 620,000 and there have been a couple of million page hits according to the site. Most of the action causing timeouts seems to be elsewhere.

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2009 7:00 pm

Looks like the results are pretty much the same now as they were after the first or second day, percentage-wise.

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2009 7:03 pm

Ron de Haan (15:59:40) :
I just voted as well without any problems.
I only found out WUWT is loosing ground and now leads only by approx. 2.500 votes.
wattsupwiththat?

I’m assuming you mean 2500 votes. Still, “only”?

Editor
January 12, 2009 7:11 pm

Weather outlook for Inauguration day – GFS is showing a little snow moving out and temps around -6C (21F) and NW breeze.
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/namer/gfs/18/images/gfs_ten_192m.gif
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?site=lwx&FcstType=text&site=LWX&map.x=259&map.y=112
will start having Inauguration Day forecasts tomorrow. For now, it says the rest of the week will be below freezing, but warming to 37F on MLK day, the day before Inauguration Day.

Leon Brozyna
January 12, 2009 7:12 pm

Just got in my final votes for this final day of voting. I see WUWT is maintaining its lead, now down to 37.3% to 29%, though Sir Anthony’s percentage is up a bit from this afternoon when it stood at an even 37%.
What the heck?
Yesterday it was 37.8% to just under 25%. Went to check out that other site. Now I feel so unclean.

Neil Crafter
January 12, 2009 7:16 pm

1.45pm central Standard Time here in Adelaide
progress score
WUWT 11047
Pharyngula 8628
a lead for the good guys of 2419
keep voting!

Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2009 7:26 pm

Ric Werme (19:11:46) :
Weather outlook for Inauguration day – GFS is showing a little snow moving out and temps around -6C (21F) and NW breeze.

My boss has been trying to get me to fly out there next week, fortunately no hotels are available at prices anyone is willing to pay.

Ray Reynolds
January 12, 2009 7:40 pm

Next year I will begin voting in the morning so I wont get caught camped on this PC late at night waiting for the 24 hour voting cycle to expire.
Regardless, congratulations Anthony looks like you will get a pretty classy, well deserved banner at the top of page.

Jeff L
January 12, 2009 9:11 pm

Ric Werme (19:11:46) :
Weather outlook for Inauguration day – GFS is showing a little snow moving out and temps around -6C (21F) and NW breeze.
18z GFS model : 5040 thickness just 12 hrs before with with system digging south to the coast, heavy snow just north in NJ – tweek that output just a bit & it could be a major snowstorm for DC – with a whole lot more wind and somewhat bit colder too. The GFS tends to be a bit fast on these systems that far out IMHO so I would say we are definitely in the game for an interesting storm. Will this be another case of the algore effect – with uncanny cold & storms tracking him around from appearance to appearance ??? Of course, we know the skill in our models 180 hours out – not so good. Too early to start counting your eggs just yet, but it should be some good weather watching between now & then.

pharynguloid O.M.
January 12, 2009 9:30 pm

“Middle East politics will not be a topic on this blog.”
wow. see, right there is why i’m not going to subscribe to this blog.
come over to the Pharyngula comments if you want to have some fun. word to the wise – bring your brain

Ross
January 12, 2009 9:40 pm

A little OT maybe[?]
For a different kind of vote, … $$$ that is to say,
For those of us who may be reluctant to use PayPal or credit cards online, is there a P.O. Box or street address where one might make a donation to WUWT?

Pamela Gray
January 12, 2009 10:12 pm

We sometimes get into political red/blue and opposite sides of the pond debates but it generally remains part of the climate and weather discussion in terms of policy and beliefs about such things. It took a while for me to get used to the mild liberal teasing that goes on here but I tend to be a pretty good sport about that with only the occasional, “Okay class, that’s enough!” teacherly retort. I have been involved in political and religious blogs and I find them terribly interesting, but I do tire of the strife. The lines drawn in the sand are far more obvious and impermeable in those types of blogs. And the trouble is, no one goes there to learn anything.

EricH
January 12, 2009 10:41 pm

Weblog finalists scores at 0640 GMT
Phary…. 8987
WUWT 11389
Good luck! Let’s hope this ends up as a fair contest.

rutger
January 12, 2009 11:44 pm

well theres more then just CLimate..
and since real climate isnt winning by far, i voted on Improbable research..
🙂

January 13, 2009 12:37 am

Is this site a target of a DOS attack now? I am reading here every day, but the last two days it has been very difficult to get access (Observe I am not talking about the weblog awards site, but wattsupwiththat.com) ?

davidgmills
January 13, 2009 5:33 am

I noted on Phary that the owner is quite disdainful of the “pseudoscience” of this blog.
To put a legitimate quest for a scientific answer to the causes of climate fluxuations in the same category as creationism is just a logical fallacy of the worst kind.
He was right however about Juan Cole. Juan Cole does know his stuff when it comes to what is going on in the middle east. Juan is a scholar of the first order.

January 13, 2009 5:58 am

rutger:

…since real climate isnt winning by far, i voted on Improbable research…

Traitor!! [Just kidding.] Last year I gave lots of votes to ClimateAudit. This year WUWT gets my votes. But if the voting gets close, I would hope that you would throw a vote WUWT’s way.
Carsten Arnholm:
I’ve had no problem accessing this site, so I’m not sure it’s a DOS problem. But I have a Mac, so it’s a perfect computer world. [/s]
Pamela Gray:

The lines drawn in the sand are far more obvious and impermeable in those types of blogs. And the trouble is, no one goes there to learn anything.

That’s the central problem with alarmist sites, isn’t it? Learning entails questioning, and sites flogging the AGW hypothesis don’t tolerate questioning.
OK people, today’s your last chance: Vote!

January 13, 2009 6:35 am

No appeals to “but I
And this is why I read the comments as well as the blog.
Thankees, Moderator(s)

Johnnyb
January 13, 2009 6:48 am

Wow! This Pharnygula guy is really something else. He has recently posted an article COMPLAINING about polite posters coming by and leaving comments on his site. He is claiming that our use of manners and courtesy are a ploy to sell something that we know to be a lie. He is serious! Like all of us over here at WUWT got together and discussed going over there and being really polite and respectful just to get his goat.
How is it that a mean spirited troll site could even be close to in competition to this site, run by gentlemen scholars is beyond me. Guess the times are long gone when scholar and gentleman were nearly synonymous terms.

Leon Brozyna
January 13, 2009 6:58 am

You heard the man —
Vote
WUWT is holding onto its percentage vote total {so far} of 37.3% thanks to all those votes coming in from around the world, while total votes pouring in for Pharyngula from Minnesota have lifted it in 36 hours from just below 25% to its new percentage total of 30%.
The next few hours will be critical. There are 7 hours left in the voting.
Let’s hear it from Europe. Get your vote in.
From the U.S. — it’s early here in the workday.
Vote

Pearland Aggie
January 13, 2009 7:10 am

by the way, it looks like there’s a push for that other “science” blog going on at the polls…vote now!
http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/

Bruce Cobb
January 13, 2009 7:20 am

Just voted last time. I only missed 1 vote, and that was because of a gig, getting home rather late, and, though I meant to vote, I was tired, and the only thing I was thinking of was getting to bed. All votes were for WUWT, of course. I never had a problem accessing the site (PC here). I see the the percentage spread with the “other” blog is now only 6.9%, and the vote difference at 2,215, so they are gaining. Though time is running out, this could be close!

nichole
January 13, 2009 7:22 am

why liberals don’t like polls: self-selected popularity contests are not a judge of anything’s quality.
why climate change denialists are stupid: same reason all denialists are stupid. prove your negative away, since that’s impossible. attack the popular nomenclature “global warming” by saying how nice and cool it is outside today. proudly exclaim that manhattan could use a few palm trees, even though manhattan would be under water if the climate was warm enough to allow tropical foliage to survive in such a northern latitude. make fun of the far left to characterize moderates as wackaloons. all denialists view logical fallacies as a guide on how to argue, rather than as a guide on how your thinking could be misled. that’s why you are stupid.
in case you were wondering.

nichole
January 13, 2009 7:30 am

oh and god forbid we bring middle eastern policy into this, since then we would have to admit that oil consumption is bad for this country and not just for this planet. ignore the big picture while looking at GLOBAL issues, smart smart.
now i’m done.
REPLY: There are other blogs for those political topics. We don’t discuss politics here for the same reason you don’t in a college chemistry class. – Anthony

Terry Ward
January 13, 2009 7:31 am

just voted-
3.30PM GMT
strange blog with even stranger agenda – 10,000[30.6%](no kidding, must have hit it just right)
polite blog with openminded members/staff – 12,113[37.0%]

Mike Bryant
January 13, 2009 7:35 am

Nichole,
Thanks for the tutorial.
Mike Bryant

January 13, 2009 7:40 am

Smokey (05:58:01) :
I’ve had no problem accessing this site, so I’m not sure it’s a DOS problem. But I have a Mac, so it’s a perfect computer world. [/s]

DOS = Denial Of Service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack
I am still having some issues accessing, but hopefully the problem is over here.

rafa
January 13, 2009 7:40 am

I just voted for you. My last time. Good luck!

Dodgy Geezer
January 13, 2009 7:47 am

WUWT is holding onto its percentage vote total {so far} of 37.3% thanks to all those votes coming in from around the world, while total votes pouring in for Pharyngula from Minnesota have lifted it in 36 hours from just below 25% to its new percentage total of 30%.
Umm….percentage terms will vary as the two top blogs gain more points and the lesser blogs’ points become a smaller proportion of the total. It’s not a good measure to use – particularly because the winner is counted on total number. So why not provide that?
Last I saw, WUWT (which used to be about 2.5k votes ahead) had dropped back to 2k ahead. The same ‘race for the finish’ happened last year – probably happens with all the categories. Still important to get people out – friends, acquaintances, anybody with a computer!

Johnnyb
January 13, 2009 7:53 am

Hi Nicole,
This is a non-political blog, which is why do not discuss things like the Middle East and other non-science related issues.
Thank you for your insight into how we are all stupid, judging by your use of grammer, capitalization and punctuation you should be a great judge of what is smart and what is stupid. Can you please explain to us dummies how Global Warming can be falsified, or proven to be false.

Dodgy Geezer
January 13, 2009 7:57 am

“all denialists view logical fallacies as a guide on how to argue, rather than as a guide on how your thinking could be misled.”
nichole
Pardon me, Nichole, but isn’t this an example of dicto simpliciter (ad dictum secundum quid)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(fallacy) refers.
I suggest that you are condemned out of your own mouth, and that you pay more attention to logical fallacies before posting again…

ClioSmith
January 13, 2009 7:58 am

WILLIAM JAMES ON THE POWER OF PASSION (1882)
I think this passage from William James’ _Principle of Psychology, the Briefer Course_ (Harper, 1961, 318-319) gives a good description of the passion driving Pharyngula’s fulminations. A nice added touch is James’ use of “icy” metaphors.
Cheers, Cliosmith
Ellendale ND
“When any strong emotional state whatever is upon us the tendency is for no images but such as are congruous with it to come up. If others by chance offer themselves, they are instantly smothered and crowded out. If we be joyous, we cannot keep thinking of those uncertainties and risks of failure which abound upon our path; if lugubrious, we cannot think of new triumphs, travels, loves, and joys ; nor if vengeful, of our oppressor’s; community of nature with ourselves. The cooling advice which we get from others when the fever-fit is on us is the most jarring and exasperating thing in life. Reply we cannot, so we get angry; for by a sort of self-preserving instinct which our passion has, it feels that these chill objects, if they once but gain a lodgment, will work and work until they have frozen the very vital spark from out of all our mood and brought our airy castles in ruin to the ground. Such is the inevitable effect of reasonable ideas over others —if they can once get a quiet hearing; and passion’s cue accordingly is always and everywhere to prevent their still small voice from being heard at all. ” Let me not think of that! Don’t speak to me of that!” This is the sudden cry of all those who in a passion perceive some sobering considerations about to check them in mid-career. ”
There is something so icy in this cold-water bath, something which seems so hostile to the movement of our life, so purely negative, in Reason, when she lays her corpse-like finger on our heart and says,” Halt! give up! leave off! go back ! sit down!” that it is no wonder that to most men the steadying influence seems, for the time being, a very minister of death.”

Stefan
January 13, 2009 8:00 am

nichole wrote:
would have to admit that oil consumption is bad for this country and not just for this planet

I used to think that way years ago. What has changed is that I’ve travelled and seen more of the world, I’ve talked to more people from different walks of life, and I’ve read a broad range of books and topics. And that has changed my thinking. The sort of view you have nichole, is valid to a large degree, but it leaves out a great deal more which has to do with getting from a loosely holistic perspective, and instead moving onto a much broader and deeper holistic perspective that really can look at global issues. Oil consumption is just one aspect, and the world is way more complex than that. So if you want to think globally and holistically, start to open up your thinking. There is a reason “denialists” exist–they merely represent much of the other truths out there that are necessary for a more holistic view of the world. If you want to think holistically, you need to understand oil beyond simple “good/bad” dichotomy.

AnonyMoose
January 13, 2009 8:01 am

The slowness in voting might also be within your browser. As mentioned in their forum, the voting tool can use a lot of your browser’s processing time so it’s not a good idea to leave their site visible for long nor to embed the voting tool in a site.

Ron de Haan
January 13, 2009 8:07 am

Jeff Alberts (19:03:15) :
Ron de Haan (15:59:40) :
I just voted as well without any problems.
I only found out WUWT is loosing ground and now leads only by approx. 2.500 votes.
wattsupwiththat?
I’m assuming you mean 2500 votes. Still, “only”?”
Yes, and now it’s only approx. 2000 votes.
wattsupwiththat? I want Anthony to win!

Aaron
January 13, 2009 8:07 am

Wait… so Nichole is ANTI-liberal AND *FOR* global warming? That’s a new mix.
I thought the anti-liberals were typically the deniers. (on pretty much ANY issue — “Nothing to see here folks, everything is just like it always is… move along”)

nichole
January 13, 2009 8:09 am

you’re all most welcome.
global climate change is irrelevant when the cost, both human and $ of the oil wars in the middle east are taken into account.
you don’t call political science “science?” well alrighty then. ~snip~
to prove that the theory of global climate change is false, one must time travel to the future 1000 years and check the weather. until then, you ought to allow the scientific consensus to determine policy matters. science works by consensus. ~snip~
i punctuate. my grammar is most fine. as is my spelling. i feel no need to reach for the shift key, but you can rest assured that i am aware of it’s existence and purpose.
~toodles~

nichole
January 13, 2009 8:10 am

yeah, i know. “its.”
figures i would do that there.

Terry Ward
January 13, 2009 8:11 am

nichole.
I doubt you will be back to see this but I couldn’t let it rest.
Yep – popularity contests are fun. Just that. Sounds like something you haven’t experienced for a while.
Policy that harms me, my children and their future children based on a hypothesis whose adherents refuse, or are unable, to produce evidence that said hypothesis is anything to worry about let alone cripple nations and economies in advance for and attempt to cut me out of debating it, will draw my attention, my ire and my protestations.
The US policy of draining foreign oil reserves first, whilst purchasing and transporting them is cheap, and leaving closer-to-home reserves untouched – for whatever reasons – has NOTHING to do with the aforementioned scam, sorry, agenda, sorry, hypothesis, however much the little green monsters would like to teleconnect the two.
If anyone believes this to be a rant, you obviously haven’t seen me angry 😉
I am not done.

Johnnyb
January 13, 2009 8:11 am

Hey Anthony,
Maybe we do not talk about the climate of the Middle East enough. I have been reading up theories concerning an ice age “Wet Sahara” and middle east. It would be great to get some inside from a meterologist on how climate change can effect the Hedley and Ferrell cells causing wet Westerlies to shift South into regions that are now dry.
Religion aside, the Bible is the only book that I know of that describes the climate at the end of the Ice Age.
REPLY: Nice try, not going there. – Anthony

nichole
January 13, 2009 8:11 am

oh, and my name most certainly has an “h” in it? spell it right if you feel the need to criticize me?

Eric Anderson
January 13, 2009 8:17 am

“I never thought I’d see a post like today on Pharyngula.”
Anthony, this is just proves that you are not well acquainted with Mr. Myers. His infantile diatribes are well known in biology circles. Unfortunate that he brings this level of “debate” to the climate issue as well.
I am not 100% certain that anything funny is going on with the voting, but we do know that Mr. Myers and his fawning admirers are willing to stoop in order to get the “right” result. Therefore, I am skeptical about the source of the gains they are making.
Casting a vote for WUWT now . . .

EW
January 13, 2009 8:17 am

Oh, and Myers apparently suspects voters for WUWT of fraud:
I suspect that a lot of the votes for that ghastly Watt site and its mob of denialist fanatics are machine-generated, but I doubt that they’ll be disclosed.
So – if WUWT wins, it would be considered a win by deceit.

Squidly
January 13, 2009 8:18 am

Wow!
I am so glad that this is not a Pharyngula type blog. I ventured over to further educate myself and was blown off my chair when I read the lead blog entry. I share my co-workers feelings when he commented “Anarchy poser”.
I guess I would rather be stupid than intellectually ignorant.
To all who frequent here, I thank you all very very much for maintaining civil discussion and investigation into the various topics explored here. Abusive and condescending remarks hold no intellectual merit and distract from the topic at hand! Sites and blogs like Pharyngula, always seem to be very long on adjective and short on pertinent substance, opting for crafty compilations of rhetoric rather than thoughtful insight into unambiguous discussion.
Just gives me the chuckles…
Go WUWT !!!

Bruce Cobb
January 13, 2009 8:18 am

nichole: why liberals don’t like polls: self-selected popularity contests are not a judge of anything’s quality. FYI, many here, myself included, are thinking liberals (as opposed to knee-jerk ones). Meaning, we examine BOTH sides of an issue, even if it takes some effort, and digging for information, which is the case with the AGW issue, and then decide. You might want togive that a try.

Eric Anderson
January 13, 2009 8:18 am

“to prove that the theory of global climate change is false, one must time travel to the future 1000 years and check the weather. until then, you ought to allow the scientific consensus to determine policy matters. science works by consensus. denialism works by stupid.”
Cute. Naive. Just plain wrong.

Dan Lee
January 13, 2009 8:20 am

Mother nature will have the final vote. If an ant-climate-science biology site wins this, a year or two from now we can all point and laugh, kind of like we do about that Nobel Peace Prize.
Right now I’m seeing Pharyngula, 10,269, WUWT 12,267 with 2.5 hours to go.

Katherine
January 13, 2009 8:20 am

nichole wrote:
why climate change denialists are stupid: same reason all denialists are stupid. prove your negative away, since that’s impossible.
Who’s denying that climate changes? It does, has been for millions of years. What hasn’t been proven is the hypothesis that the recent warming was caused by man. AGW is like seeing a pubescent girl develop breasts and insisting someone must have given her a pill to explain the “unnatural” development.

Bill P
January 13, 2009 8:25 am

“…MLK day, the day before Inauguration Day.”
I wonder how many nods to this we’ll have to listen to on the 20th. I’m proud of him, too. It’s historic. But I wish they’d leave it at that and move on. There are other issues, now.

Chris D.
January 13, 2009 8:26 am

@Jack Simmons (17:45:04) 1/12/09: As an aside, thank you for the exposure to John Stuart Mill. Interesting fellow.

blank
January 13, 2009 8:34 am

Voting closes at 5 PM EST, not 2 PM as stated above. Important to note this as otherwise votes may be lost.
REPLY: fixed, thanks

Confused
January 13, 2009 8:35 am

Well there you have it folks, using anger to incite the vote is one of the oldest political tricks in the book.
That’s a pretty large non sequitur. Pharyngula explains why he positively encourages uncivility in his blog and commenters, and you interpret this as inciting his readers to vote for him?
The fact that you missed his specifically stated indifference towards the awards (in both of the posts he’s made about it) smacks a little of quotemining, mate.

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 8:37 am

As of 16.31 GMT
WUWT 12312
PZ 10372
CA 4008
RC 1252
It’s getting closer. Keep voting!

nichole
January 13, 2009 8:44 am

::ANTI-HOLISTIC::
but not anti-liberal. anti-extremism, left of center.
and if science doesn’t work via consensus, how does it work now?
and the rest of the world is on the green bandwagon, how will being left in the dust and being forced to buy green tech when cap and trade is in effect be beneficial to future generations? creating jobs making solar panels? with unemployment 7% and rising record-breakingly fast, might not be a bad idea. certainly are a lot of customers for said panels, and america needs some damned exports. so let’s take advantage of the dumb foreigners, how can you xenophobic rightwingnuttians be against that? you love that shite.
and we built most of the country (the good bits anyways) on the coast line – wouldn’t it be prudent to not katrina the shite out of it?
the ice caps are melting faster than those “bad” predictions. if anything, they’re probably too conservative.
so maybe it’s not anthropogenic. so we should sit down and do nothing? good plan! MAKE AN F-IN EFFORT. try, and die, or not. do nothing, and die. fer sure.
Reply: Please, no more name calling. ~dbstealey, mod.

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 8:45 am

As of 16.31 GMT
WUWT 12312
PZ 10372
CA 4008
RC 1252
As of 16.40 GMT
WUWT 12349
PZ 10452
CA 4011
RC 1257
PZ up 80 in 9 mins!
WUWT up 37
CA up 3
RC up 5
Keep Voting!!

Jackie
January 13, 2009 8:46 am

Your blog is a joke and not even worthy of being considered a science blog. Winning this silly contest doesn’t make you better, it means you got enough people to vote for you. Anyone who knows anything about the scientific method knows that this does nothing to legitimize your stupidity.

Gary
January 13, 2009 8:53 am

Pharyngula seems to be garnering votes over WUWT by a ratio of 5:2 with about 5 hours to go. Speculation would suggest that there is an effort by anti-WUWT forces to make this close. I’d love to see the voting patterns as a time series. One will probably show hourly rates that vary within a range; the other will probably look strangely like something familiar … like a … um, I know, a hockey stick! 😉

Tom in I crave global warming Florida
January 13, 2009 8:54 am

Nichole,
I noticed you totally ignore the difference between global warming and AGW. If you would become an open minded frequent reader of this blog you will see that most here accept climate change as part of a natural cycle but question the validity of any additional human activity produced CO2 as the driver of that change. It is clear to me that those who are stuck in that world of AGW and refuse to consider anything else are the real deniers.

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 9:01 am

Ron de Haan (08:07:11) :
Yes, and now it’s only approx. 2000 votes.
wattsupwiththat? I want Anthony to win!

Take a pill dude 😉
Anthony will “win” regardless of the results of this vote. The real win here is the extreme lack of support for RealClimate. Pharyngula is a non-issue as I mentioned before. It’s a religio-political blog, not a science blog.

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 9:02 am

Since CA has third place locked, I’ve switched over to WUWT for my voting as of yesterday.

davidgmills
January 13, 2009 9:02 am

All this talk about all liberals on the side of AGW. Pure bunk. Many are coming around. I know many from progressive blogs that don’t buy the AGW line.
I would say one of the best progressive sites on the internet is Whatreallyhappened.com. The owner of that site thinks AGW is idiotic.
I can’t remember how I got to this site, but it was probably from a link that Whatreallyhappened.com sent me to. I think it probably was a link to a Russian website where soviet physicists were discussing the upcoming ice age.
I am probably far more progressive than most people who claim to be liberal. But for me, good politics, means getting the science right, if the matter in question is a scientific one.

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 9:02 am

Jackie (08:46:37) :
“Your blog is a joke and not even worthy of being considered a science blog. Winning this silly contest doesn’t make you better, it means you got enough people to vote for you. Anyone who knows anything about the scientific method knows that this does nothing to legitimize your stupidity.”
And I’m sure you will feel the same about the winner if another blog were to overhaul WUWT in the final hour.
Lol.

Steven Hill
January 13, 2009 9:04 am

WASHINGTON, Jan 13 (Reuters) – Global warming threatens the future and the incoming Obama administration will take steps to address the problem, Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick to be U.S. energy secretary, told lawmakers on Tuesday.
“Climate change is a growing and pressing problem. It is now clear that if we continue on our current path, we run the risk of dramatic, disruptive changes to our climate in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren,” Chu said at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

January 13, 2009 9:10 am

I think it’s funny that Myers wrote 3 top of the fold posts, all functioning to inform readers the poll was going on, all seeming to make the claim that the winning is somehow not important to him for whatever reason.
Are online polls a form of beauty contest? Yes. Does winning mean the winner has the highest quality science of any blog? No. Assuming no hacking, does winning tell us something about popularity, outreach, enthusiasm etc? Yes. Do the winners usually feel good about winning? Yes.
Does PZ Myers care about the outcome if this poll? Yes. He cares quite a bit!

evanjones
Editor
January 13, 2009 9:11 am

VOTE, ye swabs! And be puttin’ yer backs inter it!

Bruce Cobb
January 13, 2009 9:12 am

“Well there you have it folks, using anger to incite the vote is one of the oldest political tricks in the book.”
Confused (08:35:57) :
That’s a pretty large non sequitur. Pharyngula explains why he positively encourages uncivility in his blog and commenters, and you interpret this as inciting his readers to vote for him?
Hummm… PZ said “I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion.”
Nice try, Confused (good name, btw). This is an obvious attack on WUWT, with its civil, and rational discussion, which he has characterized as “ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion”. Yes, of course he was trying to rile folks there, to incite them to vote for him.
The fact that you missed his specifically stated indifference towards the awards (in both of the posts he’s made about it) smacks a little of quotemining, mate.
Well, at least at this point, he’s losing, so of course he’d say he’s “indifferent”. Sour grapes.

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 9:12 am

Current voting rates:
WUWT 200/hour
PZ 450/hour
5 hours to go
WUWT currently leads by 1800 votes
It’s going to be very close. If the rate stays the same, WUWT will win by ~500 votes.
Ring your friends! Keep voting!!

evanjones
Editor
January 13, 2009 9:12 am

Arrr.

jonathon
January 13, 2009 9:13 am

Look guys, PZ is PZ … My uncle is an angry old Armenian man, and just because he can cuss up a storm on the freeway doesn’t make him a bad person. If you don’t like outspoken, left-leaning, atheist commentary, than Pharyngula isn’t for you … that’s ok, not everyone can handle Bob Sagets stand up material, but that’s personal preference. Not everyone is polite and reserved, even among scientists.
All this Mein Kampf stuff is pure rubbish; PZ may be hard on people whom he sees peddling trash knowledge, but he rarely compares them to Hitler. And the whole “inciting people to violence” to get votes. Ha! Really? Commenters on Pharyngula have always been a bit rude (and hilarious), and besides, I don’t think posting a snarky comment on a blog can really be considered “violence.”

John Laidlaw
January 13, 2009 9:15 am

What’s with the sudden influx of rude people? Ah well, if it makes them feel good to vent, I suppose…
In the meantime, I’ve voted all I can, so I’m going to shut off from it for the last few hours. May the most popular blog win (and I hope it’s WUWT).

John W.
January 13, 2009 9:25 am

The surge in voting for PZ is probably due to DailyKos urging its readers to vote against WUWT by casting a strategic vote for PZ.

Leon Brozyna
January 13, 2009 9:27 am

With the drive by PZ over the past two days to garner votes the gap is rapidly closing. PZ seems to be geting 250-300 more votes per hour than WUWT. If the numbers hold, WUWT might hold onto its well deserved lead by a thin margin of roughly 400.
Sad to see WUWT becoming the target of such vitriolic hate speech and regurgitated true belief propaganda.

What Jackie Said
January 13, 2009 9:27 am

Jackie got it right, your site is a joke as well as your science denial.

Philip
January 13, 2009 9:31 am

nichole (08:44:14) :
“and if science doesn’t work via consensus, how does it work now?”
Nichole, science is the exact opposite of consensus. All scientific discoveries arise out of questioning what we think we know about something. There was a time when scientists believed that maggots were spontaneously born out of decaying meat. There were huge disagreements during the early work done regarding electromagnetism. Alchemists once believed that the elements making up all matter were things like earth, wind, and fire. Knowing what we know now, would you say it would have been better to have stuck with the consensus then?

G Alston
January 13, 2009 9:31 am

nichole — “oh and god forbid we bring middle eastern policy into this, since then we would have to admit that oil consumption is bad for this country and not just for this planet.”
Oil consumption would only dip temporarily if we were to switch to electric cars by magic tomorrow morning. It’s too valuable, too useful to burn. It’s a great feedstock for plastics among other things. And certainly automotive technology isn’t the only use for it. The result is that the middle east would likely stay in the condition that it is and the pricing and so on would still go on as it does already.
And when switching to all electric vehicles, we have to consider the energy budget of electrical generation. Unless the energy is nuclear then “fossil fuels” will be part of the same equation. Switching off oil use and generating the same carbon via power plants results in the same amount of carbon being generated, only this time it’s at the power plant and not the vehicle.
As far as I can tell, until there’s a physics breakthrough that lets us create vehicles using a completely different technology altogether, we’re still stuck in the short term with “fossil fuel” use. The best technological solutions right now appear to be efficiency oriented; e.g. This stuff…
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=27335
…adopted widely and retrofitting into existing buildings would result in a better carbon reduction methodology than messing with automotive technology, at least in the short term, assuming that reducing carbon use is the goal.

Dodgy Geezer
January 13, 2009 9:33 am

The surge in voting for PZ is probably due to DailyKos urging its readers to vote against WUWT by casting a strategic vote for PZ.
Should we be calling out for some similar favour, then?

Joe Golonka
January 13, 2009 9:38 am

Having just read the entirety of PZ’s posting, methinks you “doth protest too much.” First, he makes it clear that he does not give much credence to this so-called “contest,” and with good cause. Ballot stuffing online is much too easy – just look at the starting lineup for the NHL “All Star” game. Second, and more importantly, his comments are both insightful and dead on accurate. Much of the stupidity which passes for “science” in America (and not just the fraud of “intelligent design”) must be answered pointedly and directly – and if some uncivility results, then so be it. Decades of conservative lies have seriously damaged America, and thus warrant a strong and concerted response. Those who are armed with the true facts can deal with blunt assessments of reality. Those who are not – just whine.

January 13, 2009 9:41 am

This thread has been amusing… I especially love reading the drive-by posts.
Mostly, it reminds me of the days when I, too, believed in the whole AGW thing. Yep, “skeptics” and “deniers” seemed like idiots to me. The pure irony of classifying skepticism as being anti-science is probably one of the funniest things to watch that I can even remember.

Steve Keohane
January 13, 2009 9:43 am

I’ve been to the voting log twice this AM, and the voting is closed, it only gives results, it does not say that I have voted in the past 24hrs. I haven’t. It is now, 12:42 EST.
It is interesting to see what it is like on ‘other’ blogs, by the few comments excreted here by their minions. It certainly does not invite one to engage them in discourse. Vitriol is no replacement for science nor reason. Thank you, Anthony, your staff, and all who contribute to this blog, for making it the great place it is.

nichole
January 13, 2009 9:43 am

and what is clear to me is that the icecaps are melting at an alarming rate.
let’s all sit back and argue while species populations disappear at what is also an alarming rate.
the one thing that’s nice is that florida is one of the first ones on the chopping block. i lived there for two years, HATED it.
what is clear to me is that the nature of global climate change is not as pressing of an issue as the change itself. sure, it should be looked into. might help us find a way to reverse it. we’ve looked into it fairly thoroughly now, the graphs match up nicey nice. +carbon, +temperature. ++carbon, ++temperature. ad nauseum. seems fair to extrapolate +temperature, -ice. -ice, +water. +water, -infrastructure. -infrastructre = millions(billions?) homeless. millions/billions homeless = major civil unrest. major civil unrest = war. global catastrophe is not far from here.
if you’ve got a better culprit, name it. won’t hurt to try multiple approaches. but you don’t have another culprit, do you? you say it’s just a “natural cycle.” regardless of the fact that said cycle is way faster than any previously measured. regardless of the consequences if you’re wrong.
i’m not a climate scientist. we can’t all be all things. cleaning up pollution sounds like an idea that’s been a long time coming, to me. we know about the carcinogens we release with the smoke from the coal plants, we know the effect of them. we know the effects of the mercury that the fish we eat are loaded with, we know where a lot of it came from. i’m in a part of the country where the air quality has been included in the weather forecast for a long time. we’re now in a global political climate where green tech is the way of the future. solar energy never had enough research dollars put into it. large scale production will make it cheaper and better, and i can’t see any downside to that at all. we’re all bathed in kilowatts all day, yet we murder each other for some nasty black shite that we spend enormous amounts of energy to dig up and transport around from one area to the other. finite resource vs. infinite. right outside vs. a zillion miles underneath the ground. clean vs. dirty. hey, there might be shades of gray here, but the black and the white kind of overwhelm it. we get power now by 1) digging up oil 2) shipping it to a refinery 3) refining it 4) shipping it to the power plant 5) generating the power 6) transmitting the power to the consumer. much more efficient would be 1) generating the power and consuming it in the same place with a solar panel. see? cuz you lose energy with every step you take. 1 step = best.
n
p.s.: had to look that fallacy up, eh dodgy? it’s good to learn new things. i’m aware of the dangers of painting large swaths of people with one brush; and i choose to do it anyway. the difference between “all” and “most” is not significant enough, IMO. if my forum posts were in a scientific journal, they would undoubtably be thrown out with yesterday’s coffee.

Jim Turner
January 13, 2009 9:45 am

I think it is safe to say that nichole is speaking from a political rather than a scientific perspective. There is certainly concensus in science (sometimes not), but the concensus derives from the demonstrable logic of the science, and when new evidence changes what is known, the concensus is shown to have been wrong; This has happened many times in science. The subtle difference in politics is that the concensus is a validation in itself, since the subject is often a matter of opinion. By the way, speaking as a dumb foreigner, I advise against consuming your oil making solar panels – I won’t be buying them.

Steve Keohane
January 13, 2009 9:46 am

Tried again, and voted for WUWT.

nichole
January 13, 2009 9:46 am

and i never, not once, said anything about electric cars. vehicles are not responsible for most of the oil consumption, a fact i am aware of. go ahead and tear that straw man a new one, g.

bwanajohn
January 13, 2009 9:46 am

Nichole,
Respectfully, current CO2 levels are under 400 ppm. That equates to <0.04% of the total atmospheric content. A trace gas. Even if we (mankind) doubles that amount in the near future at 0.08%, it will still be a trace gas with no appreciable impact on the overall climate feedback system. Go back to your Jr. High science books and read about CO2 in the ecosphere, it is ESSENTIAL to all life on earth, ergo not a pollutant. In addition, the amount of CO2 generated by man is a small percentage of a trace gas. Physics tells even if mankind ceases all generation of CO2 right now, the relative change in atmospheric concentrations will be negligable, so just as doubling will make no difference, ceasing will make no difference in the global climate system. So in fact, no efforts to curb or sequester CO2 will have any effect on the climate so there is absolutely no point in spending billions of dollars “doing something”. If alternative energy sources/manufacturing is to be viable, there will have to be economic rewards for doing so. Artificially creating “green” jobs is no more than one more Ponzi scheme.
As for Artic sea ice, you need to go back and check current levels. According most recent data out of the University of Illinois, current sea ice extent is at 1979-2000 yearly average. There has been record recovery this winter. Couple that with the fact that ANTarctic sea ice has been expanding for years, and you see the AGW arguments for sea ice melt away (yes, pun intented).
Now, find 1, just 1 argument for AGW that is based on directly attributable human causes, not on some model and I will listen to the rest of your arguments.
Good luck with that!
bwana

January 13, 2009 9:49 am

Currently 11009 to 12798… just got my last vote in.

Robert Austin
January 13, 2009 9:54 am

nichole wrote:
“to prove that the theory of global climate change is false, one must time travel to the future 1000 years and check the weather. until then, you ought to allow the scientific consensus to determine policy matters. science works by consensus. denialism works by stupid.”
I think there is already sufficient historical information to show that climate is naturally variable so there is no need for time travel for verification. But assuming you actually mean man made climate change, the climate is already deviating substantially from model predictions so we will not have to go very far into the future to determine if the AGW hypothesis is valid. Your statement that science works by consensus is utterly wrong and is an anathema to scientific progress. The very idea that consensus is necessary to determine scientific fact simply means that the data and science isn’t yet sufficient to convince. When august scientific bodies such as the Royal Society issue proclamations such as they have done about ACC (AGW), they disgrace themselves. Let us leave consensus to government where it belongs.
As for the final vitriolic comment, it just reflects on its writers bias and contributes nothing to the discussion.

Gary
January 13, 2009 9:56 am

WUWT and Pharyngula are getting about 95% of the votes being cast.
Philosophical question: why do some people feel they need to post insults on a blog they won’t vote for? Is it a self-esteem thing? Narcissism? False bravado? A delusional episode? Intimidation? Seriously, what’s the motivation for such silliness? It can’t be that they really think it will change minds, can it?

nichole
January 13, 2009 9:59 am

@ phil:
global climate change was a discovery. and when a bunch of scientists do experiments and test discoveries and most of the evidence points in a supportive direction, consensus is formed. see, you got it backwards. it’s because you changed the word “theory” to “discovery.” science works by:
1) theory
2)experiment
3)evaluate evidence
4)publish data
5)reproduction of results by other scientists
6)publish new data
7)repeat 5 & 6 until evidence is overwhelming
8)consensus
from consensus, we can extrapolate new theories and do it all over again. and if, at any time, conflicting evidence is discovered, we start over again. conflicting evidence often gets weeded out at step 5. things that survive step 5 often lead to new consensus.
see, you might think maggots generated spontaneously if you never saw a fly lay its eggs. i’ve never seen a fly do that, have you? close observation of flies (step 2) weeded that theory out. didn’t even make it to step 5. what a good system we have!

Richard deSousa
January 13, 2009 10:04 am

Pharyngula. P.Z. Meyers is a jerk and a poor loser… a pox on him and congratulations to Anthony.

Jeff B.
January 13, 2009 10:04 am

I’d go over to that other site and check out the terrible comments, except I don’t think it even deserves that traffic. My advice to all is to ignore the anti-science blogs altogether.

nichole
January 13, 2009 10:07 am

@ bwana:
see, i don’t have to do all the work you just did, because i just read the scientific consensus and i leave the professionals to their work. it seems disrespectful to do otherwise.
a ponzi scheme would not include a product. energy is a very valuable product. nice how you worked that term in there, madoff teach you a new word? cute!
doing nothing will leave us out of the global economy. doing nothing will, do nothing. see? things are better than not things. abundant energy is better than shortages. in energy production as in stocks, it’s best to diversify. you don’t have to agree with climate change to see this, but i suspect that your ideology will blind you. just like how middle east politics is “not allowed” on this blog.

Benjamin P.
January 13, 2009 10:09 am

bwanajohn,
Respectfully, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas (Physics tells us that) and doubling it would have a profound effect, even if it is still in trace amounts. You can deny anthropogenic climate change all day long if you want, but you are being scientifically dishonest with your claims about CO2.
Also, long term trends are whats important to look at. Sure this may be a cooler winter in the northern hemisphere, which is good for sea ice production, but its just one data point.

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 10:10 am

As of 16.31 GMT
WUWT 12312
PZ 10372
CA 4008
RC 1252
As of 18.00 GMT
WUWT 12895
PZ 11104
CA 4037
RC 1338
Result at current voting rate
WUWT 14300
PZ 13200
CA 4117
RC 1580
We’re pulling away again! Keep Voting!!!

nichole
January 13, 2009 10:11 am

@ jim:
right. politics make policies. hopefully, ones informed by science.
“oil making solar panels” ?? wtf?

PhilM
January 13, 2009 10:12 am

Well that is it I am done with this blog. You took PZ completely out of context. Something that an honest person would not do. Also, your desire to win a web award is kinda sickening. I tried to give your blog a chance, but I am done.

evanjones
Editor
January 13, 2009 10:12 am

to prove that the theory of global climate change is false, one must time travel to the future 1000 years and check the weather.
How about looking 1000 years into the past? That we can do. And the results are quite illuminating.
and what is clear to me is that the icecaps are melting at an alarming rate.
I recommend you look at the graphs for both NH and SH and check out what (Pro-AGW) NASA had to say about summer 2007 ice.

Richard deSousa
January 13, 2009 10:12 am

Good grief… from where did all these anti-WUWT come from… and they really nasty… PZ Meyers must have slot of angry and unpleasant friends. I certainly am glad I don’t hang around with them.

anna v
January 13, 2009 10:13 am

Nichole”
1) generating the power and consuming it in the same place with a solar panel. see? cuz you lose energy with every step you take. 1 step = best.
Just make sure it is sunny all the time, yes? And certainly not snowing, yes?
Unless energy policies go the nuclear way, there is no possibility of stopping coal and oil factories. All the carbon capping schemes are a new way for governments ( and private enterprises like the ones Al Gore has) to squeeze money out of the hoi polloi, and get more control over the population.

January 13, 2009 10:15 am

What is clear to me… is that what some people consider “facts” are most definitely NOT FACTS. Ice caps melting?! I’m not sure you have the right planet. The rest of that monolithic block of lower case text is safe to ignore.
Why is it so important for some people that things be bad?

Ross
January 13, 2009 10:18 am

10:15AM local time [USA west coast]
WUWT = 12992
the other =11203
diff
1789
Yesterday the difference was running about 2300.
Difficult to access for vote.

Johnnyb
January 13, 2009 10:19 am

Nichole,
Just curious. What does the trouble in Middle East have to do with Oil or Global Warming? Nigeria has plenty of Oil, so Does Russia, Canada and Mexico and we have no problem with those countries.
You folks over there, being anti-religous as you are certainly do not still believe that old tripe from 2003 about the war being for oil do you? Where else in the Middle East is at War right this very minute? Might that have something to do with your other boogeyman?
WUWT is not a political blog, and we try to stay narrowly focused here on Science only, but I am interested in your insight on this issue. Please email me at
hahajohnnyb@gmail.com
I will never share my opinion about this issue on this blog, so if you want a reply you must email directly. Thanks

Stefan
January 13, 2009 10:20 am

nichole wrote:
regardless of the fact that said cycle is way faster than any previously measured

Are you quite sure of that?
What if you came across data that indicated that previously there have been far faster, natural changes?
What would be your first reaction?

Basil
Editor
January 13, 2009 10:20 am

Wow, some really enlightened folks have pooped popped in here today to let us know how unimportant this is to them. I came of age during the heyday of the free speech movement, and to this day I’ve never understood how rudeness, incivility, and vulgarity are supposed to be a characteristic of the supposedly enlightened.
Well, it will soon be over, and hopefully they will crawl back under whatever rock they crawled out from under to grace us with their presence. Then we can return to civil discourse, and honest questioning of whether or not anthropogenic global warming spells impending doom to the world as we know it.

Squidly
January 13, 2009 10:20 am

@nichole (09:43:50) :
Wow! Been reading the New York Times a lot lately it seems.

and what is clear to me is that the icecaps are melting at an alarming rate.
let’s all sit back and argue while species populations disappear at what is also an alarming rate.

Polar Bears Perhaps? I suggest you run over to WWF and make your contribution to save the poor Polar Bears.

the one thing that’s nice is that florida is one of the first ones on the chopping block. i lived there for two years, HATED it.

Chopping block for what exactly? The demise of their citrus industry as our climate continues to cool and we begin to deplete the primary food source of plants (CO2) in a feeble attempt to control that which we cannot (temperature)?
Yikes, never mind, I could continue but this is just way too easy.
Nicole, I suggest you take a timeout and begin to educate yourself on this subject. You clearly have no real clue.

January 13, 2009 10:21 am

nichole,
“vehicles are not responsible for most of the oil consumption, a fact i am aware of.”
Would you please explain the basis for that statement?
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Pearland Aggie
January 13, 2009 10:28 am

I have never quite figured out why these folks are filled with such hatred and vitriol.

evanjones
Editor
January 13, 2009 10:30 am

if you’ve got a better culprit, name it. won’t hurt to try multiple approaches. but you don’t have another culprit, do you?
Speaking personally (re data since 1976), I can name six: PDO, AMO, IPO, NAO, AO, AAO.
(There is also that little measurement issue, which is how this blog got its start.)

Dan Lee
January 13, 2009 10:37 am

>…to prove that the theory of global climate change is false, one must…
Sorry, but It is the man-made climate change proponents who need to prove their case. They are seeking money and votes from us, not the other way around.
All here believe in climate change; most here believe that such change is a part of a natural cycle.
If someone wishes me to believe that mankind has taken over responsibility for these changes, such that I should vote to increase taxes in an attempt to deal with it, then it is they who have a case to prove, not me.
So far I’ve seen lots of taunting and attempts to intimidate with “consensus” arguments (which were probably used against Darwin in his time, and didn’t work then, either), but the actual science behind the AGW argument has so many gaping holes in it that I’m surprised it is still being taken seriously.

Scott Covert
January 13, 2009 10:42 am

WUWT = 13081
PZ = 11320

J. Peden
January 13, 2009 10:46 am

nichole:
why climate change denialists are stupid: same reason all denialists are stupid.
nichole, “denialists” don’t deny that the climate changes as a matter of normal course, and changes naturally. Instead, that’s what the “believers” deny.
Hence the ipcc’s inveterately held presupposition that climate change must be due to fossil fuel CO2, which the ipcc’s method simply does not allow to be disproven/questioned, and which in effect is simply repeated as a basic article of belief over and over by the ipcc “science”.
That process also qualifies the ipcc/”believers'” position as a classic Conspiracy Theory, i.e., one that its adherents will hold to despite all evidence, and it also makes the “Theory” essentially nonsensical from a scientific perspective. There is nothing scientific which will disprove the Theory, and therefore nothing scientific necessary to prove it, either.
“Denialists” don’t deny that it’s at least possible for the climate to change via Man’s machinations. In the current situation “denialists” simply want proof that what the “believers” call “climate change” = Global Warming is due to Human acts as compared with Nature’s mechanisms – and, of course, that GW is actually occurring, that GW would result in a net disaster regarless of its cause, and that any alleged cure to GW will not result in a greater disaster itself than the alleged disease will.
Again, all the “believers” seem to do is to simply repeat over and over a few mantras, despite a massive amount of evidence which objectively questions the apparent meaning of these mantras, and which so far contradicts AGW predictions flowing from the mantras.
The “believers'” specific tactic essentially amounts to a variation of “The Monkeys know it is true because they always say it is true” method, and they apparently hope that this propagandistic tactic will hold sway with Politicians and the Public, so that the “belief” can be translated into measures involving control.
In contrast, “denialists” deny that this specific tactic is a part of the Scientific Method and instead want realistic solutions to real problems, as opposed to “solutions” addressing propagandistically created perceptions, a dynamic whose goal is merely control for its own sake, +/- the obvious fringe benefits accruing to those in control.

nan
January 13, 2009 10:47 am

13174 vs 11.424

January 13, 2009 10:49 am

“oil making solar panels” ?? wtf?
British Petroleum was for years the largest producer of solar panels in Europe 🙂

January 13, 2009 10:53 am

voted
13,204 to 11,467 at 10:50 a.m. PST

Neoteny
January 13, 2009 10:56 am

Well, that was an interesting read… the paranoia is a bit unbecoming, kids.

EW
January 13, 2009 10:58 am

PZ: 11.506
WUWT 13.235
Hope it’ll stay so.

Bruce Cobb
January 13, 2009 10:58 am

Joe Golonka:
Decades of conservative lies have seriously damaged America, and thus warrant a strong and concerted response.
Wouldn’t ANY lies, no matter where they’re from be damaging? Do “conservatives” have the market cornered on lying? I highly doubt it, and I say that as a “liberal”. Because, you see, AGW is probably the biggest lie ever told, with severe consequences to society, to science, and to freedom itself very likely, if not stopped. The bigger the lie, the greater the chance for tyranny.
nichole:
and what is clear to me is that the icecaps are melting at an alarming rate.
No, sorry, they are not. If you will bother to look at the actual science, you’ll find that is just alarmist hogwash.
No, C02, or “carbon” as you call it does not “match up nicey nice” with temps. Wrong again. If you’ll bother to look at the geologic history (and I doubt you will) you’ll see that C02 rises as a result of temperature rise, not the other way around.
cleaning up pollution sounds like an idea that’s been a long time coming, to me. No one here says otherwise. Completely different issue, though one alarmists LOVE to conflate with the issue of AGW.
much more efficient would be 1) generating the power and consuming it in the same place with a solar panel. see? cuz you lose energy with every step you take. 1 step = best.
Everyone is certainly free to use solar energy now, if they so desire. If it made sense economically, a lot more people would already be doing so. In some cases, solar energy can actually be cheaper, due to the distance from the main power grid.
Again, no one here is “against” solar.

Richard deSousa
January 13, 2009 10:59 am

Hmmm… I’m beginning to wonder if nichole is PZ Meyers in drag… LOL

G Alston
January 13, 2009 11:03 am

Roger Sowell — “Would you please explain the basis for that statement?”
You can get a lot of the info here:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil3.html#barrel2
Gas is something like 40% of the use of a barrel. Vehicles as a class consume something like 60% or so.
What I had said originally was that oil could just as easily be used for plastic (polymers etc) feedstock as for burning it. This was in response to the vague “middle east policy” reference nichole made; I had wanted to illustrate that oil would be used by mankind even if we weren’t burning it in vehicles. Best guess is that we would find a way to use as much as we do now for products yet to be invented or products that can be implemented now but aren’t due to cost. An example of the latter might be a plastic that is used in roadway construction, etc.
Squidly — “Polar Bears Perhaps? I suggest you run over to WWF and make your contribution to save the poor Polar Bears.
Actually mankind is the cause of most recent species extinctions and has been for the past 10000 years. Man wiped out everything from the mammoth to the dodo bird, one way or another. The odd unlucky meteor strike wiped out a few things as well, and interestingly, lots of species that may have survived had mankind not been hunting them out anyway. e.g. It will probably be only a few more decades until the Africans wipe out the Mountain Gorilla.
It’s a shame that species exterminations have to be tied to AGW; the former is a sad reality and the latter is an obscene claim. My guess is that more species are lost to deforestation (land clearing) and bush meat hunting than anything else (i.e. the same as it has been for a few millenia.)

EW
January 13, 2009 11:04 am

see, i don’t have to do all the work you just did, because i just read the scientific consensus and i leave the professionals to their work. it seems disrespectful to do otherwise.
Nichole, you’re quite funny – actually you do exactly what people did in the past. They read their Aristotle and were quite content with the knowledge about maggots emerging from the dirt. It would be disrespectful to do otherwise.

Steve in SC
January 13, 2009 11:10 am

I have looked at this Pharyngula site and am a bit put off by the general tone of things there. Some folks must be troubled by irritable bowel syndrome. I like the tone of discussion much better here. Not quite so many idealogues.
Just my $0.02 worth.

G Alston
January 13, 2009 11:14 am

J Peden — “ nichole, “denialists” don’t deny that the climate changes as a matter of normal course, and changes naturally. Instead, that’s what the “believers” deny.
Actually, I think most “denialists” agree that mankind DOES have an influence, even on climate. The question is more about How Much and What Can We Do About It.
e.g. WUWT has pretty much proven the case that land use changes alone can account for localised temp shifting. WUWT has also been good at highlighting the effect of industrial soot on artcic conditions as well. Surely if man is generating enough soot to futz with the artic albedo that there is also SOME effect on the climate. Surely if man is deforesting South America this will have at least some effect as well. Assuming these have zero effect isn’t doing much good either.
Where “denialists” part company with the AGW crowd is the contention that man is SOLELY responsible for all possible climate change, but you have to be careful in stating that ALL climate change is natural. It isn’t.
In my mind the value of WUWT has been to quantify what man’s contribution actually is, to discover what is happening and how it works. And it all started by investigating how temperature collection really works as opposed to assuming. WUWT has been at the forefront of discussing land use change and this is very, very valuable.

Scott in Virginia
January 13, 2009 11:15 am

Nichole said:
“Science Works by:
1) theory
2)experiment
3)evaluate evidence
4)publish data
5)reproduction of results by other scientists
6)publish new data
7)repeat 5 & 6 until evidence is overwhelming
8)consensus”
and seems to believe that AGW theory is at step 8. From reading this blog and many of the papers linked to it, it seems to me we are more at Step 5 and 6.
New data is coming in all of the time that doesn’t fit the original data published is step 4. Thus, consensus has not been reached.

Filipe
January 13, 2009 11:19 am

Just posted my vote. They recovered from 2500 to 2000 rather fast, but then it slowed down and the trend just reversed and is going on the other direction pretty fast. I think those were the kos hardliners, and they’ve all already voted for the day.
I’ve no strong opinion on the subject, even after reading a bunch of papers on the subject. If I had to put my money on it I’d expect the oceans to drive the climate and c02 to be nearly irrelevant. By the way, I’m a solar physicist (that’s how I found the site) but I’m not convinced about the solar cycle thing (although it would be nice to have the kind of research money co2 people are getting here in Europe).

nichole
January 13, 2009 11:19 am

you all can’t put one foot in each camp. okay, so there’s climate change but we didn’t cause it. so let’s not do anything to affect it. it’s caused by carbon dioxide, but let’s keep making more of that. whether it’s your fault or not, don’t you want to help?
occasionally you have to get off your hands and do something before it’s a sure thing.
i have no “case to prove.” i am no “believer.” i trust science to its work. they trust me to mine. if they changed their consensus, i’d roll with that just fine. and unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject. i’m here to defend the scientific method. it’s got great results so far. it’s a game, and like every other game, it has rules. you want to play, you got to follow them. you people are not following them. you just sit on the sidelines and criticize people who are working to figure this thing out. you mine some data, misconstrue it and raise a big stupid stink. all that serves to do is foul the waters. bad apples DO spoil bunches. i’m not here to argue science with you people, as you do not practice it. if you did, i’d be over my head. good thing for me.
and @ mr. sowell:
i was under the impression that the majority of oil consumption was transportation, but not by consumer vehicles. i don’t recall where i heard that. sorry 🙁
and @ squidly:
hughes, daily and ehrlich did a study on population extinction and the effects of loss of biodiversity. you could check that out, or you could characterize me as a PETA nut. how dark are your blinders?
first on the chopping block referring to sea level.

January 13, 2009 11:20 am

Apologies for long post (I tried to take just tiny snips). Also many apologies to Steve H for using you as an example of what maybe most of us have done here at some point. But this archetypal sequence suggests strongly to me how camps can become divided and ignorant of the best of each other.
Steve H. – That’s funny folks. A couple of you immediately play that “peer review” canard to avoid finding out how bad the AGW case is.
@Steve H. – Peer-review is the backbone of science, it’s a means for those who are informed on the matter to assess the merit of an argument as opposed to exposing it to the ignorant…. Look up “Burden of Proof”. We’re not arguing with the scientific consensus (that would be rather arrogant of me, anyway, being no climatologist). We’re not the ones making the assertion. You and yours are. If there is really a case, it should have no problem passing a peer review process…. Or you can just make a single stop: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal
Steve H. – Kel & Paul, Take off your peer review helmuts and read. I am not preaching anything and have no burden of proof. Hansen does and has failed miserably. But again you wouldn’t know that because you have apparently missed or avoided the entire unfolding and lengthy discussions that go into extensive details on every angle of the IPCC assertions… Why do I get the feeling my comments should not be allowed here?
@Steve H. – That’s funny, I don’t see your comments being blocked, censored, or edited. Unlike some comments I’ve recently made at an AGW denial website…
Steve H. -…. [read] http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warmmongering_more_silk.html
@Steve H. – I just read the article you linked too. Could you explain to me what homogenization is in regards to data analysis and why it is inappropriate to apply it in this case? In the article it notes that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Why is this considered significant? The article seems to be unaware what is regarded as statistically significant, in the field. Do you know how climate is defined and why it is defined that why? I ask because the article you cited seems to be unaware of these basic definitions.
Steve H. – Wow, impressive responses!… Trent, OK so you read the article and apparently missed the central point of it entirely. Your straw man diversion is silly. You can’t understand the piece? Read it again. It doesn’t make any claim of particular significance that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Yet you claim the article seems to be unaware what is regarded as statistically significant? Your silly stunt is useless…
@Steve H. – Somehow in all that, you forgot to answer Trent’s specific questions, so I’ll ask again. According to the GISTEMP documentation “The goal of the homogeneization effort is to avoid any impact (warming or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations experienced by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations.”
@Steve H. – If you think this practice is inappropriate, why? If you think the algorithm fails to meet its stated goal, why? The article you linked to does not explain either of these things; it just complains that in one particular instance the trend line changes from cooling to warming. By the way, your post contains almost nothing but ad hominems. I thought the blog you hail from is supposed to be above that sort of thing?
@Steve H. – Gawds balls! Is this the best they have? The amount of restraint we are all showing in not trolling them is amazing.

To me, this all shows the need to be able, continually, to refer warmists to gold-standard write-ups of the climate science basics we all know. Gold-standard basics that are open to criticism and improvement. This is why I wrote a climate science skeptics’ primer; and why I now want to help develop, with the whole skeptical science community, a wiki that can aspire to such a gold-standard.

January 13, 2009 11:21 am

sorry, I didn’t say, the quotes are from Pharyngula.

January 13, 2009 11:23 am

To put a sense of urgency on the A in AGW vs N (natural) GW:
Here in California, the government passed AB 32 in 2006, known as the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). This is the first such legislation in the nation, although Obama promises federal legislation virtually identical to California’s.
Using California as an example, here is what is at stake. The fear of sea level rising and flooding coastal areas, particularly areas near the delta and levees on the Sacramento River, and warming in the Sierra mountains that reduces the snowpack, were two of the key motivations cited for this law. The snowpack is the primary source of fresh water for California.
Some of the dire consequences from inaction are stated in the Act as:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf
The Air Resources Board was delegated authority to write specific regulations to enact AB 32, and they are requiring massive reductions in CO2. The requirements are approximately 30 percent reduction from business-as-usual by 2020, and 87 percent reduction from business-as-usual by 2050. The language states it differently, but that is the result.
The economic impacts of reducing CO2 are huge, with very little return on the investments. This places California businesses at a competitive disadvantage relative to other states, and relative to other countries. The likely result will be business relocation to more business-friendly places. Unemployment will increase, and the state will further increase taxes in an attempt to compensate. Economic analyses conducted by ARB state otherwise, but these were invalidated by outside, independent experts. ARB essentially ignored the independent experts.
Given all the above, it is crucial that the A portion of AGW be exposed as inaccurate, in clear and convincing terms, and quickly.
WUWT is doing a great job in this effort.
Thank you again, Anthony, moderators, contributors, and commenters. Keep it up!
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Dodgy Geezer
January 13, 2009 11:30 am

see, i don’t have to do all the work you just did, because i just read the scientific consensus and i leave the professionals to their work. it seems disrespectful to do otherwise. nicole
Nicole, there’s nothing wrong with that. I do that every time I step on a bridge – I don’t stop first and measure the forces, I just assume the engineers did their work properly. That’s a normal way for a human to behave.
But it isn’t science. It’s faith – faith in science, if you will. This blog is about SCIENCE. It’s about doing science. That’s why we do all the work you seem to have a problem with.
If you want to be of use here, do some work or refer to some which supports your point of view. Then we’ll be interested. Honestly, we’re not interested in slanging matches, and insults just go over our heads. But point out somewhere where we’re wrong and WHY – then we’ll listen….

J. Peden
January 13, 2009 11:36 am

nichole:
and unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject.
Well, that leaves you out of the discussion, nichole. That’s your rule, so you should certainly follow it, no?

Dan Scoledge
January 13, 2009 11:38 am

It might be kinda nice to have this yearly intrusion. Reminds us how in some places people try to figure things out using anger and name calling instead of trading information and ideas. Kind of a nice reality check.

Dan
January 13, 2009 11:39 am

I’m still holding my nose after reading Prof. Meyers’ blog. He strikes me as the archtypical tenured professor who freely bullies those with whom he disagrees. I would love to be a fly on the wall of one of his freshman classes when one of the students says something that smacks of unorthodoxy or original thinking. On, second thought, maybe I’d like to be a venomous insect with a powerful sting.

nichole
January 13, 2009 11:44 am

@ j. peden & g. alston:
i didn’t say it was bad to look into whether global warming was man-made or not. what i said was that it ::appears:: to exist and to be a bad thing since we built all our houses on the coast line like idiots. inaction would appear to be most imprudent. even if we’re wrong, cleaning up pollution is never a bad thing even just for the aesthetics of it and diversifying energy sources is also never a bad thing. even with falling oil prices, the political climate is right for achieving these two noteworthy goals and if you prove there’s no global warming, then it won’t be. even my dad, republican though he is, is looking into a 75,000 kw/h solar array for the shop. research dollars for technology have been a might bit scarce lately and that is most definitely a bad thing.
like hussein was a bad guy for twenty years, and some jerk from a different country had to smack us with a couple of planes before we had the political impetus to take his ass down. and now everybody’s concentrating on the WMDs, or lack thereof, and regretting doing something that probably actually had to be done. i would say that our reason for invading iraq was just as relevant as the cause of global warming. hopefully, it’ll all work out in the end.
but you two don’t seem like the type to drive an SUV out of spite and i had no intention of irking your ilk.

nichole
January 13, 2009 11:44 am

@ watt:
i would most definitely not mind telling him.

Ken G
January 13, 2009 11:46 am

“if they changed their consensus, i’d roll with that just fine. and unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject. i’m here to defend the scientific method.”
nichole
from wiki:
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Please note the word “consensus” or anything alluding to it is not mentioned.

Will
January 13, 2009 11:48 am

What’s the secret handshake to get in to vote? From the “poles” page clicking “vote now” does nothing. Going to the results page shows I have voted 0 times, which is true, but it also notes I have already voted within the last 24 hours. My chad is hung!

insurgent
January 13, 2009 11:52 am

11,779 to 13,538

Squidly
January 13, 2009 11:56 am

@ G Alston (11:03:22) :

Squidly — “Polar Bears Perhaps? I suggest you run over to WWF and make your contribution to save the poor Polar Bears.”
Actually mankind is the cause of most recent species extinctions and has been for the past 10000 years. Man wiped out everything from the mammoth to the dodo bird, one way or another. The odd unlucky meteor strike wiped out a few things as well, and interestingly, lots of species that may have survived had mankind not been hunting them out anyway. e.g. It will probably be only a few more decades until the Africans wipe out the Mountain Gorilla.

@Nichole

hughes, daily and ehrlich did a study on population extinction and the effects of loss of biodiversity. you could check that out, or you could characterize me as a PETA nut. how dark are your blinders?

I would certainly agree with you that mankind has and is harming many species. I will not agree with you however that it is through AGW. I believe our whale hunting is a complete travesty, killing of elephants for ivory is absolutely stupid, etc… etc…, however, the supposed disappearance or our NH ice cap (which isn’t happening) is not jeopardizing the extinction of any species. So, instead of blaming AGW for species extinctions that don’t exists, why not concentrate your effort on those things that are causing extinction and address the real problems? duh… To me, this doesn’t seem to be too difficult of an issue to identify correctly.
If you spend up all of your money and resources to try to manage temperature, what will there be left to deal with the real root of these problems? Nothing, that is the point. You will have exhausted all of your resources on a problem that doesn’t exist, or, if the problem even does exist (giving you the benefit of the doubt), you still cannot convince me that you can do anything within reason about it, you are still left with the original problems of hunting and other things. You will have done absolutely nothing to solve these problems and yet your pockets will be empty.
Believe me, I am all on board with about protecting our environment, protecting our wildlife, protecting our natural resources. These are the precise reasons why I question AGW and primarily the current suggested approaches to control it. I am so concerned about our well being that I want to be sure we are not just digging a deeper hole, and, unfortunately, to date, I am finding that we are in fact doing exactly that. We are digging a hole with the AGW shovel that will become so detrimental that it is going to severely hamper our ability to solve or protect anything. I fear it will push us into a position of fighting for mere survival and we will have done nothing positive towards our global climate or any of these other problems.
You obviously do not understand the basic position of most of the people that post here on this blog. Fortunately, there are many people here that are willing to discuss these things in an intelligent and rational way. I would enjoy it, no matter your position on politics or issues, if you could join us in the same disposition and intellectually discuss the cause, effect and solutions to the climate issue. Otherwise, I really have no further comment as this discussion will lead to resolution of nothing.

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 11:58 am

and unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject.

Well, then, that leaves James Hansen, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Tim Flannery, and a whole host of other AGW proponents out of it doesn’t it. We can safely discount all of their hand-waving. Thanks!

Jim Turner
January 13, 2009 11:59 am

@ nichole:
“oil making solar panels” ?? wtf?
Why not? I’m not suggesting that solar panels are MADE from oil (although I don’t know if any plasics are involved) but solar panels are an industrial product, and that inevitably involves energy consumption in manufacture and distribution – and oil is a major source of energy for industry and transport. I don’t think it is currently realistic to divorce any significant manufactured product from oil consumption in some way. Of course, you could postulate an industrial society run on solar power, but you would have to make a lot of panels first.

Tom in it's turning too cold for my blood Florida
January 13, 2009 12:01 pm

Nichole: “what is clear to me is that the nature of global climate change is not as pressing of an issue as the change itself. sure, it should be looked into. might help us find a way to reverse it”
Am I detecting a slight sway in your thinking? See what a nice friendly blog can do for you? And while I disagree with your thinking that we can “reverse it”, I most heartily agree that we should continue to keep looking into it.
I will now ask you the questions I have posted here before several times.
What is the correct temperature for our Earth? Who gets to decide what it should be? You, Mr Meyers, Al Gore? I vote for 85 degrees F with SST at 88 degrees F. My brother, who is visiting this week from New England and says even he has had enough of the cold this year, would vote for temps in the 60’s. So how about you, Nichole, what temperature would you like to see our Earth “fixed” at?
And BTW, Florida has been underwater in the past It probably will be so again in the future.

nichole
January 13, 2009 12:02 pm

@ ken:
if you can’t agree on anything because everything is “technically possible,” we wouldn’t get anywhere. it’s technically possible for me to walk through a wall. probability has to be assessed; sometimes that includes a risk dynamic. times like a dis.

anna v
January 13, 2009 12:03 pm

Nichole:
we built all our houses on the coast line like idiots. inaction would appear to be most imprudent.
You have very little trust on the innate wisdom of old societies and how they adapt to the circumstances that nature presents them with, whether flooding ( like the netherlands) or heat ( like the dug out houses in the earth in northern africa).
When I visited Japan I was impressed how the coast line was not populated, and the sand dunes to the oceans were more like garbage dumps than scenic views. Until I remembered how earthquake prone they are and that huge tsunamis are quite probable. Of course Japan has been adapting for thousand of years to nature. Maybe Californians will learn a lesson the hard way, but it is the grand one that they should fear rather than global warming, whether natural or not. Even the IPCC predicts a minuscule rise of the sea in 100 years, less than we have with the tides every day, let alone storms etc. Nobody builds on the tide line.

Pierre Gosselin
January 13, 2009 12:04 pm

As the water rises, AGW kooks believe the water is rising, when in fact their boat is sinking.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

G Alston
January 13, 2009 12:05 pm

nichole — “inaction would appear to be most imprudent.
Action would be moreso, and if you think about it, that’s exactly why WUWT and such gets as much traffic as it does. What blogs like this do is clearly advocate that we understand precisely what is going on. Are temps what we think they are? Are they influenced how we think they are? Does our understanding jibe with what we know re solar influence (if any) and satelleite data?
The one thing that is annoying regarding climate scientists, which you seem to have not quite grasped, is that these are people who made models that were intended from intitial design to model the influence of CO2 on climate systems. Therefore, when they later report that there is, it’s not exactly a big surprise.
And from these models we are all supposed to immediately drive policy? Even those experts who agree that man influences climate (e.g. Dr. Roger Pielke) thinks this is a poor idea. In fact his blog is all about policy. (Interestingly he too gets labeled as a moronic denialist because he doesn’t march in modeler lockstep. But that’s a post for another day.)
And just in case you’re not caught up to the others before you who were a bit more eloquent stating your case, you are arguing a form of Pascal’s Wager, and this has been shown as inappropriate.

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 12:08 pm

i didn’t say it was bad to look into whether global warming was man-made or not. what i said was that it ::appears:: to exist and to be a bad thing since we built all our houses on the coast line like idiots. inaction would appear to be most imprudent.

The problem is, if you really look into it, without an agenda to tint your glasses, you see there’s nothing to see.
It’s never been smart to build on coastlines, yet we’ve always done it. Now is no different than 5000 years ago. So tell me, why did Al Gore recently purchase waterfront property in San Fran? Doesn’t he really believe what he peddles?

Bruce Cobb
January 13, 2009 12:09 pm

i have no “case to prove.” i am no “believer.” i trust science to its work. they trust me to mine. if they changed their consensus, i’d roll with that just fine.
That’s laughable, nichole, as your actions here falsify that claim. Face it, you are an AGW Believer. The science showing AGW to be false is available, and accessible to the layman but it obviously doesn’t interest you. The so-called “consensus” claim itself is a complete fraud, and wouldn’t matter even if it were true, since science isn’t about consensus, which is the stuff of politics.

G Alston
January 13, 2009 12:09 pm

Squidly — “I would certainly agree with you that mankind has and is harming many species. I will not agree with you however that it is through AGW.
Ummm…. dude. Read the rest of what I wrote, please. I think for the most part you and I are in violent agreement. 🙂

Pearland Aggie
January 13, 2009 12:09 pm

I just want to thank Anthony and the other moderators for maintaining a reasonable, civil discussion on this website. On so many other websites, the vitriolic proponents of AGW are allowed to run roughshod over anyone with a different or dissenting opinion without repercussion. Without this site and others like it, so many fewer people would know that there is another point of view in the debate and that it is okay to think for yourself.
As we have seen today, there are many sites out there where you are ridiculed, called names, and belittled if you do not follow the accepted groupthink. For everyone that enjoys this website, please contribute to Anthony’s tip jar.

Les Johnson
January 13, 2009 12:12 pm

Nichole: your
hughes, daily and ehrlich did a study on population extinction and the effects of loss of biodiversity.
Their work was based on extinction computer models;
which was itself based on the IPCC worst case warming computer models;
which itself was based on the high end of economic models;
which itself uses a monetary exchange mechanism banned by the rest of the UN, and the economic community.
The IPCC model uses Market Exchange Rate (MER), when the rest of the world uses Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).
To give an example of the lunacy this economic model; North Korea, will, according to the models, have a per capita GDP of over 2 times the USA, by 2100.
Lets recap;
You are basing the economic model on population models.
Then using the population data, you are taking a discredited economic model, and using the worst case scenario from this;
then taking this data and making a worst case emissions scenario model;
then using this data to make a worst case temperature scenario model;
then taking this data and making a worst case extinction scenario model.
You see the problem here?

Doug White
January 13, 2009 12:14 pm

At 3:08 Eastern Time, it’s 13636 to 11842.
You know, I’m an atheist, a Democrat, a scientist, and a firm believer in evolution. I ought to like PZ Myers’ site, But I just can’t get by the bile he pumps out and encourages. As for global warming, as far as I’m concerned, he’s a right-wing conservative, swallowing the party line whole and excoriating his critics.

Leon Brozyna
January 13, 2009 12:14 pm

Noting the tone of some of the recent visitors to WUWT, I am reminded of the underlying logical fallacy employed, the Argument from Intimidation.
Fortunately, most regular WUWT’s readers/commenters avoid engaging in such a disreputable practice.

J. Peden
January 13, 2009 12:15 pm

Btw, nichole, what do you mean by, “There is a consensus”?
What do you mean by “consensus”? What numbers constitute a “consensus” and what process must occur to derive the numbers?
The only “consensus” finding on AGW I might agree to is that there are probably more people at large merely saying, “There is a consensus”, than there are saying, “There is not a consensus”.
There certainly aren’t many people saying, “The consensus is against the AGW position”. But given the number of specific statements made by valid scientists gathered by Sen. Inhofe against the AGW position, and given the number of people with degrees in Science who have signed the Oregon Petition’s statement against the AGW position, it appears that a case could be made that “The consensus is against the AGW position” is true, even if it’s irrelevant from the perspective of the Scientific Method.
These numbers of people making actual statements against the AGW position amount to >10,000 people. Where are the contrasting numbers of scientists who have actually signed a statement, or personally made similar statements, supporting the AGW position?
nichole, since you say you are following the “consensus”, shouldn’t you at least make certan what the “consensus” actually is?

NevadaDailySteve
January 13, 2009 12:16 pm

My vote is in for WUWT, for what good it does. I hope it wins but does it really matter? It would be nice for it to be recognized for the good it does but these kinds of votes can be manipulated too easily and there are plenty of people willing to cause problems for no other reason than they can.

hotrod
January 13, 2009 12:17 pm

see, i don’t have to do all the work you just did, because i just read the scientific consensus and i leave the professionals to their work. it seems disrespectful to do otherwise. nicole

“My own feeling is that “consensus” is an inadequate way to do science and that climatic theory is still too primitive to prove with certainty whether the relatively small increases in in CO2, and aerosols up to 1975 were responsible for this climate change.”
Stephen H Schneider in the Genesis strategy climate and global survival, pages 10-11 copyright 1976

Even the advocates of CO2 driven climate change do not believe (or at least at one time did not believe) that consensus is good science.

“In climate research and modeling, … we are dealing with a coupled
non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Source — IPCC authors in 3AR (Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774):

The question is has our fundamental level of sophistication at predicting long term climate really changed much since 1976. Sure the models have many more lines of code, but do they do a better job than counting fuzzy caterpillars to determine if this next winter will be warmer or cooler than the last.
Larry

Edward Morgan
January 13, 2009 12:17 pm

Just voted we are not that far ahead and have lost a load of ground. Two minutes to vote. Two hours to go. This is a far superior blog and it deserves to win. Come on everyone. Ed

Phillip Bratby
January 13, 2009 12:17 pm

13,682 to 11,873

Neil Crafter
January 13, 2009 12:17 pm

latest figures
WUWT 13674
Pharyngitis 11869
They’re catching up!

evanjones
Editor
January 13, 2009 12:21 pm

To answer the homgenization question, at least in regards to UHI, the problem is that Urban sites are being compared with corrupted, invalid rural sites.
Therefore the difference in temperatures is much less and as a result, UHI is being severely lowballed.
Besides, why homogenize? Either make the adjustments and live with your wild margin of error–or else site the dang stations properly to begin with, already. We’re supposed to blow and/or lose a trillion-plus a year yet we can’t invest a few lousy pennies in that?

nichole
January 13, 2009 12:23 pm

ack, pascal’s wager is not relevant. possible global catastrophe is a real risk, not an imaginary risk like hell.
if we’re not listening to climate scientists, who are we listening to now? i’m sure they’d be insulted by your characterization of them as biased.
and can everyone stop asking me to defend al gore? i just recently supported the war, for christ’s sake.
can’t we all agree that conservation is a good thing? we all seem to. who cares why joe schmoe buys a compact instead of an SUV? he’s an idiot, and will never do anything for the right reason anyway since the right reason is “boring.” let him do the right thing even if it’s for the wrong reason. stop telling him otherwise!!!!

Les Johnson
January 13, 2009 12:23 pm

Nichole: your
and unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject.

So, Pauchauri (head of the IPCC) and Yvo de Boer (head of the UNFCCC) should not have anything to say, either?
Pauchauri has a PhD in Economics, while de Boer has a technical degree in social work.
Just a heads up, BTW. If you go back to school, and try using Arguments from Authority in a thesis, you will probably end up with a failing grade.

TomT
January 13, 2009 12:25 pm

Nichole important question. What is the normal temperature of the earth?
Second question? Why must warming be bad? It can also do good things including expanding the agricultural growing bands to wider and better ones. The AGW crowd always spouts the very worst possible case? But is really that bad if things warm up? Note that the earth has been much warmer in the distant past. We used to have rain forests in what is now North America, Europe and Asia. That was the distant past but it has been that warm before. Warming doesn’t automatically mean an area turns into a desert you know.

LotharLoo
January 13, 2009 12:26 pm

About this blog:
I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

Okay …
From wiki:
Watts has stated that he had “at one time been fully engaged in the belief that CO2 was indeed the root cause of the global warming problem” but “later changed my thinking when I learned more about the science involved and found it to be lacking.” He established the blog “Watts Up With That?” to popularise his views on global warming and the controversy around the science.

Interesting …
Again from wiki:
The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.

So, Mr Watts, why don’t you submit your opinions, theories, data, compute models, computer simulations and etc. to the top scientific journal for scrutiny? Or do you prefer to only argue with laymen?

evanjones
Editor
January 13, 2009 12:27 pm

11,918 vs. 13740. Back over 1800 ahead.
If nearly 2000 unanswered votes the other way come swinging in, I’m taking this to World Court!

nichole
January 13, 2009 12:28 pm

@ hotrod & les:
not here to debate the science. here to debate the prudency of debating the science in a public forum.

Les Johnson
January 13, 2009 12:34 pm

LotharLoo (12:26:53) :
Wiki? You think that’s an authoritative source?
That explains a lot.

nichole
January 13, 2009 12:35 pm

ah jeez, thanks lothar!

Renaud C
January 13, 2009 12:35 pm

I am more than happy that WUWT will most probably win the Best science blog. However I would like to calm down the excitement. So far and less than 2 hours before vote closure, WUWT casted 13,677 votes. I have voted 4 or 5 times for WUWT and how many of us are in the same situation.
but on average per day WUWT as more than 28,000 visits! so the total votes (and that includes plenty of people voting several times) will equal to just half of each daily visits.
Clearly voting is not a great interest and I believe another way to vote for the best blog should be developed. After all how many people are accessing blogs every day?

Squidly
January 13, 2009 12:35 pm

G Alston (12:09:44) :
Oh, well, then that is good. Sorry, my bad. Just too busy working right now to pay attention as well as I should. Perhaps I should exit this conversation until I can actually read what I am replying to. 😉
Thanks!

Les Johnson
January 13, 2009 12:37 pm

Nichole: your
not here to debate the science.
That’s painfully obvious.
here to debate the prudency of debating the science in a public forum.
Then don’t. Leave. Please.
Most here, on the other hand, want to debate the science.

labrador
January 13, 2009 12:38 pm

nichole @ (09:43:50) said:
… cleaning up pollution sounds like an idea that’s been a long time coming, to me. we know about the carcinogens we release with the smoke from the coal plants, we know the effect of them. we know the effects of the mercury that the fish we eat are loaded with, we know where a lot of it came from. i’m in a part of the country where the air quality has been included in the weather forecast for a long time. …
I think if we didn’t spend all of our environmental resources on trying to change the climate to our liking, we could directly and more effectively deal with the issues you mention which are not CO2 problems.

Les Johnson
January 13, 2009 12:39 pm

Nichole: your
not here to debate the science. here to debate the prudency of debating the science in a public forum.
Using your logic, Pauchauri and de Boer should not be allowed speak in the public forum, either. Is this correct?

nichole
January 13, 2009 12:42 pm

@ les:
and just a heads up, if you want people to give you any credence you oughtn’t condescend to them. i don’t care what people think of me; i know you are all true believers and won’t listen any way. i’m a straight up troll. what’s your excuse?
it’s cute when true believers try to make everything somebody else says a logical fallacy. really. adorable.
unfortunately, i’m not defending anthropogenic global warming and it’s not an argument at all. it’s just a “from authority.”
see, unfortunately for all you suckers who don’t believe in consensus (among other things), consensus is made and policy is already being developed. sounds like a good idea to me to have an economist on the panel, since you all seem so concerned that we’re going to financially bury ourselves fighting imaginary demons. rather than clutching your pearls, why not discuss how best to go about making new eco-friendly public policy? since your horse is long past dead and all.

anna v
January 13, 2009 12:42 pm

LotharLoo (12:26:53) :
Your Wiki quote:
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.
So? When Galileo was indicted the consensus was all against the heliocentric system. The priests had cornered the science. Are we getting back there where we get a popularity vote for the results of experiments?

Alex
January 13, 2009 12:46 pm

LOl! Wow what an explosive discussion, pity i wasn’t here to join in on the fun :),,,
It is an hour and a half from midnight here in SA when voting ends (EST +7) and it looks like WUWT is a winner (fingers crossed)… If the result is a winner then Congratulations! If not, then still a big well done,
thank-you to this blog and all it’s commentators for creating a space where decent folks can gather and discuss interesting topics on science.
Luckily the atmosphere here is one of constructive critisism and (relatively) peaceful evaluation with a hint of humor!
Best wishes to the future of this blog and to sound science. I will definately continue to frequent this blog!
Cheers to WUWT!

budahmon
January 13, 2009 12:50 pm

Update:
3:49 EST
12023 – PJ
13852 – AW

Alex
January 13, 2009 12:50 pm

One more thing for all you Wiki-freaks out there :
Simply do a search “the sun” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_sun
and read the first paragraph;;;
” Energy from the Sun, in the form of sunlight, supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis, and drives the Earth’s climate and weather.”
So you see, even Wikipedia (of all the alarmists) acknowledges a solar driver for climate!!! Priceless!! 😛

Benjamin P.
January 13, 2009 12:50 pm

@TomT
Those are good questions you ask Nichole. I am curious if you have an answer for them.
Also, “We used to have rain forests in what is now North America, Europe and Asia”
Well that’s true, but the earth’s plate have a tendency to move.
The problem here is not warming, it all comes down to rates. The biosphere can adjust to gradual changes in climate brought about by variations in atmospheric chemistry, variations in the earth’s orbit, plate motions, etc, but as I said, those things tend to happen at a fairly slow rate. When you have drastic change rather suddenly, that’s when things start to fall apart.

KnockJohn
January 13, 2009 12:51 pm

Phar 12008
WUWT 13830
CA 4081
RC 1432
2047 GMT
OOH, it’s exciting isn’t it

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 12:52 pm

LotharLoo (12:26:53) :
Again from wiki:
The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.

Not this garbage again.
Societies and academies are not science, they are political organizations. The members of all those organizations do not all believe in the “consensus”. Some of them even post here. Are you saying we shouldn’t question any scientific paper?

Steve H.
January 13, 2009 12:52 pm

” why don’t you submit your opinions, theories, data, compute models, computer simulations and etc. to the top scientific journal for scrutiny?”
Many have done just that. But let’s be real here you AGW alarmists.
Have you not grapsed the resistance to such oppostion reports and the declaration of the debate being over?
Many of these science institutions are as uninterested in the opposing science as you laypeople alarmists are.
Go google a bit and figure it out. This repeated declaration that the science refutting AGW isn’t scientific, by experts, or valid, or credible is
getting really dumb.

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 12:55 pm

nichole (12:42:52) :
and just a heads up, if you want people to give you any credence you oughtn’t condescend to them. i don’t care what people think of me; i know you are all true believers and won’t listen any way. i’m a straight up troll. what’s your excuse?

You should practice what you preach. And actually we’re true unbelievers. We just want to make sure what they say is happening really is happening. And so far, it ain’t.

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2009 12:57 pm

since your horse is long past dead and all.

A dead horse is better than a computer-generated one.

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 12:57 pm

Last 40 mins
WUWT +304 votes
PZ +203 votes
Yay!

Les Johnson
January 13, 2009 12:58 pm

lothar & nichole: As Anthony stated, Wiki is incorrect.
Its often incorrect, especially where climate change is the topic. It makes negative, editorial comments on those who do not toe Connolley’s party line on warming.
Editorial comments have no place in an information source, especially false editorial claims.

Peter
January 13, 2009 12:59 pm

Nichole:

not here to debate the science. here to debate the prudency of debating the science in a public forum.

What’s wrong with that?
Some of history’s greatest discoveries have been made by complete unknowns, and some of the greatest scientists were unknown before they made their discoveries. Some of the most profound breakthroughs in knowledge were made by someone in some backwater.
Who’s to say that some ordinary member of the public won’t come up with a solution to the ‘problem’, simply by looking at things through a fresh pair of eyes.
And if climate change is genuinely the greatest threat we face, isn’t it prudent to apply as many minds to it as we possibly can?

J. Peden
January 13, 2009 1:02 pm

nichole:
but you two don’t seem like the type to drive an SUV out of spite and i had no intention of irking your ilk.
Exactly right about me, and no problem concerning ~”irking my ilk” [nice one]. I went flourescent over 20 years ago, bought one of the first “Toyoda” mini-pickups ~ 1982 out of a similar concern for energy efficiency, have lived in the warmer 6 month season around here in a cabin/area with no electricity for the past 33 years, again by intentional design, have derived most of my heat even in Winter from wood stoves using higher combustion mechanisms including catalytic converters where possible, etc..
One thing I think I’m sorry about is not having developed an on site hydo-electric capacity, because now I don’t think the Enviros would let me “get away” with it, even though it would have exactly no more of an adverse effect on the environment than my spring fed gravitational water supply already does: anything too near the “pristine” Wilderness might ruin it, don’t ya know – when in fact I bought my isolated private property, which is right up against Wilderness on two-three sides, partly so that it wouldn’t be turned into a fully developed housing project or recreational resort, which it hasn’t.
So getting lectured to by current Enviros/AGWer’s somehow doesn’t impress me very much, except as to their logical and scientific deficiencies.

anna v
January 13, 2009 1:02 pm

Nichole
see, unfortunately for all you suckers who don’t believe in consensus (among other things), consensus is made and policy is already being developed.
You are wrong here. The EU, which was mired in this idiotic cap and trade policy is fast changing its mind, due to the economic necessities that have arisen. I will be very surprised if Obama does not hold his peace too, putting priority on the economy. He does not look gullible to me.
rather than clutching your pearls, why not discuss how best to go about making new eco-friendly public policy? since your horse is long past dead and all.
eco friendly policies are fine. Suicidal policies are to be discouraged.
If the gods are looking kindly on the human race another winter or two like the present and the last one will bury the AGW horse in ice.

January 13, 2009 1:08 pm

LotharLoo So, Mr Watts, why don’t you submit your opinions, theories, data, compute models, computer simulations and etc. to the top scientific journal for scrutiny? Or do you prefer to only argue with laymen?
If you hang around here, you will see the many reasons we have problems with journals and peer-reviews in Climate Science today. You will also realize that not everyone here is a layperson. You might even find references to Nobel prizewinners here (the real science Nobel prize that is, not the peace prize nonsense). Or if you want to find the reasons more quickly, just click on my name and read my primer. Oh, and if you have issues with my primer, join our forum and let me know, as I have tried hard to reach sufficient accuracy, and try to examine challenges to that accuracy in a fair way.

Leon Brozyna
January 13, 2009 1:11 pm

Have to head out to do some grocery shopping but first I have to shovel up some of that global warming. Damn deer crossed my walkway last night and knocked a load of snow back in the path.
In the meantime it’s looking good for WUWT. Seems to be hanging onto that 1800+ lead with an hour to go in the voting. Glad this’ll be over and we can return our focus to the odd things the climate {and other things} keep doing.

Les Johnson
January 13, 2009 1:11 pm

Nichole: your
and just a heads up, if you want people to give you any credence you oughtn’t condescend to them. i don’t care what people think of me; i know you are all true believers and won’t listen any way. i’m a straight up troll. what’s your excuse?
it’s cute when true believers try to make everything somebody else says a logical fallacy. really. adorable.
unfortunately, i’m not defending anthropogenic global warming and it’s not an argument at all. it’s just a “from authority.”
see, unfortunately for all you suckers who don’t believe in consensus (among other things), consensus is made and policy is already being developed. sounds like a good idea to me to have an economist on the panel, since you all seem so concerned that we’re going to financially bury ourselves fighting imaginary demons. rather than clutching your pearls, why not discuss how best to go about making new eco-friendly public policy? since your horse is long past dead and all.

Total useful information imparted, 0
Points of reference, 0
rhetorical misuse, -1
mixed metaphors, -3
from authority arguments, -2
Incorrect assumptions, -1
ad hominem arguments, -3

Stefan
January 13, 2009 1:13 pm

OK nichole, could you have taken out Saddam with solar powered tanks?
Question is, just how realistic is it to expect that we will get off of oil anytime soon? I’ll bet you Iraq will become a first class Democracy before we ever get off of oil. And that’s going to be a loooong time.

cookie
January 13, 2009 1:16 pm

I am not sure why so many are bothering to entertain Nichole the troll (motto ‘lots to type and all of it tripe’) but congrats to you, Anthony: no previous winner has deserved it more (with the possible exception of Climate Audit last year, lol).

James Chamberlain
January 13, 2009 1:16 pm

According to some of our “friends” visiting the last two days:
Website votes = bad
Science votes, aka consensus = good ???

Greg
January 13, 2009 1:16 pm

WUWT is making a late surge. 12,105 for angry bad science guy (32.5%)and 13,951 (37.5%) for the forces of reason and polite discourse.
Huzzah!

Wondering Aloud
January 13, 2009 1:17 pm

It looks to me like a repeat of last year where a good blog is winning and the pro AGW nuts are willing to commit fraud to prevent that. I have not been able to vote for the last 3 days because I can’t reach the site, it just times out. Last year at least a nice blog was being pushed to compete with a GW science site.
I will be glad when this is over so some of these commenters go away and we can return to civil and humorous discussion. I particularly like being told by someone like nichole what science is. After just over 30 years as a professional scientist and nearly that long focused on scientific method and experimental design her definition is one that would never occur to me. I am in fact certain it would never occur to any of the hundreds of quality scientists I have worked with.
The Blog that is being used to orchestrate or fix this election is so nasty and anti science that I can not endure it, small wonder the commentors supporting it are being nasty.
Regardless of the poll your hit count keeps rising, and the word is spreading, here you can learn something.

LotharLoo
January 13, 2009 1:18 pm

I have two projects in the works right now that will in fact result in papers. We’ll then see if they are accepted.
Good luck with the papers. In the meantime, I would rather go with the majority of the professionals who disagree with you.
Les Johnson (12:34:08) :
Wiki? You think that’s an authoritative source?
That explains a lot.

The wiki article includes references if you have not noticed already.
anna v (12:42:58) :
So? When Galileo was indicted the consensus was all against the heliocentric system. The priests had cornered the science. Are we getting back there where we get a popularity vote for the results of experiments?

What a moronic remark. You equate priests with scientists, the religious dogma with scientific consensus and the ancient practices of science with the modern scientific method. At least learn to use the continental drift instead of this ridiculous example. You would still be wrong, however.

jpf
January 13, 2009 1:23 pm

Well there you have it folks, using anger to incite the vote is one of the oldest political tricks in the book.

It’s the freaking “weblog awards” not something important like local dogcatcher. It’s exactly this sort of passive-aggressive melodrama — where you’re constantly on the look-out for the slightest transgression of arbitrary civility so you can shout “Gotcha!” and declare some sort of victory in the argument — that PZ is railing against in that post.

January 13, 2009 1:23 pm

anna v: right on!
More “Global Warming” in Michigan today:
“Residents of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula dug out from a weekend winter storm that dumped up to 8 inches of snow on the area. But forecasters said more snow and the coldest temperatures of the season were still to come…The temperature is expected to fall to around 13 (F) by 5 p.m. and to around 7 (F) by Wednesday morning… The weather service said even colder weather was headed for the western Upper Peninsula on Thursday and Friday, when wind chills could drop to 30 below to 35 below zero (F). ”
If consensus rules, then it won’t take much more of this for that consensus to build in a big way. Pity we are having such balmy weather in Los Angeles – set a record high for the date yesterday at 88 (F).
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

G Alston
January 13, 2009 1:25 pm

cookie — I am not sure why so many are bothering to entertain Nichole the troll…
Target practice?

January 13, 2009 1:28 pm

Well, it doesn’t look like PZ Myers’ putsch is going to work.
He will lose by over 1500 votes. Unless he or one of his [snip] cheats. Can’t count that out.
The best part is that, in losing, he showed his true colors and exposed himself for the [snip] that he is.

hotrod
January 13, 2009 1:34 pm

not here to debate the science. here to debate the prudency of debating the science in a public forum.

Did you ever watch the Television program called “Connections”? It showed how a large number of apparently unrelated developments, discoveries, and viewpoints led to a chain of events resulting in major discoveries that changed our world.
Many or the industrial age’s great discoveries were developed by people who had no formal education in the field, but were active life time learners in the technology of the day. Some were kitchen table experimenters, some were well educated clerics or from the wealthy elite, others were entirely self taught.
In spite of that they built bridges, devised ways to bore tunnels under rivers, perfected and invented new machines. Sometimes they did that by asking the questions that the formally educated knew there was no need to ask. Sometimes like Einstein they looked at things in a new way by asking questions framed in a new context.
Sometimes the most effective peer review, is to try to answer the question of a novice who is not contaminated by the biases of the day. I know that I have learned many things answering questions from students I was teaching. In many cases I found that you don’t really understand a question unless I can explain it to someone who is not skilled in the art, in a technically accurate but clear manner.
The Wright brothers developed the powered airplane by doing good engineering and experimentation, with no formal education in engineering or the sciences yet they solved aerodynamic problems that others could not, by a methodical process of experimentation. (ie the scientific method)
One of the things I find most disturbing about the recent trend in climate change debate, is the very dangerous assumption that if you do not have a degree in a specific field, you cannot possibly understand or contribute to the discussion.
Continental drift was discounted by the Peer reviewed journals and experts in the field when it was first proposed. The same can be said of other major discoveries.
The process of debating the subject drives all of us to investigate for our selves to the limits of our understanding and education the arguments. In the process we assemble a puzzle of little pieces.
For example in many of these comments I discover sources that I would never stumble across in a 100 years of web surfing. As a group, we comb through information and bring what appears to be useful or at least thought provoking to a central location where others of similar interest might find it and examine it. Sometimes a reference gets shot full of logical holes, other times it spurs a contribution from an unexpected point of view that leads people off in a new and interesting direction.
At the very worst it is intellectually stimulating, and educational. At the best even the non-technical contributors might through an off hand comment or observation, lead one of the other investigators to a new line of investigation they had not thought of before or a new way of looking at old data.
More importantly, it leads to an informed citizen who is better able to evaluate information in the public domain and that ultimately leads to a better democracy as a more informed public tends to make better decisions on issues.
If you delve into a little history of science and technology, most of the principles we take for granted today, were dismissed as nonsense by the most highly educated specialists of the day when they were first proposed. Likewise there have been some major “discoveries” that sounded good until people started asking questions, and have faded away as quickly as they appeared.
Sometimes the things we believe are “proven” are more a case of getting the right answer for the wrong reasons. The resulting blind spot to examination frequently leads to long delays in progress as the formally educated are indoctrinated to ignore small inconsistencies or paradoxes and blindly pursue dead end research as they refuse to step back and ask them selves “what do I really know?”, and “what are my assumptions that may or may not be valid?”.
An axiom I picked up years ago, is “do not hold an idea responsible for its source, judge it on its merits”.
Many years ago I worked in an office machine repair job. We had a machine that suddenly stopped working and was driving the tech nuts, as everything checked out but it would not work. He spent hours measuring resistances, checking fuses, tracing wires. He forgot to ask himself what he really knew. He knew there was power at the wall socket, so he assumed that power was getting to the circuits of the machine, and proceed to troubleshoot all the major systems. Finally someone asked him, “did you check that there was power at the power supply?”. His answer was that he had checked the power plug and he had power.
The problem was, he was drawing a false conclusion based on that bit of data. When he finally agreed to test the power at the other end of the power cord he found it was dead. Someone had tripped over the power cord and had jerked one connection loose inside the power plug.
Many of us feel the hypothesis that CO2 is the driver of global climate and temperature is like that test of the power at the wall plug.
Yes CO2 is a green house gas, and if you assume that if you double CO2 and that the green house warming you attribute to CO2 also doubles, lots of bad things will happen.
BUT — what if the physics do not support that assumption? What about the possibility that CO2 has already contributed almost all the warming it is physically possible to provide, and has already nearly closed its IR absorption window. If that is true the whole premise of CO2 driven global warming falls apart.
What if CO2 increase is a trailing indicator of temperature rise rather than the cause of temperature rise?
What if the sun has some to this point unknown means of transferring energy to the earth other than its direct irradiation ? Perhaps the buffeting of the earths magnetic field by the solar wind pumps large electrical currents into the earth and its atmosphere? What if its somehow modifies the absorption of the radiation it gives off by effecting cloud formation ?
Larry

January 13, 2009 1:34 pm

dKap, fans of such people either overlook or encourage jack booted totalitarian fascism. After all, such a person is your friend when they’re on your side (same with lawyers and police officers), but really annoying when they’re not.
And as for feeding the trolls? It keeps them here instead of calling all their family and friends to get votes that they claim not to care about… 🙂

Benjamin P.
January 13, 2009 1:35 pm

@ Roger Sowell
Climate v. Weather
Weather is a data point.

Robert Austin
January 13, 2009 1:40 pm

Benjamin P. says:
“Respectfully, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas (Physics tells us that) and doubling it would have a profound effect”
What does physics actually tell us about CO2 absorption of infrared radiation (badly termed as the greenhouse effect). CO2 absorbs in three distinct and rather narrow bands. Two of these bands match up with the broader strong absorption bands of water vapor so any so called greenhouse effect is primarily due to the one remaining absorption band which does not align with the absorption spectrum of water. The absorption effect of CO2 is also logarithmic, not linear. A doubling of CO2 does not lead to a doubling of infrared energy absorption. Theoretically, a doubling of CO2 concentration from present atmospheric concentration will increase the global temperature by about 1 degree F. Climate modelers show much higher temperature increases for CO2 doubling by assuming positive feedback. The levels of positive feedback assumed are not based on good science and seem to be derived in order to make the models fit the historical data. The historical data itself is in dispute. My conclusion is physics in no way tells us that doubling of CO2 will have a profound effect. If we look at paleolithic levels of CO2 which have been many times higher than the present level of CO2, we know that there cannot be a strong positive feedback effect because a strong feedback would lead to an unstable climate system and we would not be here today.

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 1:45 pm

WUWT still 1834 ahead with 27 mins to go. All over bar the shouting I reckon.
Congratulations to Anthony and all contributors at Watts Up With That.
Last year Climate Audit achieved a notable success for serious science.
This year WUWT has scored a notable success for accessible science.
The forces of reason, logic, openness and good sense are in the ascendant.
Who knows, next year we may be getting articles regularlarly posted in a prominent liberal blog (like HuffPo 🙂 and rooting for them in the political category.
For now, we can enjoy watching the pharyngitees whine themselves hoarse.
I have a feeling we’ll have some strays washing up here soon enough.
For those who have visited us to put their view, bring it on! Always good to hone our skills and we never tire of real debate.

Steven Kopits, Princeton, New Jersey
January 13, 2009 1:45 pm

Well, I took a look at pharyngula. Not really a science site, best I could tell.
Personally, I think bloggers are the new editorialists, and they will–one by one–supplant with op-ed staffs of established papers.
I read WUWT really for straight climate science, hopefully thoughtful and impartial. If the data supports global warming, that’s fine. If it refutes it, that’s fine, too. What I want is information; let the data provide the spin.
It’ s a great site, by the way. I check it almost daily.

mondo
January 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Nichole, somewhere way up thread (things are moving fast here) you stated re Iraq:
“like hussein was a bad guy for twenty years, and some jerk from a different country had to smack us with a couple of planes before we had the political impetus to take his ass down. and now everybody’s concentrating on the WMDs, or lack thereof, and regretting doing something that probably actually had to be done. i would say that our reason for invading iraq was just as relevant as the cause of global warming. hopefully, it’ll all work out in the end.”
Bear with me please, coz I am seriously interested in your logic. So we have a bad guy in Iraq. So how is it that the best way to deal with that bad guy is to invade his country, destroy most of the infrastructure, directly and indirectly lead to the deaths of over 4000 US soldiers, and perhaps 1,000,000 Iraquis (most of whom were being persecuted by the bad guy), huge numbers of traumatised and injured soldiers and general population of Iraq. Surely a better answer is to use the International Justice system to bring him to account? Shouldn’t we be focussed on getting the International Justice system to function effectively. Seems to me that you must be a US citizen to seriously consider that the violent approach used is preferable to a reasoned, rational, civilised approach employing effective justice.

January 13, 2009 1:47 pm

Science, 14,096
Invective, 12,200

nichole
January 13, 2009 1:50 pm

OMG james gets it!!!
the opinion of the scientific community, which is more educated and specialized is > the opinion of the unwashed masses!!!
ding ding ding ding!
and when we get that solar array at the shop here you’ll have solar powered HELICOPTERS!! built by solar power, anyways!! and everyone knows, helicopter > tank!
and what about finding eco-friendly policies? economical + ecological, that is. what’s wrong with that? why would you want to cast doubt on it? that’s the only suicidal policy i see.
and thanks, peden. alliteration is much more so my forte than meteorology. i ain’ t trying to lecture you, but a little information is a dangerous thing. let’s not give anything that can be misconstrued to the les johnsons of the world, hm? they call them “low information voters” for a reason.

Les Johnson
January 13, 2009 1:51 pm

lothar: your
The wiki article includes references if you have not noticed already.
It does not use accurate references when it is making editorial comments about so called skeptics. The links to the so called references are often dead ends or just contain no reference related to the subject.

TomT
January 13, 2009 1:54 pm

@Benjamin P
I don’t know what the earth’s normal temperature is and that is something you need to know before you can talk sensibly about how much of a problem warming or cooling is. It appears that at best the AGW proponents picked a particular year or day in the late 20th century and said this is the norm against which all is measured.
As a method to measure if the earth is warming or cooling that is fine. But as a method of determining if the warming or cooling is a problem it doesn’t work at all. After all if the current temperatures are below normal and are still going up to what the earths baseline should be then taking action to stop or slow it is not only premature but contraindicated. If on the other hand we are way over the norm then there might be a problem. See climate science hasn’t even had this discussion so at best they can tell us the current trend warmer or cooler … maybe. I note that their models have been having a wee small problem the last 10 years or so.
The second part of that is how bad are the results of the warming. Well the current proponents are AGW are predicting the worst case scenario’s as the only thing that can happen. We again come back to the fact that actual behavior of the system may be far different and far less. I personally expect that the results would be somewhere between the best case and worse case scenario probably close to the best case side.
Given both of the above issues acting now to do something on the precautionary principal C.F. is not only over reacting it is actively foolish. Since we don’t even have a good grasp of what is actually going on taking active action to interfere is criminal and could cause serious harm to the earth, humans and the general environment.
Is some action warrented? Maybe, certainly there is nothing wrong with a good basic conservation approach to your local environment and personal actions. Should we enforce draconian measures just in case? No that can only lead to harm and not good.

Renaud C
January 13, 2009 1:55 pm

WUWT 14,123
Pharyngula 12,222
More than 1,900 ahead 7 minutes before end…..

nichole
January 13, 2009 1:59 pm

@ mondo:
clearly the war in iraq was poorly executed. we had a poor executive branch, mentally poor anyways. what did you expect?
how long has it been since the first gulf war? the peace treaty which included allowing UN inspectors into iraq to investigate on a regular basis, something which totally didn’t happen. the consequences of iraq’s refusal to allow inspectors in was supposed to be the u.s. returning. which was totally political suicide until sept. 11th. let’s not forget the genocide that sadaam perpetrated, hm? you may oppose the incompetence of the leadership of this war and still support the cause. he was a genocidal dictator, not just some guy. the way it was supposed to go wasn’t working.
so let’s go about green policy the RIGHT way! now that we see what happens when we make policy the WRONG way.

MarkW
January 13, 2009 2:00 pm

Jeff Alberts (10:29:40) :
I really don’t have anything against those posts, but they don’t belong on a science site.
————-
You don’t have anything against lying? You don’t have anything against hatred?
Those people don’t hate religion, they hate a pseudo religion, with no relationship to any recognized religion on this planet.

AKD
January 13, 2009 2:00 pm

It’s over by my clock. Congratulations Anthony.

Joel
January 13, 2009 2:01 pm

Congrats Anthony. Looks like Small Dead Animals may win too. Chalk one up to science!!!

evanjones
Editor
January 13, 2009 2:02 pm

THE WINNER!
12,238 vs. 14,150!
Congratulations!

January 13, 2009 2:02 pm

At 2 p.m. PST:
WUWT: 14,147
Next: 12,235
Congratulations!

Edward Morgan
January 13, 2009 2:03 pm

We must have won. Its 10pm GMT. Well done everyone and thanks to Anthony and guest posters for a truly brilliant combination of intelligence, questioning, altruism, friendliness and fun. Hooray. Ed.

James Chamberlain
January 13, 2009 2:03 pm

Just so I know that I have it right:
1000 incorrect scientists beat out the one correct one? History must show this, certainly……

JP
January 13, 2009 2:04 pm

What would the earth’s temperature be if there was no CO2 ? If that were the case could we have a baseline as to what the addition and subtraction of a single “thingy” would be. I am NOT a scientist nor can I spell AGW.. But i am a programmer and without performing Exception or Unit testing all my programs crash no matter how smart i think I am. side note: All of the code I ever tested to perfection still never passed the User Acceptance Test unscathed 🙁 My point here is that without the ability to question…. There is no way to prove AGW at all. My thought is since the Polar Ice Cap is going to be totally gone by 2012 we have only 3 years. 🙂 Now there would be a great place to buy shore property as there is 6 months of 24hr a day sunshine :)….
As a programmer burned by promises of logarithmic scaling (SHOW ME).

Ray
January 13, 2009 2:04 pm

Congratulations to WUWT and to all.

Bill Marsh
January 13, 2009 2:05 pm

Unless there are some post vote shenanigans, I think you’ve got it. Congrats!

Benjamin P.
January 13, 2009 2:05 pm

@Robert Austin
Can you give me your source please.
Also, “If we look at paleolithic levels of CO2 which have been many times higher than the present level of CO2, we know that there cannot be a strong positive feedback effect because a strong feedback would lead to an unstable climate system and we would not be here today.”
We are at near historical levels if we dig (no pun intended) through the geologic record. What’s interesting is that the earth tends to do things slowly, and can typically handle variations in inputs of CO2 that occur on natural time scales. What takes the earth ~10,000 years to do, humans have done in 100 years wrt CO2 concentrations.
On a more general note, I would also like to say I am not advocating one thing or another, only that we keep things grounded in science. The truth lies in science, and as long as we are honest as we approach the problems the truth will be ours at the end of the day. Throwing around half truths and disinformation is a disservice to all.

January 13, 2009 2:05 pm

Congratulations, Anthony! Well done.

Jepe
January 13, 2009 2:05 pm

I Think WUWT won!

Katlab
January 13, 2009 2:05 pm

Everything is going to work towards the good. All that negative stuff from the Daily Kos, and PZ it is driving people over here to check out the website. I bet your website hits go up after today.
People reading articles and comments (other that than this one’s) will find thoughtful scientific analysis of data. They’ve been told we are flat earther’s. Let them check us out for themselves. See if they have been told the truth.

keith
January 13, 2009 2:05 pm

Congratulations! very happy you won, I feel like we all won and now it’s over and can go get some work done.

David S
January 13, 2009 2:06 pm

Haven’t been able to access the “finalist” website for the past two days.

Ken G
January 13, 2009 2:06 pm

Congrats Anthony! It’s nice to see you get some recognition for all the work you put into this site. Keep up the good work. People like me definitely appreciate it.

Richard deSousa
January 13, 2009 2:07 pm

Yeah, congratulations, Anthony! And to Climate Audit, too, for kicking RealClimate’s butt!

P J Stane
January 13, 2009 2:07 pm

@Lotharloo
“What a moronic remark. You equate priests with scientists, the religious dogma with scientific consensus and the ancient practices of science with the modern scientific method”
Lemaitre? Mendel? Copernicus? …

BarryW
January 13, 2009 2:07 pm

Looks like WUWT won (assuming there’s no Chicago type graveyard vote)

Araucan
January 13, 2009 2:07 pm

Congratulations !

January 13, 2009 2:07 pm

Benjamin P. (13:35:12) :
wrote: @ Roger Sowell
Climate v. Weather
Weather is a data point.”
And, perhaps climate is merely a series of weather data points, integrated over time.
Or, is climate what the books say, as in The Mediterranean has a pleasant climate. Or, the Sahara Desert has a dry, arid climate. Or, the Amazon jungle has a hot, humid climate. Or, the New Yorkers moved to the Southwest to live in the healthier climate there. I have read all of those statements over the years.
I take your point, though. A single value for anything is almost meangingless, unless one has some context for it. If I tell you my son batted 0.400 in his baseball season, you might not be impressed if you knew nothing of baseball. If he was in the major leagues, and you knew baseball, you would be very impressed. But, if he was in high school, and you knew that such batting is not unusual, you would not be as impressed. But, being a nice guy, you would likely congratulate me anyway.
In any event, the point is valid that when this globe cools so that the current weather in Michigan is the norm rather than the exception, we have a climate change. By definition. And Houston, We Have A Problem.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

tallbloke
January 13, 2009 2:08 pm

wattsupwiththat (13:47:59) :
It ain’t over till its over…
It is now. 🙂
WUWT 14,150
PZ Myers 12,238

Bruce Cobb
January 13, 2009 2:08 pm

It’s after 5:00, and it looks like WUWT is the clear winner! Woo-hoo! Final vote looks to be: WUWT – 14,150, Pharyngula – 12,238. Science wins!
Victory is sweet.

January 13, 2009 2:09 pm

Lookin’ good, Anthony!
Congr