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
@ur momisugly 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.
Actually we do have an economist on the panel here. Search for “Indur Goklany” in the upper right search box and you will see some of the articles he has guest posted here. – Anthony
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?
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!
Update:
3:49 EST
12023 – PJ
13852 – AW
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!! 😛
@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.
Phar 12008
WUWT 13830
CA 4081
RC 1432
2047 GMT
OOH, it’s exciting isn’t it
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?
” 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.
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.
A dead horse is better than a computer-generated one.
Last 40 mins
WUWT +304 votes
PZ +203 votes
Yay!
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.
Nichole:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
According to some of our “friends” visiting the last two days:
Website votes = bad
Science votes, aka consensus = good ???
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!
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.
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.