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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Jackie got it right, your site is a joke as well as your science denial.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tried again, and voted for WUWT.
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.
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
Currently 11009 to 12798… just got my last vote in.
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.
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?
@ur momisugly 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!
Pharyngula. P.Z. Meyers is a jerk and a poor loser… a pox on him and congratulations to Anthony.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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!!!
@ur momisugly jim:
right. politics make policies. hopefully, ones informed by science.
“oil making solar panels” ?? wtf?
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.
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.