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.
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. 🙂
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
13,682 to 11,873
latest figures
WUWT 13674
Pharyngitis 11869
They’re catching up!
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?
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!!!!
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.
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.
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?
I have two projects in the works right now that will in fact result in papers. We’ll then see if they are accepted.
Also the Wiki entry about why I started this blog is incorrect. I did not start this blog they way they portray it.
I started in November 2006 as a general science blog, as part of my local newspaper blog group at http://www.norcalblogs.com. It was not until about April of 2007 (go look at old posts in 2006/2007) that the focus switched to mostly climate, and that occurred only after a discussion with another Norcal blogger, electrical engineer Lon Glazner, who runs Commission Impossible, about the accuracy of thermometers. That got me looking at the USHCN and paint on Stevenson Screens. The response was so significant that I went in that direction of interest since then. – Anthony
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!
Evan, it is for the contest judges to decide. Let the chips fall where they may. – Anthony
@ur momisugly hotrod & les:
not here to debate the science. here to debate the prudency of debating the science in a public forum.
LotharLoo (12:26:53) :
Wiki? You think that’s an authoritative source?
That explains a lot.
ah jeez, thanks lothar!
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?
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!
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.
nichole @ur momisugly (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.
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?