WUWT named to top 30 science blogs by The Times

I was rather surprised when this item of note was pointed out to me a few days ago.

See the list at The Times Online. They write:

Whether you are new to blogs or a practised poster, Eureka’s Top 30 Science Blogs will not disappoint. After much heated debate, the Eureka team have picked 30 of their favourite science, environment, health and technology blogs. If you want to know more about the latest NHS catastrophe or climate change scandal, someone on our list will have it covered.

It seems WUWT’s inclusion has prompted quite a bit of derision by people who think WUWT should not be included. I understand that for some people, challenging scientific consensus on climate change is a basis to claim that this blog is “anti-scientific”.

I don’t worry about such labels, because science is supposed to be all about challenges. Science through history has remade itself in the face of challenges to the prevailing consensus. Earth centered universe, plate tectonics, and the cause of stomach ulcers were all arguments related to challenging consensus. Given what we’ve observed going on with Climategate these past few months, it appears that we are witnessing another case of challenges to consensus remaking science. It’s always a nasty business when closely held beliefs are challenged, so invective right now should be considered a feature, and not a bug in the process.

I did get a chuckle though from a response posted by another blog honored on the list.


by Tim Lambert

Stimulating musings on the environment and the social implications of science, though Lambert’s background is actually in computing.

He wrote of his own blog’s inclusion:

If they are going to include my blog on their list of the top 30 science blogs, I can’t help but link to them. There are some good blogs on their list which is only marred by the inclusion of Anthony Watts’ anti-science blog.

Heh. I’ll simply offer my congratulations to Mr. Lambert, and to the other blogs on the list. I’ll also wish Mr. Lambert well in his upcoming debate with Lord Monckton. That should be interesting and fun to watch, no matter what side of consensus you live on.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 11, 2010 11:27 am


February 11, 2010 11:29 am

Dr. Campbell, editor of the ‘Nature’ magazine resigns from the CRU review panel

February 11, 2010 11:34 am

Excellent news – congratulations.

February 11, 2010 11:38 am

“Anti-scientific” is the current Newspeak term for “skeptical of AGW”.
Also, you may not know it, but you and apparently many other skeptical blogs are funded by ExxonMobil.
And this makes you, and all other sketpical bloggers, not only wrong, but evil.
The current AGW true believer talking point is that there are sketpics out there, but people who doubt AGW are not skeptics, but “denialists”.
And denialists are people who helped big tobacco, and now finding new employment by ExxonMobil, are defeating AGW in the public’s eye by dint of their high levels of funding and control of the media.
The true beleivers tell each other, and anyone who will listen, this many times per day.
So stop laughing.
They are serious. Really.

February 11, 2010 11:39 am

Congratulations Mr. Watts!

February 11, 2010 11:39 am

Wow. Just wow. Go and read the hate in the comment section. It’s telltale. Anthony, be careful. You may just get burned at the stake, literally. I haven’t seen such mindless hate since… well… since ever. I’m not old enough to have seen the race hate of the 60’s (and before) but this smells the same. Mindless, thoughtless, cowardly hate.
No, really.

February 11, 2010 11:40 am

But its a little bit dubbel edged?? What was the words of Goucho Marx??
“A would never join a club that would take me on as member”

February 11, 2010 11:43 am

I am schocked by some of the comments on ‘The Times Online’ article. It seems that climate science is no more a science but a religion. It’s forbidden to express any doubts about climate! Fortunately we are not living anymore in the Inquisition period, otherwise mr Watts would be alread burnt! 😉
Thanks again for your hard work, this blog is really necessary!

February 11, 2010 11:43 am

A well deserved listing and congrats to Anthony…

February 11, 2010 11:44 am

How Wonderful!
Congratulations to you and all of WUWT’s intelligent posters !!
I imagine there are quite a few out there seething over this ….. AlGore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, the IPCC, the Obama Administration … the … the .. the …lol
Great Job!

February 11, 2010 11:45 am

“though Lambert’s background is actually in computing”
Hmmmm, I wonder what Lambert thought about CRU’s source code with the hard-coded hockey stick? I’m sure he mused about it in a stimulating fashion, right? Right? And I’m sure he explored the social implications of hundreds of billions of dollars getting sucked out of national economies so that politicians and bureaucrats have a nice big slush fund to slosh around in.

Dr T G Watkins
February 11, 2010 11:50 am

Well done and well deserved. 35,446,226 probably disagree with Tim Lambert.
( John Houghton on BBC Wales Dragon’s Eye programme bemoaning true scientists losing the PR battle. I had to record it as I was so cross Ihad to go out for some fresh, Cold, air )

View from the Solent
February 11, 2010 11:51 am

Well done. But I’m amazed. ‘Eureka’ is a monthly gloss insert in the Times. It is little more than a paean to the noble fighters against the evil of AGW.
BTW, there’s a battle raging in the comments over at The Times.

February 11, 2010 11:51 am

And the insults start. From a blog run by one of the first commentors Andy Russell:

Now, though, we have an opportunity to test the scientific integrity of one of these skeptics. Anthony Watts, an American weather presenter,…

I love how meteorologists are not even scientists… unless they adhere to the party line.

Andrew Francis
February 11, 2010 11:52 am

O/T Breaking news:
One of the ‘impartial experts’ on the UEA CRU Inquiry panel has resigned after it was revealed he gave an interview to a chinese website soon after the ClimateGate emails were released in which he claimed that the emails did NOT show any wrong doing.
Still looking for the link to the chinese site…

February 11, 2010 11:53 am

Congratulations Anthony, for running the best science blog on the net. The hate comments prove you are over the target.

February 11, 2010 11:53 am

For some strange reason, Richard Black’s Earthwatch is in the list. Good to see John Graham-Cumming there.

February 11, 2010 11:54 am

My God, the comments on the Times article – you’d think Anthony was the anti-Christ.
I think the sceptical blogs have got a lot of people worried – you can almost smell the fear in those comments. Their gravy-train is about to hit the barriers and they are terrified.

February 11, 2010 11:55 am

Given what we’ve observed going on with Climategate these past few months, it appears that we are witnessing another case of challenges to consensus remaking science
Good for WUWT if these new controversial areas are presented here, though some egos could be hit by friendly fire.☺

February 11, 2010 11:55 am

@vukcevic. googled campbell, resignation, cru plus theme and variations but no results. would you kindly source this? Thanks.
Re top 30, Congratulations. I would suggest that you open a good bottle of bubbly to celebrate but am afraid that the sudden release of CO2 might put the atmosphere over some tipping point.

Milwaukee Bob
February 11, 2010 11:58 am

Congratulations once again to all involved. We here, both posters and readers KNOW of the high level of scientific thought and data presented hereon by most. (Not I, but I know it when I read it) It should be noted by all, as it probably was by the Times, trolls and besmirchers are dispatched quickly, seldom to show up again and helping to keep the science discussion OnT and at a high level, but with space for the humor that so often can be found in any human endeavor.
Anthony, et. al., you have made a difference for the better of mankind. Thank you!

February 11, 2010 11:58 am

Not only are you un-scientific for questioning a scientific theory, you are now also unpatriotic! Bill Nye, the science guy, on Rachel Maddow show just explained that to question a scientific theory is just plain wrong, why it’s unpatriotic in his words. How science advances is apparently a mystery he’s not interested in examining.

February 11, 2010 11:58 am

Hey hunter (11:38:04) : I’ve been stalking you….No, no, nothing to worry about, just finding your unquenchable faith in Saint Al “baby” Gore!

B. Smith
February 11, 2010 11:58 am

Curious about Deltoid, I took a quick look around. I saw that he is debating Lord Monckton this Friday, 12 Feb. in Sydney! Professor Lambert is a Computer Scientist; his background is heavily steeped in mathematics. That should match up well with Lord M who is an accomplished mathematician himself.
Debate with Monckton
Category: Monckton
Posted on: February 11, 2010 5:26 AM, by Tim Lambert
SMH Online plan to put up a live feed of the debate. I’ll put up a link to the page if this happens.
The format is now settled: Monckton opens the batting with a 15 minute presentation. Then I go for 15 minutes. Then we put two questions to each other (alternating). Then its questions from the audience. And finally we each get five minutes each to close things.
Friday February 12th, 12:30 – 2:30 Grand Ballroom, Hilton Hotel, 488 George St Sydney
$30 at the door, preregister by emailing cool@exemail.com.au

Andrew Francis
February 11, 2010 11:58 am

Here’s the link to the interview with Dr Philip Cambell ex-member of the CRU inquiry panel.

John from MN
February 11, 2010 11:59 am

Congratulations Anthony.
I have been a science buff since I was old enough to read. I enjoy your site and the great discussions that evolve from your posts. I must confess it pleases me that you were included and Joe Rohm’s political hack site he believes is somehow scientific (Climate Progress) was not. He rants and raves that this site is non-scientific yet reading his mostly garbage political rants, have to be the most one-sided non-scientific climate sites on the net. Well maybe a close second would be desmog. Tough to find any science on those sites, it is just political noise. Funny how they, at those sites do not even realize how awful and un-scientific their sites have become…….Talk about cannot see the forest for the trees…….Anyway keep up the good work and never fall into the trappings of over sell and become ranting lunatic site like desmog and Joe Rohm’s Climate Progress…….John….

February 11, 2010 11:59 am

I don’t know how you manage to keep on doing it, Anthony, but there you are getting ever-more recognition.
REPLY: Honestly I don’t know either. It wasn’t like I had to be nominated or anything. I just keep writing abut things I think are relevant.
I see blogging as a bit like running a radio station. To keep listeners engaged, you can’t have any dead airtime. – Anthony

February 11, 2010 12:01 pm

Perhaps you did something useful by including WUWT, the well-known hangout for anti-science creationists and their ilk.

Crap. Here I am, an agnostic….. and now I’m a creationist????? I wonder, I’ve been a member of the WUWT cult from the beginning – Did I miss the post where you advocated creationism????

February 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Congratulations are in order.
Just wondering, did anti-scientists invent anti-matter and imaginary numbers?

patrick healy
February 11, 2010 12:04 pm

congratulations Mr (Dr.) Watts.
Watt next? that knighthood i mentioned last week?
BTW the andrew neil interview with Prf Watson on bbc is priceless.

February 11, 2010 12:05 pm

hunter (11:38:04) :
Also, you may not know it, but you and apparently many other skeptical blogs are funded by ExxonMobil.

Oh, Mr. Watts also shops at one of those supermarket chains that now also sell gas, or perhaps a mini-mart? Those discounts of 10 cents a gallon per $100 spent on qualifying purchases (example might not be typical) really do add up. Last time I claimed it, I brought along some extra gas cans to take full advantage of the “up to 30 gallons.” Why should only people with big trucks with duel tanks get all the benefit? (As opposed to my big truck with only one tank. People driving eco-boxes with tiny tanks are really losing out on that deal.)

Gil Dewart
February 11, 2010 12:06 pm

Congratulations! Anybody who posts my utterances can’t be all bad! BTW has anyone taken out a globe and placed their fingertip over the area of the recent storm that has unhinged DC? Hey, it’s no big deal – tells more about inflated egos than global climate. Just had a call from a little west of there and they got a grand total of two inches of snow. Reminds me of that mosquito floating down the river and squeaking “raise the drawbridge”.

February 11, 2010 12:10 pm

Congratulations. It is well deserved. As for the rude comments, they are indicative of the level of intellectual and emotional maturity of their authors.

February 11, 2010 12:13 pm

Re: kadaka (12:05:36) :
Whoops, clicked too soon, should have been “dual tanks” not “duel tanks.” However, considering the frequent checking between tanks to monitor which one has what level and deciding which one to draw from, it’s still appropriate.

Henry chance
February 11, 2010 12:15 pm

More science than the pure political blogs like Climateprogress have ever seen.
Please don’t seek a Noble Peace Prize. It is a curse on non scientists.

Steve Oregon
February 11, 2010 12:16 pm

I guess they had to put them in alphebetical order to make WUWT be last.
I wonder how the order would be if it were done by number of monthly visitors?

February 11, 2010 12:16 pm

The criticism og WuWt is clearly orchestrated. Someone must have tipped these hysterics off pre-release, so they could scream in harmony.
Congratulatulations, Anthiny. A well deserved place on the list.

Steve Oregon
February 11, 2010 12:17 pm


P Gosselin
February 11, 2010 12:20 pm

They forgot M4GW

February 11, 2010 12:20 pm

The comments in the Times look very orchestrated.

Henry chance
February 11, 2010 12:28 pm

I suspect all the derogatory comments mean 2 things.
Joe Romm feels left out and is starting crusades with fake names. The other sites have many less viewers.
I admit I had never heard of most of the sites. (my company had a division with it’s own site and ranked in the top 5 in hits until the porn sites came along many years ago).
WUWT has exploded after November stinky leaks came out.
Real Climate is on there and they don’t even run a new topic but every several days.

Ron de Haan
February 11, 2010 12:29 pm

This IS the best science blog and the bare fact that non of those commenting on the WUWT listing in the Times Article produce a single solid argument only confirms that the entire Global Warming scheme has nothing to do with science but everything with policy.
Well done Anthony and Team.

Jim Arndt
February 11, 2010 12:29 pm

Great work Anthony. In the words of Fredrick Douglas ” Agitate Agitate Agitate”

February 11, 2010 12:30 pm

Congrats Anthony!!!.
Just browsing comments to Times online article proves that WUWT is inducing some serious cases of brain cramps among AGW fanatics with very slight chance of recovery. This is a good thing

February 11, 2010 12:30 pm

Congratulations, AW. May you be part of the tide continuing to turn.

Dr T G Watkins (Wales)
February 11, 2010 12:31 pm

Follow up. The comments at Times on line are vitriolic ! I left a short comment there in your defence (not that you need it ) and I hope many other loyal fans make the effort too.

February 11, 2010 12:32 pm

Not surprised, Anthony. Well done!
P.S. I put the following comment on the DELTOID blog site re the upcoming Lambert/Monkton debate on AGW. (Not yet had a response!)
Monkton is at least as well qualified to debate Mann-made Global Warming as Al Gore. I also see that the science content on this blog site is just as thin as in IPCC AR4. Luckily for all of us, an AR5 now seems highly unlikely.
Posted by: Bob Mount | February 11, 2010 3:23 PM

February 11, 2010 12:32 pm

OT, but how much you wanna bet the lack of snow in Vancouver (Winter Olympics) will be blamed on Global Warming?

February 11, 2010 12:33 pm

Quote: vukcevic (11:29:47) :
“Dr. Campbell, editor of the ‘Nature’ magazine resigns from the CRU review panel.”
If the ‘Nature’ magazine is to regain any credibility, Dr. Campbell should also promptly resign as editor.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo

February 11, 2010 12:33 pm

RayG (11:55:49) :
“@vukcevic. googled campbell, resignation, cru plus theme and variations but no results. would you kindly source this? Thanks.”
From very reliable private source (basis of not being impartial). I am sure media outlets will eventually get to it, but I believe that this is a severe setback for the panel.
BTW- well done WUWT!

February 11, 2010 12:35 pm

Hmmmm, and me, who just read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. Lots of fun.

February 11, 2010 12:36 pm

Congratualtions and thanks for all the information you provide here.
American weather presenter 1.
Indian railroad engineer 0.

February 11, 2010 12:37 pm

My word, the vitriol is flying fast and furious over there… You’d think this was an election or something!

Stas Peterson
February 11, 2010 12:39 pm

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, CAGW, is not the only Lysenko-style ‘Science ‘ being promulgated out there. The ‘liberal’ , aka corporate national Socialists, entertain other convenient ‘Science’ in their deluded minds.
Wind and Solar Energy, Officially, only Five to Eight times the cost of conventional electrical generation, is on the verge of economic competitiveness. This Lib science is fervently believed. It only needs a few more years of subsidies, to become the preferred and universal energy source.
Overlooked, is that their so-called renewable power, is intermittent, and available, by industry experience, only 8% versus 95+% of the time, for other sources. Multiplying the actual cost by another 10 times, over the official 5 – 8 times as expensive, makes it a subsidy child which will die the moment the subsidy teat is withdrawn.
But by far, the stupidest of Lib ‘Science’ is so-called ‘Embryonic Stem Cell’ Science . That is Not to be confused with, ‘Self Stem Cell’ Science . Creating proponent stem cells from the same body, has produced valid Science, and cures certain diseases already. Nor does the body reject implants of its own ‘self’ stem cells. It rejects some one else’s embryonic stem cell transplants, however. If they were ever able to get embryonic stem cells to do what Dr. Suk lied about in the first place.
But ’embryonic’ stem cell is based on wholly manufactured and totally fake research by a Korean scientist, Dr Woo Suk. But for the liberal mind, it seems, no philanthropy will fund embryonic stem cell research, for some bad reason, other than it doesn’t work, as it is all lies. Planned Parenthood and the Abortion industry, must be and is seeking moral justification for baby killing; and must be found, and this is its Holy Grail.
The obvious Lib ‘Science of Economics’ is completely fallacious. Their Statist method of organizing society, has failed in every time in of some 96 instances where tried over the last 142 years, wherever it has been tried. It has in every case, led to totalitarianism and poverty.
Any Science that failed 96 times in a row, in experiments, would be presumed to be a failure. But No. Libs always say that ‘Science’ was just never done correctly, and the next experimental country will succeed.

GAZ from Sydney
February 11, 2010 12:40 pm

I am adding my congratulations, Anthony.
The warmist movement is evangilical, and the hate comments indicate that as a religion, it’s primitive. The enlightened religions dont focus on hating the non-believers.

February 11, 2010 12:40 pm

Hey What’s up with this??? I thought the “Global Warming Fingerprint was supposed to be over the tropics… not Canada or Russia.
Serious, is there something going on with the upper northern hemisphere temp-mometer-thingys???

Stas Peterson
February 11, 2010 12:41 pm

Erratum : proponent should be pleuripotent

February 11, 2010 12:41 pm

Congrats, Anthony.

February 11, 2010 12:44 pm

Good job. Wear the criticism proudly as a badge of honor.

John Wolf
February 11, 2010 12:44 pm

Congratulations. This is one of the few websites that provides excellent balanced reporting with high quality commentary.

February 11, 2010 12:44 pm

Now we know that WUWT is one of the best science blogs. Not because the Times says so but because 98% of the commenters have something to say about it. You can’t really piss that many people off that bad unless you’re right.
(And you just know they all read it too)

February 11, 2010 12:45 pm

Steve Oregon (12:16:37) :
I guess they had to put them in alphebetical order to make WUWT be last.

Someone better notify an editor then, since “Jack of Kent” is among the “eye’s”.
Gee, and here I thought they were using “Hollywood ranking,” where the most desired positions on the cast list are first and last. Some prefer the end, as the list reads *many assorted boring people* ending with *The Big Name* that generates the most “buzz.” And going by the volume of comments (amount and amplitude), the Times Online certainly got lots of that!

February 11, 2010 12:47 pm

I posted the following comment to the TimesOnline article about science blogs:
“Real Climate blog is best described as the #1 science fiction blog.

February 11, 2010 12:49 pm

The AGW social movement is falling aprt. All that holds them together now is hate and spittle.
hang tough.

Van Grungy
February 11, 2010 12:51 pm

Acolytes of the Church of Warmology will always hate what they cannot control.

February 11, 2010 12:51 pm

Congrats Anthony et al (mods you guys do a wonderful job too here and this place couldn’t function without you)!
[snip funny – but OTT]

George E. Smith
February 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Well, I’m not sure which is the greater tribute Anthony; to be listed in the list of Times best 30 blogs, even though alphabetically down in the cellar; or the even greater accolade of being by far the most recognized Science Blog by the commenters on that Times blog.
One might even say Anthony, that you and your blog are the Sarah Palin of science blogging; for nobody has attracted the venomous vitriol that that political speaker has. And people question her “knowledge” while giving a free pass to an illiterate idiot, who can’t even read his own name, without a teleprompter; which he neeeds even to talk to first grade children.
Well that is not so surprising for someone, who describes Medics as “Corpsemen.” I would think that title would be more suitable for the Undertakers, rather than the life saving medical corp personell.
Nothing succeeds like succes Anthony, and to be right in the sights of your critics, is to get noticed; that’s for sure. Besides WUWT, it was pretty much just Climate Audit, and Realclimate; that is a “read-only” site.
No idea who Tim Lambert is, but then there are lots of people I’ve never heard of.

February 11, 2010 12:53 pm

It’s all “generational” according to Bill Nye, “The Science Guy” . According to him older folks are idiots.
“Well, my thinking is, I thought about this a lot as an educator, spent a lot of time with a lot of people,” Nye said. “It’s mostly generational, it seems to be. This is anecdotal for me. Older people just have a much harder time grasping the idea that you have many billions of people on the planet with a very, very thin atmosphere – you’re able to affect its climate. Younger people are able to sort of embrace it, understand the evidence and move forward. Just as you say, making a full-court one-armed shot happens now and then. There are snowstorms in Washington, D.C., now and then.”

February 11, 2010 12:54 pm

Wow, the vitriol is astounding. They sound as if someone has taken their “precious.”

February 11, 2010 12:55 pm

I think this is going to be bigger than climategate
Its called the domino effect. Will the Editor-In-Chief of Nature resign from that position (EIC of Nature) bets are he will have to. I think this will bring the whole thing tumbling down real quick just aguess….

February 11, 2010 12:56 pm

Congratulations Anthony,
You should be top of the list. Lots of alarmists commenting there, but they will see the light sooner or later…
REPLY: there’s no rank to the list as far as I can tell, I’m just happy to have WUWT included. -A

February 11, 2010 12:59 pm

Congrats Anthony and team and everybody that made this possible!
And to Tim Burton and his boyz, oh Boo Hoo … although I did enjoy “The Ray Thread” (recommended reading, “The Ray Thread” is I say for understanding where it is his brand of ‘warmer’ and CAGW-ist are coming from).

February 11, 2010 12:59 pm

Anti-science? Anti-bullshit, trickery, malfeasance and skullduggery you mean!
Science IS “to know” and that precludes pre-conceived and dogmatic ideas. As long as you have a question, SCIENCE has the answer, it is only a matter of time.
Well done on taking the “high-road” regarding your nomination as well as the criticism. This is certainly MY personal favourite blog.

February 11, 2010 1:01 pm

So, what’s the deal with all the anti-WUWT comments. Seems like it was lifted straight out of the Real Climate comment section. With the repetitious use of the term “anti-science” one would suspect this comes from one person or a small group.

George Turner
February 11, 2010 1:02 pm

But frankly, if not for all the data manipulation, fraud, and criminal behavior of the AGW proponents, this blog would be almost as boring as a plate tectonic blog.
Feb 11, 2010. Update: As was the case in yesterday’s post, we’re still drifting away from Europe – very very slowly…
Reader tjmagill writes:
I noticed some frost this morning. Could we possibly have drifted at bit more to the north last night?
A – Perhaps north by a few extra microns, but our course seems to remain stubbornly westward. We’ll post a more accurate measurement after my grandchildren finish grade school and graduate college, so stay tuned.

February 11, 2010 1:09 pm

George E. Smith (12:52:21) :
One might even say Anthony, that you and your blog are the Sarah Palin of science blogging
But he doesn’t write on his hand…

February 11, 2010 1:12 pm

[snip – thanks]
Judging from the comments on “the times” blog, you are the biggest threat to the “religion”. Keep it up.
No need to post this.

Herman L
February 11, 2010 1:14 pm

I understand that for some people, challenging scientific consensus on climate change is a basis to claim that this blog is ‘anti-scientific’. … science is supposed to be all about challenges.
That’s an interesting comment. Anthony, you’re the one who declined the challenge to participate in Dr. Matthew Menne’s (et. al.) scientific, peer-reviewed analysis of the data collected at surfacestations.org. As David Easterling of the National Climatic Data Center told Andy Revkin: “We invited [Anthony Watts] a number of times to participate in the work. He declined.” Of course, we all know that you’re doing your own paper. Will you be up to the challenge of inviting Menne’s team to work on yours?
REPLY: Actually Herman, you are flat wrong, because you aren’t involved and can only guess. I replied to the letter from Mr. Tom Karl sent to me. Perhaps you missed it or simply choose not to read this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
I had been offered collaboration by NCDC’s director in the fall. In typed letter on 9/22/09 Tom Karl wrote to me:
“We at NOAA/NCDC seek a way forward to cooperate with you, and are interested in joint scientific inquiry. When more or better information is available, we will reanalyze and compare and contrast the results.”
“If working together cooperatively is of interest to you, please let us know.”
I discussed it with Dr. Pielke Sr. and the rest of the team, which took some time since not all were available due to travel and other obligations. It was decided to reply to NCDC on a collaboration offer.
On November 10th, 2009, I sent a reply letter via Federal Express to Mr. Karl, advising him that we would like to collaborate, and offered to include NCDC in our paper.. In that letter I also reiterated my concerns about use of the preliminary surfacestation data (43% surveyed) that they had, and spelled out very specific reasons why I didn’t think the results would be representative nor useful.
We all waited, but there was no reply from NCDC to our reply to offer of collaboration by Mr. Karl from his last letter. Not even a “thank you, but no”.
Additionally, Mr. Karl has not responded to the offer I made in writing of turning over all surfacestations.org photographs to NCDC for permanent archiving in the NCDC MMS metadatabase.
Herman, you simply don’t know what you are talking about, and I suggest to you that you should refrain from speculating about things you have no first hand communications on. – Anthony

Steve Goddard
February 11, 2010 1:15 pm

Lambert seems to have missed part of his sentence. WUWT is anti-bad-science.

February 11, 2010 1:16 pm

When big oil stops to pay me because we successfully derailed AGW and made earth cool again, what is the next anti-scientific campaign i can join? My kids are crying for beer! (I’m german)

February 11, 2010 1:20 pm

Fred (11:58:25) :

Not only are you un-scientific for questioning a scientific theory, you are now also unpatriotic! Bill Nye, the science guy, on Rachel Maddow show just explained that to question a scientific theory is just plain wrong, why it’s unpatriotic in his words. How science advances is apparently a mystery he’s not interested in examining.

Hey Fred,
I used to like listening to Nye, but now that I know he’s a priest (“Thou Shalt Not Query the Holy Writings”) he’s a lot less interesting.
Unpatriotic? Did he really say that? Should I call him “Comrade Science Guy?”

Dr T G Watkins
February 11, 2010 1:21 pm

Follow up. The comments at Times online are truly vitriolic and may well be coordinated. I left two comments in your defence (not that you need defending) and I hope many of your readers take the time to do likewise.

February 11, 2010 1:22 pm

Reading the comments following the list of 30 was most entertaining, albeit in a shocking way. Comment after comment excoriated WUWT inclusion in the most fanatical way. When one commentator dared suggest that CA should have been included in the list, he was reminded by another poster that CA had been repeatedly eviscerated by such luminaries as Rabbett, Romm and Desmogblog.
Such is the universe in which some individuals live. However, just by chance, the very last post said: “OMG I’ve stumbled into a church of global warming.”
What a wonderful feeling to return to reality.
Congrats, Anthony on being on the list, but I hope you have a thick skin.

February 11, 2010 1:23 pm

Congrats!!! It seems your inclusion on the list is being widely accepted 🙂

jack mosevich
February 11, 2010 1:23 pm

Anthony: The list is alphabetical:”Here, in alphabetical order, are our selections:”

February 11, 2010 1:25 pm

Wow, I did not know TRUTH had so much enemies… the comments below the articles are about 90%+ against you or/and your blog.
Lots of work ahead of us to make people see through all the lies and deceptions.

February 11, 2010 1:26 pm

From the posting above: “It seems WUWT’s inclusion has prompted quite a bit of derision by people who think WUWT should not be included. I understand that for some people, challenging scientific consensus on climate change is a basis to claim that this blog is “anti-scientific”.
I don’t worry about such labels, because science is supposed to be all about challenges. Science through history has remade itself in the face of challenges to the prevailing consensus. Earth centered universe, plate tectonics, and the cause of stomach ulcers were all arguments related to challenging consensus. Given what we’ve observed going on with Climategate these past few months, it appears that we are witnessing another case of challenges to consensus remaking science. It’s always a nasty business when closely held beliefs are challenged, so invective right now should be considered a feature, and not a bug in the process.”
Here, here! I fully support WUWT in it’s inquiries into the alleged science of the alleged Anthropogenic Carbon-Based Global Warming Climate Change Hypothesis! I fully support WUWT’s approach to digging deeper where those that support the alleged hypothesis don’t or won’t.
Science isn’t supposed to be about belief, it’s suppose to be about hard facts that can be demonstrated time and time again with experiments. Science is supposed to be verifiable and repeatable. Science is suppose to be open especially when it’s publicly funded or relevant to humanity in part or in whole. Hypotheses, real or alleged, are supposed to have holes poked into them, that is how they either stand the test of time and become actual theories or fall with falsification.
I’ve yet to see any evidence presented for the alleged AGWCC Hypothesis that stands up to scrutiny or challenge. If you are someone who has such hard evidence or proof please share it with me, I’d love to see the evidence that you use to conclude that the sooth-said doomsday is coming due to man made CO2 emissions.
Oh, I call the AGW Hypothesis an “alleged” hypothesis since it’s proponents haven’t spelled out tests or experiments or observations that they already know would falsify it. In fact just the opposite seems to have happened, when others challenge the AGW with very well reasoned arguments or with actual observations or identified flaws in the hypothesis (ERBE for instance, last 15 years of no significant warming/slight cooling trend, falsifications of the hockey stick, Climategate emails and programs, etc…) the supporters of the alleged AGWCC Hypothesis don’t properly address these challenges. Instead most supporters of the alleged AGWCC Hypothesis use childish political rhetoric yelling “denier”, “skeptic”, and other invectives most grown adults left behind on the kindergarten playground when we learned “sticks and stones will hurt my bones but names will never hurt me.”
Another aspect of the intense “invective” from those extreme supporters of the alleged AGWCC Hypothesis is that it prevents those of us wanting to learn about their “claims”. That is what happened to me when I began a couple of years ago to inquire deeper into the alleged science. Whenever I asked questions to LEARN about the science of course I would ask fundamental questions such as what is the evidence supporting AGW, what is the proof that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, how can the predictions be accurate at all given that internal randomness makes weather/climate systems inherently unpredictable, and a thousand other questions. Instead of answers I received a ton of invective comments. It showed first hand that much of the “debate” wasn’t about science but about “beliefs”. I’m more interested in the science than in the beliefs (although I’ve extensively studied how belief impacts people I do prefer hard science).
Finally, I find the “graft” and “corruption” of the likes of Maurice Strong, Al Gore (Blood & Gore), Michael Mann (hockey stick decline hider how the heck does he get away with such blatant forging of scientific graphs extraordinaire), Phil Jones (law breaker not to mention fraudster and seeming mob boss undermining the peer review process), et. al. completely unacceptable. To distort science for private agendas and to suck public cash is obviously fraudulent.
I applaud Climate Audit and WUWT for asking the tough questions and for the range and depth of the articles that shed light upon what is actually going on in the real world with regards to weather/climate. There have been many excellent articles that explain the climate science lingo so it’s an excellent site to learn about this topic.
Congratulations to all those that make WUWT a success!

Doubting Thomas
February 11, 2010 1:30 pm

Appears that the emails have gone out to all the eco trolls to hurry over and say something nasty at the Times list. I didn’t bother wade through them to see if they were given “talking points” or if it’s the same old science is settled bunch. I am sure their complaints and as such – their science is “Robust”. 🙂

Wondering Aloud
February 11, 2010 1:36 pm

I wonder a bit about their bravery in including WUWT. People who come here are likely to stay which is exactly why the agw religionists are so upset about you.
Personally of this list I can’t stand pharyngula, I don’t always disagree with his positions, but he is so very pompous it hurts to read. He mixes his incredible lack of understanding of religion with conceit discussing it; than mixes in views on things like climate change that are clearly nothing but religion. Result; hypocritical, chutzpah absolutely painful to read, science way to frequently takes a back seat.

February 11, 2010 1:36 pm

My, you’ve certainly got under someone’s skin.
Congrats Anthony. The Internet was invented for this blog !

Van Grungy
February 11, 2010 1:38 pm

You know, if they didn’t hate so much, they would realize that they are actually promoting Watts Up… ClimateAudit.org gets lots of mentions too… They can go ahead and hate, it’s free publicity…

Jose A Veragio
February 11, 2010 1:42 pm

…. wish Mr. Lambert well in his upcoming debate with Lord Monckton. That should be interesting and fun to watch, no matter what side of consensus you live on.

Don’t expect too much enlightenment from this encounter.
There’s plenty more insight here:-

February 11, 2010 1:42 pm

My oh my, fire at will and still not being able to hit anything other than “Its an anti-science blog”, “It should not be on the list” and “They are al creationist”.
As usually the AGW-camp is ignoring facts and reality.

February 11, 2010 1:49 pm

It seems WUWT’s inclusion has prompted quite a bit of derision by people who think WUWT should not be included. I understand that for some people, challenging scientific consensus on climate change is a basis to claim that this blog is “anti-scientific”.
The world we live in is topsy turvy and increasingly filled with doublespeak. What certain people would like us to believe is scientific is far from it. I wonder whether people calling this blog anti-scientific are displaying an underlying prejudice that science is something to be dished out by an elite. That we should doff out cap to more learned men and never question their authority.
Unless it adheres to the scientific method of transparency of data and method it is not science. Given the vast number of actual scientists these days and our general levels of knowledge through the work of their predecessors it is also the case that any particular theory can have many competitors, and it takes a long trial by fire to discern which is the most credible.
What galls me most about the furores around climate science is that the loudest voices calling for the most action based on “science” are also the ones who appear to have most gleefully abandoned the scientific method. They seem to think that getting a paper published automatically makes it right. We saw this in particular with the Hockey Team and their simultaneous lauding of the peer-review process on the one hand and nobbling it on the other. They were painting it as the be all and end all of science because they had rigged it. The self same thing happened with the IPCC – stated to be the ‘gold-standard’ of science yet they blatantly cherry pick what to include in it and their ultimate folly was to insist that the science was settled.

Alan H
February 11, 2010 1:49 pm

I am convinced that most of the anti-WUWT comments on the Times site are actually from Joe Romm using different aliases. I have had a couple of mails from the dear chap myself, or rather they were not mails they were electronic rants about how the science is settled and calling Anthony all sorts of nasty things. I had merely asked him if it would not be in everyones interests to find out the truth about the climate rather than calling people who did not agree with him ‘moon-landing deniers’ and the replies really shocked me. The fact that he replied at all was a shock as I am just Joe Nobody from email-land but the vitriol contained in the mails was really toxic. I guess he was, and remains, really worried that the truth is coming out at last.
I am pleased that WUWT is on the list and the fact that it has received much more abuse than any other site means that it must be the most effective and popular site of all. Didn’t somebody once say something about there being no such thing as bad publicity? One thing is for sure, anyone who reads those comments and has never looked at WUWT before will do so now!

Sixtus Beckmesser
February 11, 2010 1:51 pm

I looked at the Times online and was amazed at the number of nutters that came scuttling out of the woodwork. Is the world’s population now so great that it can give rise to so many Guardian raders?

D. King
February 11, 2010 1:53 pm

The comments are a hoot. I didn’t realize you are
The Anti-Science.
This is great, we are now unpatriotic. We’re stupid old
people, who don’t realize we have a thin atmosphere
and only gullible young people get it. These kids are
going to be very pissed off when they do get it. One
more thing, they talk as if we’re not in the room.
We can hear you! Stop manipulating kids.

February 11, 2010 1:55 pm

Herman L (13:14:34),
You owe Anthony an apology.

Henry chance
February 11, 2010 1:57 pm

Joe Romm has about 11 regular posters. I suspect they were all sent on a smear mission. Joe is on attack this week for Revkin and all others that comment on the massive blizzard event. Romm also attacks media or education and tries to get them to fire people he hates.
This site doesn’t allow attakcs and vulgarity.
Since heat comes from the sun, this site has been very educational.

L Nettles
February 11, 2010 1:57 pm

Apparently being right most of the time will get you labeled anti-science.

Tom in Florida
February 11, 2010 1:58 pm

Congrats! Reading the comments after the article leads me to only one conclusion: Methinks they doth protest to much!

February 11, 2010 2:10 pm

” Sixtus Beckmesser (13:51:39) :
I looked at the Times online and was amazed at the number of nutters that came scuttling out of the woodwork. Is the world’s population now so great that it can give rise to so many Guardian raders?”
The comments read like an orchestrated warmist campaign – though one has to wonder if those comments represent a fair range of expressed opinion, Times Online policy: “Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.”

Steve Goddard
February 11, 2010 2:11 pm

Anyone who disagrees with a WUWT article is free to post their arguments here. In the absence of anything intelligent to say, the angry mob resorts to ad hominem attacks.
“How do you know she is a witch?”
“She turned me into a newt.”

Milwaukee Bob
February 11, 2010 2:16 pm

Curiousgeorge (12:53:49) :
Bill Nye?? PAAAAALEASE! He’s an entertainer! Just short of being a shock jock! Here are a few other things he said: “The main thing is ……. They got a scientific prize – WHAT? IT WAS THE PEACE PRIZE, AWARDED BY A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS – for making a discovery – WHAT DISCOVERY? – They discovered climate change, – THE IPCC DID? – through all kinds of evidence, – ARE YOU ROTFL YET? – and it’s something we should all be very, very concerned about.”
Sorry moderator, snip away as you please, but I’m 68 years, 6 months, 1 week, 3 days, 14 hours and 7.341 minutes old and I just had to point out that Bill Nye, a still wet behind the ears whipper snapper at 56, is about as brain dead as a plastic flamingo.

February 11, 2010 2:18 pm

I posted this following comment on the Times Online article… as I have yet to see it show up there…. for the public record I post it here.
pwlpwl: “I find that Anthony Watt’s Watt’s Up With That is an excellent science based blog since he and his guest writers dig for the hard science based upon observations and don’t hold back revealing the flaws in the alleged AGW Hypothesis.
On the other hand you [timesonline] have put the belief stricken “Pharyngula” blog on your list. While it might have some interesting information on biology and while I almost always agree with the atheist point of view it espouses it’s approach to the alleged AGW Hypothesis reveals a deep seated “belief in AGW” that isn’t open to basic questions that one would ask to learn about the science behind the alleged AGW hypothesis. It’s strange too that a biology and anti-religion blog would spent so much verbage on AGW.
In fact I had a notorious experience with the vitriolic “Cult of Pharyngula” on the very topic of how they viciously attack and gang up on people who ask questions of topics being discussed there.
The shocker is that Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers is allegedly a Biology Professor at an otherwise excellent university dedicated to the education of people. (Pardon the phrase) Heaven help anyone who asks Professor PZ Myers a question that actually questions the fundamentals of any science that he teaches in class. The vicious vitriol coming from PZ Myers and his cult members lurking in the comment posts at Pharyngula is not becoming of an actively teaching university professor. It’s not that he deeply “believes” in the alleged AGW Hypothesis (that is his prerogative), it’s that he crucifies anyone who even asks basic fundamental questions about it, instead of answers one gets ad hominem personal attacks and booted off their site.
If anyone is anti-scientific it’s PZ Myers as he’s more of a “closed minded witch burner” type of fellow rather than someone dedicated to scientific facts and letting any questions take everyone where they do.
I can say with certainty that PZ Myers has been the worst science teacher or educator period that I’ve ever come across since he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is NOT interested in encouraging and instilling independent thought in those he teaches nor in those he reaches with his blog as he seems more interested in hammering home his particular belief system.
With regards to the alleged AGW hypothesis, I have yet to see any hard evidence that conclusively shows any of the claims, extreme or otherwise, of those proposing the alleged AGW Hypothesis and I’ve been looking for it for years. If you have any HARD evidence that is verifiable or repeatable and that has not been falsified please let me know. If you have any papers that you feel are conclusive please send me links. Thanks very much.

February 11, 2010 2:32 pm

Congratulations Anthony.
Don’t grace the page with a hit – talk about spiteful comments, downright nasty lot over there! I got the impression there was a lot of pent-up hate… just like religious zealots.
Ignore them, and keep up the good work.

February 11, 2010 2:34 pm

Excellent job Anthony! Well deserved – especially the cynical responses of your detractors!

UJ walsh
February 11, 2010 2:34 pm

D’Aleo and Watts also criticize how these data adjustments are often unexplained or poorly documented. In one case involving James Hansen at NASA a Freedom of Information Act request has been unanswered for over two years.
The report details other fascinating temperature biases. For example, Siberia has experienced one the greatest increases in recorded warming. A large drop in the number of stations and the some missing data can explain part of the change, but apparently during the Soviet-era areas with lower recorded temperatures received more fuel and money, creating a real incentive for weather stations to lie.

February 11, 2010 2:39 pm

Congratulations Mr. Watts!

February 11, 2010 2:43 pm

No doubt a lot of Times readers will now visit this site to see what all the fuss is about. Here’s my take:
WUWT has gone from zero to over 35 million hits in just three years. That is an astonishing rise in popularity. In addition to being put on the Times list, WUWT won the most recent Weblog Awards for “Best Science” site, beating out Pharyngula [which got most of its votes when readers of alarmist sites were encouraged to vote for it because it was trailing WUWT – but far back in 2nd place], and RealClimate [by 10 – 1!], and all the other sites on the Times list that also made the final Weblog Awards cut: click
WUWT also came in second, again above every one of those on the Times list, in the current Wikio awards: click
The Wikio award is significant, because it does not depend on votes, or on the whim of a Times blog editor. It is determined by an impartial algorithm which is explained on its home page.
I posted the information above as a Times comment, but it never appeared. I posted a follow-up comment – but that never appeared either.
It seems the Times is cowering knock-kneed in the face of a group of haters who would like nothing better than to silence WUWT; they make no bones about it.
But the number of comments under the Times article is far less than the number on this thread – and also far less than under the average WUWT article. Further, the Times article is now eight days old, while this article was posted less than two hours ago.
The mainstream media is being forced to recognize the best science site on the internet. They hate it, and they are filled with fear and loathing; as their circulation plummets, sites like WUWT are taking their place.
Also, I note the number of comments on the Times blog that want Joe Romm’s climateprogress blog to be included. Poor Joe, he doesn’t get any respect – which has to be earned [being a Soros sock puppet isn’t nearly enough]. I suspect that Romm is prompting a few of his True Believers to write a lot of those Times comments.
The censoring mind-set is endemic among the AGW contingent because AGW is not science, it is simply a conjecture fueled by grant money.
There is no formal AGW theory that provides a means of falsification, and there is no empirical evidence showing that a rise in CO2 will cause, or has caused a subsequent rise in global temperature. In fact, the opposite has happened since 2002: click
People flock to WUWT because they’re tired of being spoon fed AGW propaganda. They know they won’t be censored here like they are on the alarmist sites. The free exchange of views is stimulating, and it allows the truth to eventually be sifted from the numerous comments.
So kudos, Anthony. As Tarpon said up-thread, “The hate comments prove you are over the target.” Bombs away!

February 11, 2010 3:00 pm

I figured it was good for a laugh. But you do know that he gets played at highschools, right? And that there are a lot of people that believe his word is gospel?

February 11, 2010 3:01 pm
Mike Ramsey
February 11, 2010 3:03 pm

Regarding all the wailing posts over on the times online blog protesting that WUWT made the list, to quote the Bard of Avon, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
If they were so confident that AGW was settled, they would smile rather than scream.
Anthony, you have done a commendable job discussing climate science in an open and honest manner. I thank you and and offer my hardy well done.
Mike Ramsey

February 11, 2010 3:04 pm

Re: Smokey (Feb 11 14:43),
Very interesting, Smokey. Just wondered, if the algorithm for wikio is posted, is it possible to game it? I was nonplussed to see Stoat there, because when I wandered over out of curiosity to see what Mr Connolley was up to, it was surprisingly bland apart from the usual Green mantras.

Anand Rajan KD
February 11, 2010 3:04 pm

The comments appear coordinated. They say the same thing over and over again. Normal ‘human’ responses shouldn’t be like that.

February 11, 2010 3:07 pm

Looks like Mr Nye has just run onto Samuel Johnson’s fist: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” as the great doctor said.

david atlan
February 11, 2010 3:12 pm

Congratulations! Your blog contributed greatly to hopefully the disappearance of the IPCC.

Sixtus Beckmesser
February 11, 2010 3:14 pm

OK Nigel, I’ve cooled down. Let’s look at it another way. If you say you don’t believe in Newton’s laws of motion, it’s easy to dissect your disbelief and prove you wrong. So how about finite element analysis? Cooper’s son (old F1 team) asked if they should use it and was told “No son, they use that at Lotus and spend the rest of the week putting the cars back together”. So a science but not an exact one. But that was 50 years ago and things have improved. Now by a twist of fate I believe the new Lotus team is to conduct its entire aero disign on computer. The current feeling is: all the other teams say no and only Lotus says yes. I feel that Lotus’s modeling task has to be orders of magnitude easier than predicting the cimate 50+ years into the future. And the stakes? If Lotus are wrong, it only affects a minor F1 team. If the modeling for climate chang is wrong, it’s the the economy of the world that’s destroyed, along with a fair chunk of the population.

February 11, 2010 3:15 pm

Congratulations Anthony – richly deserved.

February 11, 2010 3:15 pm

Well done Anthony & crew, it’s great that all the hard work you have all put in has got some recognition from a strongly ‘warmist’ publication.
Many thanks and please keep up the good work.

February 11, 2010 3:22 pm

Anthony Watts, congratulations on being selected. As for Mr. Lambert who dismisses objectivity, evidence, logical thinking and just plain civility to those who draw different conclusions, he is imho, the person who is against true scientific thought.

George E. Smith
February 11, 2010 3:23 pm

“”” JonesII (13:09:46) :
George E. Smith (12:52:21) :
One might even say Anthony, that you and your blog are the Sarah Palin of science blogging
But he doesn’t write on his hand… “””
Well JonesII, I have no idea how to take that comment. The story as I have heard it is that she wrote three main topic words on her hand; it is also known that she once wrote “Hi Mom” ! on her hand. You obviously have never ever watched CSPAN broadcasting the daily goings on in the Congress of the United States. I have YET to see one single speaker on any of those broadcasts; who was NOT simply reading from a written script. There’s not a one I have ever seen who can make a speech in the Congress, without having it written down for him(er)self.
And the great Teleprompter Reader in Chief, couldn’t even tell that he was reading a speech praising himself, that was supposed to be read by somebody else; and couldn’t even read his own name when he came to it.
I’ve never written any cheat notes on a hand or wrist; or even any hints; but I know some folks like to do it. When you get up to give an extended speech covering a number of subjects; it is desirable to have outline notes just to be sure you don’t waste time repeating yourself, and to cover the points you intended to.
I used to lecture in Optics and Atomic Physics to a total class of 200 students, and only half of them would fit in the lecture hall; so I had to give the one hour lecture twice with an hour break in between. I had the main outline notes on a single sheet of paper; but never read anything of substance. It got some of the students upset at times, because if I ad libbed different examples to the two class halves; they would compare notes and think I forgot to tell them something they were supposed to learn.
I don’t know if Anthony writes notes on his hands.
Besides when I was lecturing, there wasn’t any such thing as a reliable ball point pen that you could write on yourself with, and an ordinary Nib and Ink well, was rather messy.

February 11, 2010 3:27 pm

It takes ages to go through the comments on WUWT but the Times article was quite thin. I looked at some of the sites on the list and bookmarked one of them but was not impressed by any of the others. They were opinionated rather than informing. I’m not interested in having somebody elses views crammed down my throat – I want to learn. They were mostly biased and in that respect your site doesn’t belong on the list. It is too open.

Britannic no-see-um
February 11, 2010 3:30 pm

Times comments are 95% sceptical normally. These targeted comments are no co-incidence. Has to be a organised smear attempt.

February 11, 2010 3:31 pm

“There are some good blogs on their list which is only marred by the inclusion of Anthony Watts’ anti-science blog.”
There speaks the voice of anti-science.

February 11, 2010 3:55 pm

I can only say that it is wonderful news that Anthony’s efforts are being acknowledged as a superior source of scientific information on climate change and related topics, rather than the political garbage one sees on many sites. Congratulations to Anthony! May he keep it up for the rest of my life, at least.

R U Kidding-Gore
February 11, 2010 4:45 pm

So many of the Times Online readers seem to be with familar WUWT, and they seem to be so well informed (sic)? I assume that they must check out the blog on a regular basis. They seem to be getting a little hot under the collar (well, at least something is warming). Perhaps they are worried that the whole AGW scam is melting away faster than the Himalayan glaciers (which is not that difficult by all accounts)?

February 11, 2010 4:45 pm

Tim Lambert debates Lord Monckton. On Lambert’s blog he says that there may be a live feed. Has anyone found a link? If I did the math right it should start around 7:30PM CST.

February 11, 2010 4:45 pm

Anthony… once again congratulations. I admire your ability to remain calm when all the CAGWers are heaping on their derision. One can only assume they know you are a worthy adversary 🙂 I wish I had a fraction of your temperance mate.

Douglas DC
February 11, 2010 4:48 pm

Done my best to promote this site to;Newsblogs,Politicans, Schools,etc.
Good Work,Mr. Watts, carry on!…

February 11, 2010 4:48 pm

“The Times of London”
‘the Top 30 Science Blogs”
Blah, Blab, Blop, etc.
“NASA Watch”
“Watts Up With That”
Well three truly worthwhile sites out of thirty isn’t too bad considering everything else that’s wrong with the MSM these days. Still, a very slim list and most NOT really “Scientific”— but the web is very young.
PS: When your enemy retches at the sound of your name you’re winning.

February 11, 2010 4:53 pm

The term anti-science is eerily reminiscent of Antichrist. It should be no surprise that it is becoming fashionable among the AGW faithful.

February 11, 2010 5:07 pm

I have added the following comment to the Times Online article. Let’s see if it gets posted:
I smell astroturfers! The rabid attacks on Wattsupwiththat in the comments above fit the astroturf pattern perfectly: no actual critique of the attack target, all the same attack codewords reused from comment to comment (“antiscience”, “denialist”, “creationist” etc etc).
So let me add some actual critique: the surfacestations project on WUWT has been real science, however humble, namely checking the reliability of the measuring instruments used to compute the temperature record. Can any of you attackers deny that? And if you think some particular step is batty, go there and say so – as an experiment if you don’t believe me – you’ll find that your comment, excepting things such as obscenity, remains, however critical of the site owners. Now go and try that experiment on realclimate. Freedom to express disagreement is critical to science, and this little experiment should show those of you with some wisdom where you can find it.

February 11, 2010 5:17 pm

Hi, first-time poster. I’ve been visiting this site for months, and after reading all the vitriolic comments about this site on the Times Online, I just wanted to pass along that there’s at least one environmentalist out here who appreciates what you and your contributors are doing. Suspecting that something is seriously haywire just isn’t the same as knowing, and while the picture isn’t entirely clear yet, it’s certainly getting sharper everyday.
Environmentalism needs a reboot.

Peter Miller
February 11, 2010 5:17 pm

Clearly congratulations are in order.
But now we all need to move even further on to the higher ground of real science.
I thought I was a reasonably smart scientist until I read RealClimate’s latest article “Good news for Earth’s Climate?” Can anyone figure out what it is actually trying to say?
It seems to me that this is a classic case of BS baffles brains and that the results of this investigation proved the opposite of what was wanted and so it was buried under a pile of indecipherable gobbledegook. Can anyone help?

February 11, 2010 5:30 pm

Smokey (14:43:50) :
“People flock to WUWT because they’re tired of being spoon fed AGW propaganda. They know they won’t be censored here like they are on the alarmist sites. The free exchange of views is stimulating, and it allows the truth to eventually be sifted from the numerous comments.”
Don’t forget the humor. Real scholarship and science is fun. If the one-liners aren’t spontaneous enough, cerebral enough, or funny enough, we’ll know WUWT has been compromised. God forbid.

February 11, 2010 5:31 pm

From Deltoid, The Ray Thread I mentioned earlier.
Ray is *only* permitted by Burton – I mean Lambert (sp?) to post on this thread. Comments by Ray on other threads are subject to deletion (so I havee seen).
I wonder if this is the same Ray who posts here ..

Dr Anthony Fallone
February 11, 2010 5:36 pm

George E. Smith (12:52:21)
The greatest number of students to whom I ever lectured was just over 400 (our lecture theatre just about took them all in one sitting) and, like most present day lecturers, I blessed Powerpoint. I didn’t have to have written notes to peer at and probably stumble over, just stride about in front of a pair of giant screens and point at things on them. Today’s students demand interaction in lectures, so I would ask questions about what was up there and have a few gimmicks to get their attention, such as some unusual sound effects at vital points which probably woke up those at the back. Students told me that the best part of my lectures was when I extemporised, doing vitually psychology by stand-up.
One of the tricks students used to pass exams was to wear particularly ripped and soiled jeans, covered in paint and mystic symbols with equations scribbled on amongst the camouflage (Psychology graduates in BPS accredited degrees always have statistics teaching and experimental work for the full three years, which I taught). Mobiles (cell-phones) are banned, in case they ‘phoned a friend. When I invigilated I had to be on the look out for girls with long skirts with helpful hints pinned to the inside hem. Not something Sarah Palin could use…
I watch Teleprompter Man keenly, trying to judge when he deviates from what he is reading and begins to fly free but I have failed so far. I’m sure he can do it but he is under a tight rein. As an intelligent man he must realise that the AGW game is up but his ‘people’ won’t let him say so. Gordon Brown is like one of those bulls fought in Spain, on his knees, blood streaming from the swords piercing his body, looking up and awaiting the coup de grace. It is far too late for him to renounce AGW; he will take it to his political grave. There may still be hope for Cameron’s bunch but I’m not holding my breath.
The hysterical shreiks of vituperation against your worthy selection as one of the best science blogs are exactly what are to be expected when beliefs which form the central core of peoples’ lives are threatened. It is a dangerous thing to take away what must be the main driving force in most of their day’s activities, leaving them feeling hollow and bereft. They feel they are ‘doing good’ by holding religiously to their AGW convictions. Naturally, you and all the other skeptics will seem like demons from Hell, preventing the healing of the planet, goading them with your pitchforks of doubt. I have read many times comparisons made between the clash of science and religion in the time of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler and today’s clash between the religion of AGW and skeptics. The emotions raised are at least as strong today as then so violence cannot be far away. If Romm is the Grand Inquisitor then remember what happened to Giordano Bruno, the heretic. Of course Gore is Chaucer’s Pardoner, selling his pardons/carbon credits to wash away your sins. If you think I exaggerate see how this plays out in the near future. It won’t be funny.

February 11, 2010 5:45 pm

Congratulations 🙂 May you keep on challenging the science, finding new theories and most importantly of all, may you keep your head and balance and don’t stoop to the lows of Tim Lambert et al.
I only visited Deltoid for the first time yesterday and found it to be full of finger pointing derision at anyone who dares hold a different viewpoint. Its so full of snide remarks and personal attacks I was disgusted – thats not science, its playground bulling and rabid vitriol.

Pamela Gray
February 11, 2010 5:45 pm

Goodness!!!! The gossip!!!! This is the kind of advertising movie stars BEG for!

Graeme W
February 11, 2010 5:45 pm

Congratulations, Anthony!

Tom in Florida (13:58:02) :
Congrats! Reading the comments after the article leads me to only one conclusion: Methinks they doth protest to much!
Anand Rajan KD (15:04:40) :
The comments appear coordinated. They say the same thing over and over again. Normal ‘human’ responses shouldn’t be like that.

Along the same lines, I was wondering how so many people knew that much about WUWT. If they were honest, then that means that they’ve all checked out the site and read a moderate number of articles, had done so before this list appeared, and recently enough to be able to comment on the content.
The only moderately reasonable comment I saw was one that said that they thought WUWT used to be a reasonable science blog, but it has recently become too focused on AGW issues. Not an unreasonable observation, though I personally like reading through the more technical AGW posts here because they generally offer some interesting perspectives and insights.

Pamela Gray
February 11, 2010 5:53 pm

I do think the thing about writing on her palm is overblown. However, I have to wonder about someone’s memory when they need to write three things on their hand. I thesis cheat sheet I get, but just three things? She wasn’t going to her dissertation defense. I think she worries too much about staying on message. She needs to break free of the handler’s chain and be herself. If she knows (and I mean really knows) who she is, what she stands for, and her vision for herself and the country, she shouldn’t need to write three things on her hand to go to an interview. Speeches are another matter. Just sayin.

Pamela Gray
February 11, 2010 5:59 pm

Climatologists who look down their noses at meteorologists don’t know their arse from a knot in the wood. Climatologist live or die on the sword of meteorologists. Where do ya think you get date from anyway??? You get it from daily weather! If climatologists dare circumvent that route (as in counting tree rings and calling that weather), quick sand will be their likely surmise.

February 11, 2010 6:14 pm

Congratulations Anthony,and moderators.When I first started looking online at blogs and articles on AGW,I was shocked to see the nastiness in some blogs.I expect that sort of thing when the conversation is about politics,but science?Anyway my wanderings led me here to a much nicer place.Thanks Anthony.

Ian Cooper
February 11, 2010 6:22 pm

Congratulations Anthony on WUWT being recognized for the great science blog that this site is.
I got the feeling that the anti-WUWT responses were being written by the same person after awhile.
Reading all of the rants from the Cagwars (my term for the warmistas) who complained to the TimeOnLine people about the presence of WUWT, they reminded me of an occasion 30 years ago whilst I was surveying for an irrigation pipeline in an experimental tree nursery where shelter belts were grown by the government here in New Zealand.
My boss and I came around the corner of a row of trees to find a young man replete with white lab coat and clipboard. The young fella was removing small branches from a tree and making notes on his work sheet. Before we could say anything he blurted out, “I’m a scientist!” As if we couldn’t guess. My boss being older and wiser suggested that the young man was doing a time and motion study. Slightly confused the young guy repeated his statement nervously, all the while hoping that we wouldn’t confuse him with one of the manual workers that were going about their tasks in the background. My boss reiterated his statement, but it seemed to fly over the young scientist’s head!
These science purists on the TimeOnline site, as nice a description as I can come up with, displayed a similar elitist attitude as did the young man in the nursery so long ago. Thanks to the Cagwars my advice to any young person starting out in science today would be to hide the white coat and swap the clipboard for a recording device. At least that way if someone finds you in a field situation apparently talking to yourself they may only accuse you of being mad, rather than denigrate you even more by calling you, “A scientist!”
Just joking about that last bit.
I love the last comment on the reply list, “OMG I’ve stumbled into a church of global warming.”
Too right! Beware of the zealots!!

Brian Schaible
February 11, 2010 6:42 pm

Interesting the comments are filtered over at times online. I wonder how many comments in support of WUWT were missed.
Anthony, exceptional job. It is obvious that your work here is extremely effective to bring all those religiosos to comment in fear of the tremendous truth presented here.
It’s reason to celebrate. I’ll be having a drink to Anthony and the team tonight.
Best Regards,

jack morrow
February 11, 2010 6:44 pm

What fun! You may be an ex “weatherman” but you still know how to make a storm!

February 11, 2010 7:02 pm

hunter (11:38:04) :
> “Anti-scientific” is the current Newspeak term for “skeptical of AGW”.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Oh, that’s interesting. Haven’t environmentalists been traditionally ‘anti-science’?
They have done a complete, about face. ‘Science’ is *now* the white knight that comes charging in to rescue the environment from evil industrialists.

George Turner
February 11, 2010 7:18 pm

I’m hoping the recent lack of successfully posted comments at the Times indicates that their comment guy is at the pub or home in bed. We’ll know in the morning.
I could gather the timestamps of previous comments, punch it through a custom written Fortran program, and calculate the likely time difference between The Times and US EST, probably to within a fractional minute, but it would probably come out as a hockey stick indicating that the rate of mid-Atlantic ridge spreading is accelerating exponentially.
Speaking of which, the mid-Atlantic timezone only has a couple of hundred residents, outside of one small island off the coast Brazil. (Greenland doesn’t use it and the only others are part of a British scientific post in the South Atlantic). My evil plan is to pay each of those people $50 to switch to a different one, take ownership of 1/24th of the Earth’s time zones, and then hold the UN hostage with threats to make my timezone some crazy thing like 53 minutes instead of an hour, obsoleting all clocks on the entire planet. I’ll also sue Bill Gates for including my timezone in the Windows pull-down menus without paying a license fee. Investors are welcome. This can’t miss!
Whew. Glad I got that out there. Now those TImes comments about our evilness are justified. 🙂

February 11, 2010 7:33 pm

A little O/T, but I’ve been watching the Tim Lambert [of
Deltoid] debate with Lord Monckton over the past hour and a half.
Monckton completely dominated the debate with his superior knowledge. He thoroughly destroyed Lambert – who had originally challenged Monckton to the debate: click
By half way through the debate, Lambert showed in his body language, with hunched shoulders, and by passing questions to Lord Monckton to answer, that Lambert was defeated.
Chalk up another win for the scientific skeptic position.

February 11, 2010 7:46 pm

At least Lambert accepted the debate. Destroyed with the facts.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
February 11, 2010 7:50 pm

Congratulations, Anthony!

February 11, 2010 7:51 pm

The truth always wins.

February 11, 2010 8:00 pm

Brilliant news and well deserved Mr Watts. Love to see some analysis run on the comments at the Times online, methinks the standard deviation would look so suspect, you’d be encouraged to look for the SpamBot producing them.
You’re welcome in New Zealand any time, since we gave up science we haven’t had a decent weather forecast in years, we could use a proper expert, ours all think the weather is created by sheer force of belief.

Don Shaw
February 11, 2010 8:34 pm

There is little that I can add to the many congratulations already expressed.
Keep up the great effort that will hopefully save us from the “evils” of the extreme AGW agenda.
All the best

Roger Carr
February 11, 2010 9:02 pm

It’s the Palin effect; an ugly manifestation of the panic of desperation.
When it strikes some people state publicly they want to kill themselves. Others that they wish to, figuratively, kill someone else.
Lesser folk simply book into a home for the bewildered.
Congratulations, and thanks Anthony and all for keeping the lights on.

wayne ward
February 11, 2010 9:18 pm

Do they not understand how childish and wrong-headed their remarks are? The posters over on the times blog sound like schoolyard bullies and are utterly embarrassing themsleves… it’s quite sad really.

February 11, 2010 9:34 pm

Well-deserved, Anthony. This the first of many acknowledgements, methinks.
To save face, those commenters over at The Times will now need to present their arguments/challenges here to show us what’s what, right?
Should be enlightening.

February 11, 2010 9:36 pm

“It’s always a nasty business when closely held beliefs are challenged, so invective right now should be considered a feature, and not a bug in the process.”
Well, going by all the “Watts up with THAT?!” posts in the link, I’d say the process has never worked better! 🙂
Anyway, congrats, Anthony. And thanks for this blog. It’s become one of my favorite islands of sanity in this creazy world!

John Van Krimpen
February 11, 2010 9:55 pm

Congrats Anthony and Crew (the word team is not a compliment in climate and weather circles anymore)..
As for the derogatory comments at Times online, they are organised and it would not be hard to find the group think behind it, Jame Delingpole has a nasty little trollie, that leads a little group that try to subvert the media, ala Climategate, but they are freelancers. real nutjobs.
They have been doing it for years.

It's always Marcia, Marcia
February 11, 2010 9:56 pm

WUWT belongs on these type of lists.
Good on ya Anthony!

February 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Well deserved, the only issue I have with this blog is the mission statement at the top
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
change it to
Commentary on climate change and the odd other thing by Anthony Watts
Oh, and some of the posters are tin hat nutters .. no not me ! 😀
Keep up the good work.

Beth Cooper
February 11, 2010 10:39 pm

Congratulations, Anthony. You do what the MSM fail to do, open up critical debate. People who think evidence is more important than mythology will have respect for you. It’s evident that there are many visiting WUWT who hold you in high regard.

February 11, 2010 10:48 pm

Well deserved Anthony.
WUWT is much appreciated!

Keith Minto
February 11, 2010 10:50 pm

Congratulations Anthony, a well deserved success.
This site has maintained a delicate balance of information, wit, curiosity and humour that has resonated with so many around the world in their search for some kind of AGW ‘truth’. The problem IS international and when you can pull 35.5 million hits in a few years you know the format is as close to what is needed as possible.
The power of the internet continues to amaze me.
I just hope that you and the Admins take sufficient ‘recreation leave’. 🙂

February 11, 2010 11:04 pm

The comments on The Times Web site – profoundly anti-WUWT – are delightfully entertaining. Just the mention of Mr. Watts’ name seems to drive these poor putzes into paroxysms of panic.
I wonder how it feels to Mr. Watts to know that among the Watermelon warmists, he’s got the real-life power of the Harry Potter series’ Lord Voldemort.
The wamists don’t even want his name mentioned, much less his work.

February 11, 2010 11:15 pm

Here adding my applause for your mastery of sharing your passions with others like-minded. Right time, right vehicle, right man – right on!
It is very rewarding to, partly through WUWT, witness and participate in one of the greatest landmark cases of scientific challenge in history and very trying to witness and have to confront the demagogic and largely ignorant AGW alarmists.
It’s so interesting that those AGWers who minimize the effect of Sol on Earth’s climate also seek to nearly solely depend on it’s energy (as opposed to coal, oil, ch4 and nuclear energy) above all other proven, cheaper and about the same environmentally impacting energy sources for our very energy survival. It is so fantastic that skeptics can thrive through portals like WUWT – onward!
I believe Christopher Monckton is having the greatest time ever. It’s great recognizing the capably assertive skeptics and objectivists.

John Whitman
February 11, 2010 11:16 pm

I think you are not so much on the radar screen of the CACGW alarmists. It seems they are becoming agitated by a feeling that now you have them on your radar screen.

February 11, 2010 11:32 pm

Out of curiosity, I visited the Times site to read the comments re WUWT making their list. At the time (5:30 PM, PST) there were ~80 comments. Three were favorable. Of the remainder, 50% objected to WUWT’s inclusion but were relatively civil. The other 50% were ad hominem attacks, flames or both. I attempted a post pointing this out and commenting on the lack of civility. The moderator didn’t see fit to post it. I am shocked—–shocked.

February 11, 2010 11:56 pm

Interesting blog drawing parallels between AGW and the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century. He makes a good point that when science is politicised it soon stops becoming science and instead becomes propaganda and belief, :

February 12, 2010 12:53 am

The absurd number of complaints about the inclusion of WUWT suggest a coordinated effort – not sure who orchestrated it.
Obviously not a PR person as such attacks will spur interest!

Mark Fawcett
February 12, 2010 1:19 am

Having just wandered over to the Times link, I can safely say that I have never, ever, seen quite such an enthusiastic display of play-item ejection from infant perambulating vehicles before.
I have an overwhelming desire to say “oooh, someone’s tired” in a very patronising tone…
Cheers and congratulations on managing to elevate quite so many individual blood pressures :o)

February 12, 2010 2:11 am

I bet that Lambert will claim that he won the debate simply by turning up. Watch for Doltoid to spend ages trying to find “mistakes” made by Monckton and claim victory.
But he’ll never, ever dare debate Monckton in public again.

Barry Sheridan
February 12, 2010 2:34 am

You deserve inclusion. Many thanks for all the dedicated work you have put in to help shed light on this complex issue. Those thoughts go to all who genuinely are interested in putting science first and scaremongering second.

February 12, 2010 2:58 am

Whoever has been moderating (read: “censoring”) the comments on that Web page of The Times has been swift in trimming out pro-WUWT posts, including one very civil but exultant note of my own.
Just about like “Wiki-bloody-pedia,” actually.

Mari Warcwm
February 12, 2010 3:00 am

I also had a look at the Times site and was shocked by what I found. This is much more in the style of The Guardian than The Times readership response. Needless to say my favourable comment on WUWT was blocked.
Whoever was the gatekeeper for that site insulted the majority of Times readers; a recent poll revealed a 56% sceptic readership, up sharply from a previous poll.
I am going to write to the Editor, Mr James Harding, and complain. Anyone else in the UK wishing to object could post their letters to: The Editor, The Times, l Virginia Street, London E98 lSS. The Times is to be congratulated on putting WUWT on the list, but whoever is censoring access to that site needs to be relieved of his post.
I have also left a further comment on The Times site telling the moderator that I have am after him. Not that it will make any difference, but it will make me feel better!

February 12, 2010 3:08 am

Since Deltoid censor difficult questions rather than attempting to answer them I would seriously question whether they are entitled to be called a “science blog”.

Mari Warcwm
February 12, 2010 3:24 am

I am becoming paranoid, and thought for a moment that all electronic access to The Times was compromised, but hopefully letters@thetimes.co.uk still allows correspondence through unmolested.

February 12, 2010 3:28 am

Anticlimatic -“The absurd number of complaints about the inclusion of WUWT suggest a coordinated effort – not sure who orchestrated it. ”
Yes, isn’t it just so obvious. And basically the same old tactics. If your science is dodgy and you can’t win honestly then you try and bully the media into denying your opponent publicity. I’ll be interested to see if my comment about what I regard as ‘anti-science’ passes moderation and interested in what Timesonline make of the warmist onslaught.

Bridget H-S
February 12, 2010 3:37 am

I posted a comment last night on the Times website. So far it has not been approved by the moderator – that was 12 hours ago. I’ll keep a mental note of that in case they decide to remove WUWT from the list having received too many comments criticising your inclusion.

February 12, 2010 3:42 am

tarpon (11:53:26) :

Congratulations Anthony, for running the best science blog on the net. The hate comments prove you are over the target.

I agree with you statement. I suspect they are in dire, panic mode so all they do is hurl insults as if it’s going to make sceptics shut up. It won’t and AGW is on its last legs.
On the Times comments section they keep referring to WUWT as anti-science. I have posted there (under moderation review) pointing out that science is about finding weaknesses and attempting to break scientific claims and theories. I pointed out the IPCC glaciergate and asked what if we just accepted that the science was settled and never questioned its claim – would it be science or Voodoo science. :o)

February 12, 2010 3:49 am

I further pointed out in the Times comments that if WUWT was “pseudoscience” then how come so many ‘scientists’ there had heard of WUWT. I also pointed out that if WUWT did not exist then would it make AGW a scientific fact despite its many failed predictions and forecasts.

February 12, 2010 4:12 am

I posted a comment on the Times article questioning which IP address was logged against all of the negative WUWT comments…
It was clearly in need of moderating, as it has not appeared!

Arthur Glass
February 12, 2010 4:55 am

” The comments in the Times look very orchestrated.”
Certainly not well-orchestrated, as in ‘Schoenberg’s symphonic version of __Verklaerte Nacht__ is a well-orchestrated reworking of a piece of chamber music.’

February 12, 2010 5:08 am

Well, anticlimatctic, I tried to redress the balance but it looks like my comments have not been approved!

February 12, 2010 5:11 am

Reading more posts above it looks like the Times is very hard at work censoring anyone in favour of WUWT.
Time to write a rude letter.

Jonathan Apps
February 12, 2010 5:37 am

Good stuff – congratualtions Anthony.

February 12, 2010 5:42 am


February 12, 2010 6:31 am

do the people who use those words ever stop to listen to themselves?

February 12, 2010 6:32 am

Smokey (19:33:04) :
A little O/T, but I’ve been watching the Tim Lambert [of
Deltoid] debate with Lord Monckton over the past hour and a half.
Monckton completely dominated the debate with his superior knowledge. He thoroughly destroyed Lambert – who had originally challenged Monckton to the debate

Couldn’t tell that by comments on the Deltod (sic) site; they think he was WINNING …

Roger Knights
February 12, 2010 6:48 am

Those comments strike me as mostly coming not from warmists as such, and thus not being orchestrated, but rather being mostly the effusions of scientistic “science fiends” of the sort who are very commonly found on “skeptics” sites. (E.g., Bill Nye.) They have an idolatrous respect for institutionalized science, its appurtenances (peer review, credentials, consensus, etc.), and its “findings,” and a corresponding horror of heresy, fringies, cranks, informality, “incorrectness,” bad manners, rude questions, “raspberries,” and a general lack of social deference.
Science (and its courtiers and flunkies) are being defended by such fiends mostly to protect its jumped-up status as the current arbiter of reality and social top-dog (scientists poll-ranking as the most trustworthy profession, etc.). It’s the eternal game of one-upsmanship in a new guise.
Another motivation for the idolatry is that it’s reassuring to have some supreme arbiter of what’s-what to stop our anxious wondering “which way is up?” in a puzzling, terrifying, lonely universe. If WUWT were to be right, or even half-right, it would pose an awkward existential challenge for those folks. (Who or what can I have faith in?)
Science as an ideal — being sensible, honest, open, objective, disciplined, collegial, etc., etc. — is a different matter from the sordid reality of crimatology. It’s absurd and presumptuous to confuse the scientific ideal with today’s institutionalized and gov’t.-grant-funded science. That would be like conflating Lady Justice (the scale-holder) with a mafia lawyer.

Henry Galt
February 12, 2010 6:58 am

Congrats to all.
Looks like they just allowed a set of posts through. ALL poking fun at the blind sheep who rushed to smear. He who laughs last, laughs loudest indeed.

Roger Knights
February 12, 2010 7:03 am

PS: IOW, being “unscientific” (in social or formalistic terms) is actually being scientific (in ideal terms — i.e., acting in the spirit of “let’s find out: let’s cut the crap and turn over every ugly rock”).

February 12, 2010 7:07 am

_Jim (06:32:37),
Aside from the scientific points repeatedly scored by Monckton against the somewhat inept Lambert, Lord Monckton got repeated rounds of applause when he made pertinent points. He is an excellent debater.
Toward the end of the debate, Tim Lambert took on the appearance of a whipped dog. If the inhabitants of his deltoid echo chamber thought he won that debate, they’re as deluded as most other warmists.
Also, it’s too bad the video was so amateurish. It would have been nice to be able to see the charts that both sides were showing the audience.

anna v
February 12, 2010 7:23 am

I am very surprised at the continuous negative comments on the inclusion of wattsupwithat on this eureka table.
I went to the buzz commentsof the puerile article quoted from TIME in yahoo , and all the 500+ comments are making fun of the “cold may be hot” hypothesis.
Seems to me there must be a complete one sided filter on the comments for this eureka table, which does not exist in the yahoo site. Of course they do say
Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.
So they regurgitate the author’s opinion. I am surprised they included wattsup. Somebody must be forcing them to make them turn into a semblance of objectivity.

Milwaukee Bob
February 12, 2010 7:25 am

Dr Anthony Fallone (17:36:13) :
That was down right inspirational!
And this morning in the local paper:
Climate scientist: Don’t trust uninformed blogs
Published: February 12, 2010
TAMPA – Climate scientists struggle with the Internet.
Blog after blog denies climate change is a problem or that people’s actions have anything to do with it, said Lonnie Thompson, an Ohio State University researcher who spoke Thursday at a University of South Florida conference on global sustainability.
Often, “there’s no basis behind what is reported,” he complained. He also had some advice for Internet readers: When you see something on climate change, check out the writers. Ask questions, he said.
•Have they done their own research?
•Do they talk about science and the scientific process?
•Whom do they represent?
Even the best informed reader will have trouble learning the whole truth about climate change. That’s because even the scientists haven’t figured out what’s happening, said USF marine science professor Robert Weisberg. The systems involved, Weisberg said, are complex.
That’s not to say climate scientists haven’t nailed some things down. Thompson came to USF this week, as the university inaugurates its School of Global Sustainability, to talk about his 35 years of research. “The last 80 years are really unusual” in the rate of warming, he said.
His biggest worry is the massive land-based glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. As the water melts, sea levels rise. That’s a concern in a peninsula such as Florida. The rise here is slight, 0.003 meters a year or about 3 inches in 25 years. “What we fear is a catastrophic shedding in Greenland and Antarctica,” Weisberg said. Will that happen? If so, when?
The scientists don’t have those answers, Weisberg said, but they’re searching, trying to understand all the consequences of decades of using fossil fuels. (End)
What absolutely astounds me is the statement by Thompson – “Ask questions… Have they…. Do they…. Whom do they…” YES! THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WE DO HERE! Of each other AND all of you so called “scientists”! For example; “The last 80 years are really unusual” – Really? Unusual? Have you done your own research on that? Can we get the raw data therein? Hmm, some how I missed the science and the scientific process in that statement. Could you detail that for us? And BTW, whom do you represent? Where do you get your funding from? AND, “… catastrophic shedding…” Professor Weisberg? What scientific process is involved in that? When does it become “catastrophic” as compared to say, “normal”? Can we get the research on that? Oh, I see. You “don’t have the answers” but the answer is – because of using fossil fuels……… ???
Obviously we need not go into other statements in the article. But one has to wonder when, if ever, just one of them will look in mirror some morning and ask not only these same questions, but also, “What the hell have I done?”

February 12, 2010 7:46 am

Peter Miller (17:17:20) :
I thought I was a reasonably smart scientist until I read RealClimate’s latest article “Good news for Earth’s Climate?” Can anyone figure out what it is actually trying to say?
I am not a scientist but am a historian with a scientific background. As observed ages ago (BCG – Before Climate Gate) in another thread, the writing at RealClimate reminds me of undergraduate essays in which students resort to bafflegab to try to impress the reader with long words to cover up the fact that they have not actually done the work or don’t really understand the ideas.
I was worried about having no idea what Gavin at RC was talking about until I realized that here at WUWT, even though some of the scientific posts go way above my head, I was able to learn about things. I never had that learning experience there – I think most of the devoted followers at RC don’t understand the posts there either, but like to be impressed by long words bound together in turgid prose, as proof that they too, are intelligent. Hence most of the reader posts are merely enthusiastic endorsements of Gavin’s great insights.
My only personal worry is that I cannot tear myself away from WUWT!

February 12, 2010 7:59 am

Roger Knights at 12-02
If you look at the list of blogs it includes a cartoon site (excellent but not heavy science) and other similarly lightweight blogs.
The only site that gives them the heebie jeebies is WUWT – not unlike http://www.skepticalscience.com where they frequently go in for semi religious ranting about Watts.
I think it comes down to its popularity – no surprise there, this is an excellent site – and that posters on other sites are insanely jealous.
So you might be right and they are just an odd bunch science enthusiasts but I suspect they are warmists who are having their nose severely put out of joint.

nigel jones
February 12, 2010 8:00 am

Congratulations Anthony.
The frothing at the mouth comments across at The Times were surprising and funny. It smacked of orchestration and desperation.
In particular, the attack on the surface stations project as being “anti-science” was hilarious. Some folks obviously view it as a very unscientific thing to check the validity of measurements and call attention to stations which are sited near air conditioning vents etc.

February 12, 2010 8:35 am

I notice the TimesOnline have now let a bunch of new comments through. Virtually all the new ones are supporting Anthony . And although it doesn’t surprise me in the least I would say that the supportive comments also tend towards a rather more polite and intelligent manner.

IT Small
February 12, 2010 8:44 am

Congratulations are in order, sir. The high priests are dethroned and their minions sent scurrying like a pack of flying monkeys. While this is all stimulating entertainment, it is helpful to step back and remember the entire script plays in only one world. Of which there are, of course, an infinite number.
Is this then significantly meaningful? Infinitesimally.

George E. Smith
February 12, 2010 8:59 am

“”” Dr Anthony Fallone (17:36:13) :
George E. Smith (12:52:21)
The greatest number of students to whom I ever lectured was just over 400 (our lecture theatre just about took them all in one sitting) and, like most present day lecturers, I blessed Powerpoint. “””
Thanks for the story, Dr Anthony; I guess I once addressed about 400 people at a technical conference; but I never had to actually try and teach that many people something.
The problem with students (as a teacher), is that you are trying to get them to learn something, so you have to be able to monitor the progress of each one somehow, and then tailor your post lecture coaching to the needs of each (those that need it).
My students were pre-med first year students, doing a Science pre-requisite, before going on to Med School (Med or Veterinary). They had to do Physics or Chemistry or one of the Biologies; their choice.
It was a problem, since it was assumed that their previous high school education had NOT given them any Calculus; so basic concepts, of Optics (geometrical) and Atomic Physics, had to be presented, without the use of the Calculus.
Well I used it anyway; just never told them that’s what it was; so derivatives were obtained by finding the limits right in front of their eyes; never ever mentioned differentiation or differential calculus; just kept my mouth shut. They soaked it up like the sponges they were.
I’m inclined to think that modern (science) textbooks, present material in a more learnable manner, than the ones in my day; but I think the older ones contained more real knowledge. Sadly, every one of my high school and University tex books, vanished mysteriously, in a box, that supposedly went on a boat in Wellington (NZ), but never came off on the docks in Manhattan. I’ve never been able to replace them or what they contained; so I largely just have to try and remember stuff; besides trying to learn all the new stuff.

February 12, 2010 9:00 am

The naming of this blog by the Eureka editors to their “top science blogs” list touched off such a storm in the comments section, I had to come and check it out for myself. While certainly WUWT is clearly in the skeptic camp, I find nothing “anti-science” about this blog.
What has been “anti-science” has been the behavior of the people to whom we entrusted research in climate science. Scientists formulate testable hypotheses. Scientists publish not only their conclusions, but also their data and methods. Scientists do not withhold, hide, discard, or hide their data. Scientists take great care to to ensure that their work is completely transparent, so it will be replicable, allowing other scientists to build on it. Scientists do not regard appeals to authority as evidence. Scientists do not respond to those who challenge their conclusions with ad hominem attacks. They accept the criticism if valid, or refute with evidence and logic. Scientists do not try to manipulate the peer review process, or pressure journals to fire editors or reviewers whom they deem insufficiently sympathetic to their own position. Scientists do not conspire to keep studies with conclusions they disagree with out of the literature.
Many of those entrusted with resources to study climate have failed to follow any of these ordinary rules of scientific conduct. In so doing they have forfeited their credibility, and damaged public confidence in science more generally.

A C Osborn
February 12, 2010 9:20 am

Congratulations Anthony & Team.
The AGW crowd haven’t yet realised that repeating the same mantras over & over again will not work to stop the sceptics asking quesitons, not since Climategate showed that they have been using that technique all along.
Every time they complain about WUWT it is another “advert” for the site.

Pete of Perth
February 12, 2010 9:46 am

Congrats Anthony.
The people over at RC must be jealous – kinda like the Physcists who didn’t invent the infinite improbabilty drive and were’nt invited to those sort of parties where the hostess’s undergarments were made to leap 3ft sideways (Hitch Hikers Guide)…
Still, in the land of Oz, our Dear Leader (Chairman Rudd) still blabs on about the science is settled on AGW with our largest scientific body (CSIRO) matching in lock-step behind.

February 12, 2010 9:52 am

It is unfortunate that weblog awards stopped operating, since we were certainly on course to win first place again for the second year in a row. IMHO being included with 29 other blogs is nice, but I prefer to look at it as the Times including 29 other blogs with WUWT, which was the number one science blog of 2008 and 2009 and is only getting better and more popular with time.
As for Lambert’s snide comment, when he learns to distinguish science from political advocacy, his opinion will matter…

February 12, 2010 11:49 am

Gee, I just read Lambert’s description of the debate.
In his mind, he absolutely decimated that “liar” and “showman” Monckton, and corrected his errors for him.
I’d still like to see the video, the link posted earlier never does anything here.

February 12, 2010 12:18 pm

anna v (07:23:16) : “So they regurgitate the author’s opinion. I am surprised they included wattsup. Somebody must be forcing them to make them turn into a semblance of objectivity.”
Kind of strange that they would do that (if they do), but still moderate commentary to the warmist side, no?
I did see one comment there that defended WUWT, and the sceptic side in general. Note terribly far down in the list. May be more, but I didn’t read them all. So I agree with Anthony on this one. Not a bug in the process, just the process (humanity, I guess) doing it’s thing. Same as it ever was (rolls eyes)…
Anyway, yes, the Yahoo forums are usually _filled_ with jabs at AGW! I remember that during the cap and trade vote, I sent my reps a copy of the Yahoo article about it. That, I think, was a record at the time. Well over 3,000 “buzzes” on the article itself, with about as many comments posted. Buzz up/down on comments themselves were near 1,000 each on the first page, with 100’s of subcomments on many of them, with high 100’s of buzzes on those.
Naturally, the sceptics had an overwhelming presence and support that remains to this day 🙂

Stephen Brown
February 12, 2010 1:45 pm

I have just posted the following on the Times site:-
“I have always been sceptical of demands that I MUST believe in something because I am being told to do so. Such an approach not only raises my hackles, it also makes my BS-meter swing off-scale.
Thus it was with the alarmist’s shrill and hysterical cries of the portents of imminent doom forecast by the proponents of AGW.
I began to examine the facts without holding any preconceived ideas. The more I searched for hard facts and good science, the more I began to tend towards disbelieving the AGW proponents. They had no hard and fast facts and none were prepared to reveal their science: I was being asked to believe simply because I was told to do so.
I discovered WUWT long before Climategate and the infamous e-mail leaks. I found there a body of people who were prepared to engage in a civilised discourse without resorting to ad hominem criticisms, who were prepared to consider any ideas put forward and who were prepared to lay bare their data and their reasons for coming to the conclusions which they drew therefrom.
I found the WUWT community to be a far more reasonable place to frequent than any site run by dedicated AGW proponents.
I now have very reasonable grounds to reject the doom-laden projections so often given headlines in the main-stream media.
I reject in its entirety the alarmism of the IPCC and I do so with my rejection based firmly on the scientific data and reasoning so well presented and debated on WUWT site. The on-going crumbling of the facade of infallibility of the IPCC Reports serves only to bolster my stand.
The inclusion of WUWT in the list is well deserved.”
And I mean every single word of it.

February 12, 2010 1:47 pm

George E. Smith had written:

My students were pre-med first year students, doing a Science pre-requisite, before going on to Med School (Med or Veterinary). They had to do Physics or Chemistry or one of the Biologies; their choice.

Hm? As I recall my own freshman year as a pre-med student, first semester, my course load included first-year chemistry, general biology, first year honors English literature, third-year foreign language (first- and second-year high school foreign language was an admissions requirement), intro philosophy, intro theology (Jesuit college), and three afternoons of four-hour lab courses (two chem, one bio) every week.
Jeez, but medical school in first year was easier by comparison. No mental “gear shifting” required.
Who the hell set up the pre-med curriculum where you were teaching, anyway? All pre-med students were full-bore science majors – Biology or Chemistry – (with an effective mixed minor in philosophy and theology) when I was in school.
And how the devil is a student expected to go on to a medical school first-year course in biochemistry without a year of organic chem as an undergraduate?

February 12, 2010 2:03 pm

I’ve put in a comment at the Times too (hope it will pass mod). It’s good to see so many reasonable people posting in support of WUWT.
Slightly OT, but this story at the Guardian (sorry!) on the breakdown of Eurostar trains is an interesting (possible/arguable) result of AGW complacency. Eurostar appear to have had no workable winter planning and the engines were vulnerable to fine snow.
‘The document concludes that Eurostar had “no plan in place” to cope with such an event. As a consequence, passengers were treated “appallingly”.’

Roger Kelley
February 12, 2010 3:25 pm

After the vitriol, came these comments, somewhat more polite than those at the start – my apologies for taking up so much space – snip if you like moderator – there are more comments than this and I just made a selection – they were all in sequence by the way.
OMG I’ve stumbled into a church of global warming
Posted by: HiggsB | 11 Feb 2010 00:42:59
I am schocked by some of the comments about WUWT. It seems that climate science is no more a science but a religion. It’s forbidden to express any doubts about climate change! Fortunately we are not living anymore in the Inquisition period, otherwise mr Watts would be alread burnt! 😉
Posted by: Philippe | 11 Feb 2010 19:45:14
All commenters that are against the most excellent “Watts Up With That” blog are just pathetic and their usual rhetoric, all to familiar by now, are just so lame. Why do you all just regurgitate what your high priests are telling you? Can’t you think on your own any more? Laughable.
Posted by: AdderW | 11 Feb 2010 19:48:28
Wow, so many near identical posts bashing WUWT. I smell a sockpuppet army. What it be beyond a certain columnist on a certain competing newspaper? I wonder…
WUWT is far from anti-science. If you go back through the archives you’ll find example after example of IPCC blunders the mainstream media is only picking up now.
When the AGW urgers start to get a few predictions correct, rather than overwhelming wrong, maybe we can start to call anyone who opposes them “deniers” but until then I’m afraid they’re closer to whistleblowers.
Posted by: John Hooper | 11 Feb 2010 19:51:56
Why do Acolytes of the Church of Warmology care if WUWT is on the list?.. Afraid of dissent… Can’t have that while their ‘Pal Reviewed’ anti-human scientological joke of a religion garners so much grant money and political awards…
Reading the ‘hate’ only shows the world how sad and demented you really are…
Posted by: Van Grungy | 11 Feb 2010 19:57:34
So, a blog which regularly features guest posts from Dr. Roy Spencer is “anti-science”?
Who are the real anti-scientists here?
Posted by: sjb | 11 Feb 2010 20:00:27
Thank you for the wonderful irony of the attacks on WUWT for being “denialist” and “anti-scientist.” Although, it is unfortunate to see the number of people who’ve drunk the Lysenko flavored Kool Aid.
Posted by: John W. | 11 Feb 2010 20:02:39
HiggsB: You HAVE stumbled into the a Universal Church of CAGW! Hallelujah! Praise be for pastors Romm, Schmidt, and Lambert. Lead us on Bishops Hansen, Karl, Jones, & Mann.
Way to go, Brother IanV. You voted early and often! You should be nominated to be a Wikipedia editor for CAGW to replace William Connelly!
Now, let us all open our hymnals to a few selections by Greenpeace and WWF…
Posted by: Theo | 11 Feb 2010 20:06:18
The Acolytes fear a ‘Freedom of Information’ planet…
Posted by: Van Grungy | 11 Feb 2010 20:10:32
It saddens me to see so many using the term “denier” in referring to the wattsupwiththat blog. I think of myself as being a “rationalist”, and subscribe to a number of blogs, both for and against the IPCC’s theory that human-produced CO2 is causing the global temperature to warm more than it otherwise would.
I also dislike the term “alarmist” when applied to those who accept the IPCC’s conclusions.
I have seen no evidence that wattsupwiththat “denies” the IPCC’s central theory; rather it seems to provide arguments against that theory, and the arguments seem to me to be based on contributors’ understanding of the underlying science rather than on some faith-based belief.
Posted by: John Campbell | 11 Feb 2010 20:10:46
How can you people claim anti-science on WUWT when you agree with a blog brought to you by the author of the descredited ‘anti-science and history’ hockey stick graph, as well as a freedom of information denier?
Posted by: woocache | 11 Feb 2010 20:15:11
Wow, the global warming jihadists are out in force today. Either that, or judging by the stock vocabulary of each post it’s just one zealot with a sentence randomiser.
Thanks for the heads up Times Online people. I must check out this Watts Up With That? site first. If it annoys the eco-Marxists so much it must be doing something right.
Posted by: Warm Snow | 11 Feb 2010 20:15:23
It is disappointing to see “RealClimate” on a list with so many gifted, rational, non-ideologically-driven writers.
Posted by: WeatherMan | 11 Feb 2010 20:15:29
How interesting. I regularly read WUWT and occasionally submit comments. I’ve seen some pretty interesting contrarian SCIENTIFIC work referenced and discussed there. I’ve also dug into the emails and other material hacked/whistleblown from the CRU. And I just have to ask any of you that have dissed WUWT: Are any of you scientists? And if you are, are you objective? Or are you on the “take” when it comes to your unquestioning acceptance of currently-accepted global warming hype. As a geologist (BS, MS) I have a pretty strong skepticism of the pronouncements from the IPCC or any other group that says “the science is settled”; some of the “solutions” offered are even more astoundinding. So if you’re a critic of WUWT but haven’t opened your eyes, maybe you should drop by and participate for a while. But don’t do so if you’re married to pre-conceived notions and an unsubstantiated belief system. You won’t like the results.
Posted by: RockyRoad | 11 Feb 2010 20:15:39
Most interesting religious rants. Anyone who is interested in and has questions about climate science should just ramble on over to WUWT for some interesting and entertaining discussions. The gratuitous attacks posted here give a clear sense of WUWT’s success in challenging the rabidity of the true belivers among us.
Posted by: s. graves | 11 Feb 2010 20:17:10
The comments section here is one of the most amusing I’ve come along in quite some time. 🙂
Posted by: Demi | 11 Feb 2010 20:18:18
Looks like a small group of Grauniad readers have got together to have at WUWT. They can have their day – they haven’t got many more.
Well done for recognising Watts – and since when did metreologists cease to be scientists? – The Hadley Centre is full of them – but then again, they support the AGW trolls.
Posted by: Ghillie | 11 Feb 2010 20:18:30
Its interesting to see the hate generated by the inclusion of WUWT.
Why has the inclusion brought so much anti science comment.
It seems that discussion that does not follow the mantra must be stifled at all costs.
Question everything is what I was taught as a child and has served me well thru out my life. I was not taught to censor or ridicule because someone’s views are different. But that would be too reasonable to hope for in our modern society.
Posted by: neon | 11 Feb 2010 20:21:12

February 12, 2010 4:00 pm

Gee, I just read Lambert’s description of the debate.
In his mind, he absolutely decimated that “liar” and “showman” Monckton, and corrected his errors for him.

At least Lambert is consistent in his delusion about his own ability.

Keith Minto
February 12, 2010 4:07 pm

Tucci (13:47:29) :
George E. Smith had written:
My students were pre-med first year students, doing a Science pre-requisite, before going on to Med School (Med or Veterinary). They had to do Physics or Chemistry or one of the Biologies; their choice.
And how the devil is a student expected to go on to a medical school first-year course in biochemistry without a year of organic chem as an undergraduate?

It was tough, but we did it. I really enjoyed my first year Botany, Zoology, Physics, Chem. The Chem. seemed to ensure that only 50% made it to year two and I commiserate with George E. Smith and the loss of his text books, after years of clinical practice I gave away all of my Botany and Zoo texts only to discover WUWT !. I needed the Botany books especially for Yamal. Oh well, a good test for the memory.
Everything else is stretching, why not the memory ?

February 12, 2010 5:05 pm

BTW – for you folks talking about Bill Nye, an oldie but goodie:

February 12, 2010 5:15 pm

Keith Minto had written:

It was tough, but we did it [got through med school biochemistry without first having taken and passed an undergraduate organic chemistry course].

Wow. When I applied to medical schools, organic chemistry was a requirement. Things had obviously changed at sometime since the early ’70s.
I retained my undergraduate textbooks (I still have them today), remembering how useful my father’s college and postgraduate textbooks had been for me when I’d been in grammar school and high school.
Curiously, my obsessive classroom notes in organic chemistry proved valuable in a way I hadn’t anticipated. The year after I’d completed the course, I’d been asked for help by a younger student in my residence hall, and hauled out those notebooks to double-check my facts. His eyes bulged at the sight of them, and those notes were immediately declared a community resource, circulating (to my knowledge) for several years among the hall’s biology and chemistry majors.
Same thing happened in med school with my notes in neuroanatomy, obstetrics, and hepatology for the class note pool. I suspect that if I hadn’t been forced to put the hammer down in organic chemistry (in which I was woefully inept), I probably wouldn’t have learned the skills and habits that got me into and through medical school.

February 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Nice to see our comments being added. And I agree, our comments were more cival than theirs. Funny that…

John Whitman
February 12, 2010 7:46 pm

When I helped my daughter do research on applying to Medical School, it became apparent, especially in the more highly regarded private Med Schools in US, that there is a desire by the faculty/trustees to have some breadth of student body beyond undergraduate science majors. Highly intelligent non-science candidates where welcomed and even encouraged to apply to those Med Schools. Music and Arts majors and economics majors were represented. These students still had to pass all the science studies and all clinical reviews and boards.
My daughter was an undergraduate Molecular Biology major.
My daughter (who did graduate from one of those high ranked private Med Schools) told me that at her Med School some of the undergraduate non-science med students were actually very highly ranked at their med school graduation. They went on to very competitive residencies in very competitive specialties. And she said their people skills were often much better.
If you haven’t previously done science, it does not mean that you cannot do it in the future.

Tim Clark
February 13, 2010 12:21 pm

Well deserved!

February 13, 2010 12:35 pm

the so-called CRU inquiry is being funded by the University of East Anglia,so don’t hold your breathe for an unbiased conclusion!

Ian Cooper
February 14, 2010 4:30 pm

Hi Anthony,
Congratulations are in order again! You have finally made it onto the pages of our MSM newspapers in New Zealand via the Sunday Times article, “Stormy outlook over global warming.” Firstly they quote John Christy of UAH, then Ross McKitrick, before mentioning your study of US weather stations. They do however add a caveat by stating, “His (Anthony’s) study, which has not been peer reviewed…”
The article concludes with what has become the usual rearguard talk from the Cagwars lead by Kevin Trenberth and finished off by Dr Vicky Pope of the British Met Office who is trying to come up with NEW confirmation of the warming trend of their dreams. The article below titled “Snow storm blasts America’s warmer southern states,” puts things into perspective for the lay person.
It may be just a little premature to say this, but to paraphrase from Sir Winston Churchill’s speech on El Alamein, “Before ClimateGate there were no victories. After ClimateGate there were no defeats!”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights