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.
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…
Anthony,
[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.
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
Lambert seems to have missed part of his sentence. WUWT is anti-bad-science.
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)
Fred (11:58:25) :
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?”
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.
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.
Congrats!!! It seems your inclusion on the list is being widely accepted 🙂
Anthony: The list is alphabetical:”Here, in alphabetical order, are our selections:”
Kudos.
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.
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!
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”. 🙂
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.
My, you’ve certainly got under someone’s skin.
Congrats Anthony. The Internet was invented for this blog !
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…
”
…. 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:-
deltoid-creates-some-sci-comm-pollution
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.
Congratulations!
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.
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!
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 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.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=XdnzVrVrnz
Herman L (13:14:34),
You owe Anthony an apology.
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.
Apparently being right most of the time will get you labeled anti-science.