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.
Congrats! Reading the comments after the article leads me to only one conclusion: Methinks they doth protest to much!
” 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.”
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.”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
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.”
THE ONLY THING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF BILL NYE SHOWS UP IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
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.
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.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/02/best-science-blogs.html
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.
pwl
http://www.PathsToKnowledge.NET
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.
Excellent job Anthony! Well deserved – especially the cynical responses of your detractors!
FOX NEWS
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.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/
Congratulations Mr. Watts!
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!
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?
It seems we are unpatriotic too;
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100211063234.aspx
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
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.
The comments appear coordinated. They say the same thing over and over again. Normal ‘human’ responses shouldn’t be like that.
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.
Congratulations! Your blog contributed greatly to hopefully the disappearance of the IPCC.
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.
Congratulations Anthony – richly deserved.
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.
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.
“”” 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.
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.
Times comments are 95% sceptical normally. These targeted comments are no co-incidence. Has to be a organised smear attempt.
“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.