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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
Done my best to promote this site to;Newsblogs,Politicans, Schools,etc.
Good Work,Mr. Watts, carry on!…
“The Times of London”
‘the Top 30 Science Blogs”
Blah, Blab, Blop, etc.
“NASA Watch”
“Techmeme”
“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.
The term anti-science is eerily reminiscent of Antichrist. It should be no surprise that it is becoming fashionable among the AGW faithful.
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.
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.
Cheers,
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?
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.
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 ..
.
.
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.
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.
Goodness!!!! The gossip!!!! This is the kind of advertising movie stars BEG for!
Congratulations, Anthony!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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,
What fun! You may be an ex “weatherman” but you still know how to make a storm!
Congrads.
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.
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. 🙂
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.