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.
At least Lambert accepted the debate. Destroyed with the facts.
Congratulations, Anthony!
The truth always wins.
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.
Anthony,
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
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.
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.
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.
“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!
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.
[snip]
WUWT belongs on these type of lists.
Good on ya Anthony!
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
:p
Oh, and some of the posters are tin hat nutters .. no not me ! 😀
Keep up the good work.
Andy
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.
Well deserved Anthony.
WUWT is much appreciated!
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’. 🙂
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.
—
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.
Congratulations.
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.
John
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.
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, :
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
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!
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)
Mark.
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.
Anthony,
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.
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.
—