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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!
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”.
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.
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.
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.
tarpon (11:53:26) :
—————-
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)
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.
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/TempsvsIPCCModelsWM.jpg
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ar4-a1b-a2.gif
http://joannenova.com.au//globalwarming/graphs/akasofu/akasofu_graph_little_ice-age.gif
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!
” 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.’
Well, anticlimatctic, I tried to redress the balance but it looks like my comments have not been approved!
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.
Good stuff – congratualtions Anthony.
Congratulations!
“anti-science”
do the people who use those words ever stop to listen to themselves?
Couldn’t tell that by comments on the Deltod (sic) site; they think he was WINNING …
.
.
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.
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.
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”).
_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.
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.
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
By LINDSAY PETERSON, THE TAMPA TRIBUNE
lpeterson@tampatrib.com
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?”
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!
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.
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.
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.