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.
Congratulations are in order, sir. The high priests are dethroned and their minions sent scurrying like a pack of flying monkeys. While this is all stimulating entertainment, it is helpful to step back and remember the entire script plays in only one world. Of which there are, of course, an infinite number.
Is this then significantly meaningful? Infinitesimally.
“”” Dr Anthony Fallone (17:36:13) :
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. “””
Thanks for the story, Dr Anthony; I guess I once addressed about 400 people at a technical conference; but I never had to actually try and teach that many people something.
The problem with students (as a teacher), is that you are trying to get them to learn something, so you have to be able to monitor the progress of each one somehow, and then tailor your post lecture coaching to the needs of each (those that need it).
My students were pre-med first year students, doing a Science pre-requisite, before going on to Med School (Med or Veterinary). They had to do Physics or Chemistry or one of the Biologies; their choice.
It was a problem, since it was assumed that their previous high school education had NOT given them any Calculus; so basic concepts, of Optics (geometrical) and Atomic Physics, had to be presented, without the use of the Calculus.
Well I used it anyway; just never told them that’s what it was; so derivatives were obtained by finding the limits right in front of their eyes; never ever mentioned differentiation or differential calculus; just kept my mouth shut. They soaked it up like the sponges they were.
I’m inclined to think that modern (science) textbooks, present material in a more learnable manner, than the ones in my day; but I think the older ones contained more real knowledge. Sadly, every one of my high school and University tex books, vanished mysteriously, in a box, that supposedly went on a boat in Wellington (NZ), but never came off on the docks in Manhattan. I’ve never been able to replace them or what they contained; so I largely just have to try and remember stuff; besides trying to learn all the new stuff.
The naming of this blog by the Eureka editors to their “top science blogs” list touched off such a storm in the comments section, I had to come and check it out for myself. While certainly WUWT is clearly in the skeptic camp, I find nothing “anti-science” about this blog.
What has been “anti-science” has been the behavior of the people to whom we entrusted research in climate science. Scientists formulate testable hypotheses. Scientists publish not only their conclusions, but also their data and methods. Scientists do not withhold, hide, discard, or hide their data. Scientists take great care to to ensure that their work is completely transparent, so it will be replicable, allowing other scientists to build on it. Scientists do not regard appeals to authority as evidence. Scientists do not respond to those who challenge their conclusions with ad hominem attacks. They accept the criticism if valid, or refute with evidence and logic. Scientists do not try to manipulate the peer review process, or pressure journals to fire editors or reviewers whom they deem insufficiently sympathetic to their own position. Scientists do not conspire to keep studies with conclusions they disagree with out of the literature.
Many of those entrusted with resources to study climate have failed to follow any of these ordinary rules of scientific conduct. In so doing they have forfeited their credibility, and damaged public confidence in science more generally.
Congratulations Anthony & Team.
The AGW crowd haven’t yet realised that repeating the same mantras over & over again will not work to stop the sceptics asking quesitons, not since Climategate showed that they have been using that technique all along.
Every time they complain about WUWT it is another “advert” for the site.
Congrats Anthony.
The people over at RC must be jealous – kinda like the Physcists who didn’t invent the infinite improbabilty drive and were’nt invited to those sort of parties where the hostess’s undergarments were made to leap 3ft sideways (Hitch Hikers Guide)…
Still, in the land of Oz, our Dear Leader (Chairman Rudd) still blabs on about the science is settled on AGW with our largest scientific body (CSIRO) matching in lock-step behind.
It is unfortunate that weblog awards stopped operating, since we were certainly on course to win first place again for the second year in a row. IMHO being included with 29 other blogs is nice, but I prefer to look at it as the Times including 29 other blogs with WUWT, which was the number one science blog of 2008 and 2009 and is only getting better and more popular with time.
As for Lambert’s snide comment, when he learns to distinguish science from political advocacy, his opinion will matter…
Gee, I just read Lambert’s description of the debate.
In his mind, he absolutely decimated that “liar” and “showman” Monckton, and corrected his errors for him.
Amazing.
I’d still like to see the video, the link posted earlier never does anything here.
anna v (07:23:16) : “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.”
Kind of strange that they would do that (if they do), but still moderate commentary to the warmist side, no?
I did see one comment there that defended WUWT, and the sceptic side in general. Note terribly far down in the list. May be more, but I didn’t read them all. So I agree with Anthony on this one. Not a bug in the process, just the process (humanity, I guess) doing it’s thing. Same as it ever was (rolls eyes)…
Anyway, yes, the Yahoo forums are usually _filled_ with jabs at AGW! I remember that during the cap and trade vote, I sent my reps a copy of the Yahoo article about it. That, I think, was a record at the time. Well over 3,000 “buzzes” on the article itself, with about as many comments posted. Buzz up/down on comments themselves were near 1,000 each on the first page, with 100’s of subcomments on many of them, with high 100’s of buzzes on those.
Naturally, the sceptics had an overwhelming presence and support that remains to this day 🙂
I have just posted the following on the Times site:-
“I have always been sceptical of demands that I MUST believe in something because I am being told to do so. Such an approach not only raises my hackles, it also makes my BS-meter swing off-scale.
Thus it was with the alarmist’s shrill and hysterical cries of the portents of imminent doom forecast by the proponents of AGW.
I began to examine the facts without holding any preconceived ideas. The more I searched for hard facts and good science, the more I began to tend towards disbelieving the AGW proponents. They had no hard and fast facts and none were prepared to reveal their science: I was being asked to believe simply because I was told to do so.
I discovered WUWT long before Climategate and the infamous e-mail leaks. I found there a body of people who were prepared to engage in a civilised discourse without resorting to ad hominem criticisms, who were prepared to consider any ideas put forward and who were prepared to lay bare their data and their reasons for coming to the conclusions which they drew therefrom.
I found the WUWT community to be a far more reasonable place to frequent than any site run by dedicated AGW proponents.
I now have very reasonable grounds to reject the doom-laden projections so often given headlines in the main-stream media.
I reject in its entirety the alarmism of the IPCC and I do so with my rejection based firmly on the scientific data and reasoning so well presented and debated on WUWT site. The on-going crumbling of the facade of infallibility of the IPCC Reports serves only to bolster my stand.
The inclusion of WUWT in the list is well deserved.”
And I mean every single word of it.
George E. Smith had written:
Hm? As I recall my own freshman year as a pre-med student, first semester, my course load included first-year chemistry, general biology, first year honors English literature, third-year foreign language (first- and second-year high school foreign language was an admissions requirement), intro philosophy, intro theology (Jesuit college), and three afternoons of four-hour lab courses (two chem, one bio) every week.
Jeez, but medical school in first year was easier by comparison. No mental “gear shifting” required.
Who the hell set up the pre-med curriculum where you were teaching, anyway? All pre-med students were full-bore science majors – Biology or Chemistry – (with an effective mixed minor in philosophy and theology) when I was in school.
And how the devil is a student expected to go on to a medical school first-year course in biochemistry without a year of organic chem as an undergraduate?
—
I’ve put in a comment at the Times too (hope it will pass mod). It’s good to see so many reasonable people posting in support of WUWT.
Slightly OT, but this story at the Guardian (sorry!) on the breakdown of Eurostar trains is an interesting (possible/arguable) result of AGW complacency. Eurostar appear to have had no workable winter planning and the engines were vulnerable to fine snow.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/12/my-eurostar-hell-worst-train-you-could-imagine
‘The document concludes that Eurostar had “no plan in place” to cope with such an event. As a consequence, passengers were treated “appallingly”.’
After the vitriol, came these comments, somewhat more polite than those at the start – my apologies for taking up so much space – snip if you like moderator – there are more comments than this and I just made a selection – they were all in sequence by the way.
OMG I’ve stumbled into a church of global warming
Posted by: HiggsB | 11 Feb 2010 00:42:59
I am schocked by some of the comments about WUWT. It seems that climate science is no more a science but a religion. It’s forbidden to express any doubts about climate change! Fortunately we are not living anymore in the Inquisition period, otherwise mr Watts would be alread burnt! 😉
Posted by: Philippe | 11 Feb 2010 19:45:14
All commenters that are against the most excellent “Watts Up With That” blog are just pathetic and their usual rhetoric, all to familiar by now, are just so lame. Why do you all just regurgitate what your high priests are telling you? Can’t you think on your own any more? Laughable.
Posted by: AdderW | 11 Feb 2010 19:48:28
Wow, so many near identical posts bashing WUWT. I smell a sockpuppet army. What it be beyond a certain columnist on a certain competing newspaper? I wonder…
WUWT is far from anti-science. If you go back through the archives you’ll find example after example of IPCC blunders the mainstream media is only picking up now.
When the AGW urgers start to get a few predictions correct, rather than overwhelming wrong, maybe we can start to call anyone who opposes them “deniers” but until then I’m afraid they’re closer to whistleblowers.
Posted by: John Hooper | 11 Feb 2010 19:51:56
Why do Acolytes of the Church of Warmology care if WUWT is on the list?.. Afraid of dissent… Can’t have that while their ‘Pal Reviewed’ anti-human scientological joke of a religion garners so much grant money and political awards…
Reading the ‘hate’ only shows the world how sad and demented you really are…
Posted by: Van Grungy | 11 Feb 2010 19:57:34
So, a blog which regularly features guest posts from Dr. Roy Spencer is “anti-science”?
Who are the real anti-scientists here?
Posted by: sjb | 11 Feb 2010 20:00:27
Thank you for the wonderful irony of the attacks on WUWT for being “denialist” and “anti-scientist.” Although, it is unfortunate to see the number of people who’ve drunk the Lysenko flavored Kool Aid.
Posted by: John W. | 11 Feb 2010 20:02:39
HiggsB: You HAVE stumbled into the a Universal Church of CAGW! Hallelujah! Praise be for pastors Romm, Schmidt, and Lambert. Lead us on Bishops Hansen, Karl, Jones, & Mann.
Way to go, Brother IanV. You voted early and often! You should be nominated to be a Wikipedia editor for CAGW to replace William Connelly!
Now, let us all open our hymnals to a few selections by Greenpeace and WWF…
Posted by: Theo | 11 Feb 2010 20:06:18
The Acolytes fear a ‘Freedom of Information’ planet…
Posted by: Van Grungy | 11 Feb 2010 20:10:32
It saddens me to see so many using the term “denier” in referring to the wattsupwiththat blog. I think of myself as being a “rationalist”, and subscribe to a number of blogs, both for and against the IPCC’s theory that human-produced CO2 is causing the global temperature to warm more than it otherwise would.
I also dislike the term “alarmist” when applied to those who accept the IPCC’s conclusions.
I have seen no evidence that wattsupwiththat “denies” the IPCC’s central theory; rather it seems to provide arguments against that theory, and the arguments seem to me to be based on contributors’ understanding of the underlying science rather than on some faith-based belief.
Posted by: John Campbell | 11 Feb 2010 20:10:46
How can you people claim anti-science on WUWT when you agree with a blog brought to you by the author of the descredited ‘anti-science and history’ hockey stick graph, as well as a freedom of information denier?
Posted by: woocache | 11 Feb 2010 20:15:11
Wow, the global warming jihadists are out in force today. Either that, or judging by the stock vocabulary of each post it’s just one zealot with a sentence randomiser.
Thanks for the heads up Times Online people. I must check out this Watts Up With That? site first. If it annoys the eco-Marxists so much it must be doing something right.
Posted by: Warm Snow | 11 Feb 2010 20:15:23
It is disappointing to see “RealClimate” on a list with so many gifted, rational, non-ideologically-driven writers.
Posted by: WeatherMan | 11 Feb 2010 20:15:29
How interesting. I regularly read WUWT and occasionally submit comments. I’ve seen some pretty interesting contrarian SCIENTIFIC work referenced and discussed there. I’ve also dug into the emails and other material hacked/whistleblown from the CRU. And I just have to ask any of you that have dissed WUWT: Are any of you scientists? And if you are, are you objective? Or are you on the “take” when it comes to your unquestioning acceptance of currently-accepted global warming hype. As a geologist (BS, MS) I have a pretty strong skepticism of the pronouncements from the IPCC or any other group that says “the science is settled”; some of the “solutions” offered are even more astoundinding. So if you’re a critic of WUWT but haven’t opened your eyes, maybe you should drop by and participate for a while. But don’t do so if you’re married to pre-conceived notions and an unsubstantiated belief system. You won’t like the results.
Posted by: RockyRoad | 11 Feb 2010 20:15:39
Most interesting religious rants. Anyone who is interested in and has questions about climate science should just ramble on over to WUWT for some interesting and entertaining discussions. The gratuitous attacks posted here give a clear sense of WUWT’s success in challenging the rabidity of the true belivers among us.
Posted by: s. graves | 11 Feb 2010 20:17:10
The comments section here is one of the most amusing I’ve come along in quite some time. 🙂
Posted by: Demi | 11 Feb 2010 20:18:18
Looks like a small group of Grauniad readers have got together to have at WUWT. They can have their day – they haven’t got many more.
Well done for recognising Watts – and since when did metreologists cease to be scientists? – The Hadley Centre is full of them – but then again, they support the AGW trolls.
Posted by: Ghillie | 11 Feb 2010 20:18:30
Its interesting to see the hate generated by the inclusion of WUWT.
Why has the inclusion brought so much anti science comment.
It seems that discussion that does not follow the mantra must be stifled at all costs.
Question everything is what I was taught as a child and has served me well thru out my life. I was not taught to censor or ridicule because someone’s views are different. But that would be too reasonable to hope for in our modern society.
Posted by: neon | 11 Feb 2010 20:21:12
At least Lambert is consistent in his delusion about his own ability.
Tucci (13:47:29) :
George E. Smith had written:
My students were pre-med first year students, doing a Science pre-requisite, before going on to Med School (Med or Veterinary). They had to do Physics or Chemistry or one of the Biologies; their choice.
And how the devil is a student expected to go on to a medical school first-year course in biochemistry without a year of organic chem as an undergraduate?
It was tough, but we did it. I really enjoyed my first year Botany, Zoology, Physics, Chem. The Chem. seemed to ensure that only 50% made it to year two and I commiserate with George E. Smith and the loss of his text books, after years of clinical practice I gave away all of my Botany and Zoo texts only to discover WUWT !. I needed the Botany books especially for Yamal. Oh well, a good test for the memory.
Everything else is stretching, why not the memory ?
BTW – for you folks talking about Bill Nye, an oldie but goodie:
Keith Minto had written:
Wow. When I applied to medical schools, organic chemistry was a requirement. Things had obviously changed at sometime since the early ’70s.
I retained my undergraduate textbooks (I still have them today), remembering how useful my father’s college and postgraduate textbooks had been for me when I’d been in grammar school and high school.
Curiously, my obsessive classroom notes in organic chemistry proved valuable in a way I hadn’t anticipated. The year after I’d completed the course, I’d been asked for help by a younger student in my residence hall, and hauled out those notebooks to double-check my facts. His eyes bulged at the sight of them, and those notes were immediately declared a community resource, circulating (to my knowledge) for several years among the hall’s biology and chemistry majors.
Same thing happened in med school with my notes in neuroanatomy, obstetrics, and hepatology for the class note pool. I suspect that if I hadn’t been forced to put the hammer down in organic chemistry (in which I was woefully inept), I probably wouldn’t have learned the skills and habits that got me into and through medical school.
—
Nice to see our comments being added. And I agree, our comments were more cival than theirs. Funny that…
When I helped my daughter do research on applying to Medical School, it became apparent, especially in the more highly regarded private Med Schools in US, that there is a desire by the faculty/trustees to have some breadth of student body beyond undergraduate science majors. Highly intelligent non-science candidates where welcomed and even encouraged to apply to those Med Schools. Music and Arts majors and economics majors were represented. These students still had to pass all the science studies and all clinical reviews and boards.
My daughter was an undergraduate Molecular Biology major.
My daughter (who did graduate from one of those high ranked private Med Schools) told me that at her Med School some of the undergraduate non-science med students were actually very highly ranked at their med school graduation. They went on to very competitive residencies in very competitive specialties. And she said their people skills were often much better.
If you haven’t previously done science, it does not mean that you cannot do it in the future.
John
Anthony:
Well deserved!
the so-called CRU inquiry is being funded by the University of East Anglia,so don’t hold your breathe for an unbiased conclusion!
Hi Anthony,
Congratulations are in order again! You have finally made it onto the pages of our MSM newspapers in New Zealand via the Sunday Times article, “Stormy outlook over global warming.” Firstly they quote John Christy of UAH, then Ross McKitrick, before mentioning your study of US weather stations. They do however add a caveat by stating, “His (Anthony’s) study, which has not been peer reviewed…”
The article concludes with what has become the usual rearguard talk from the Cagwars lead by Kevin Trenberth and finished off by Dr Vicky Pope of the British Met Office who is trying to come up with NEW confirmation of the warming trend of their dreams. The article below titled “Snow storm blasts America’s warmer southern states,” puts things into perspective for the lay person.
It may be just a little premature to say this, but to paraphrase from Sir Winston Churchill’s speech on El Alamein, “Before ClimateGate there were no victories. After ClimateGate there were no defeats!”