WUWT readers may recall last week that the “Our Climate” iPhone app was released and announced here. It has quickly become a best seller on the iTunes store.
It has also quickly become a target.
John Cook, a generally reasonable Aussie who runs a blog oddly titled “skepticalscience” (odd, since it isn’t skeptical, but pushes the consensus) also has an iPhone app. Knowing that he wouldn’t get enough traffic on his blog to effectively smack down this new informational threat, he turned to the Guardian, and was immediately offered a guest essay there.
The title? Climate change denial? There’s an app for that.
How sad that Cook and the Guardian had to resort to such a cheap shot.
Problem is, that essay appears to have backfired as “Our Climate” continues to grow. Right after that Guardian piece by Cook, downloads surged. So much in fact, Apple itself is even promoting it on the iTunes (installed Mac and PC application) front page now!
Have a look:
I hate it when that happens.
There are more than 230,000 Apps in the App store – Only 40 Apps are featured in this front page category at any time, so this is a singular achievement and opportunity for the truly skeptical side of the story to be heard.
Get the app for yourself: http://itunes.apple.com/app/our-climate/id371849150?mt=8
Don’t have an iPhone? Tell a friend who does.
And for the record, I don’t make a dime from this. I have no ownership or revenue sharing in it whatsoever.
As an aside, I wonder if Cook has seen the latest Gallup poll on Global Warming in Australia?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m going to assume that Mr. Cook is a well-intentioned person.
He says he’s motivated for the sake of his young daughter. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.
I was fascinated by his site’s list of 119 reasons given by “skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each. For instance his answer to the consensus matter is that “95% of climatologists support AGW”. No where do I see any discussion that addresses the fact that science is not decided by consensus.
In that same vein (in my opinion as a physicist) his list of 119 reasons does NOT include the number one concern about AGW! How can it be that in such an extensive list that the most important concern is not identified?
Maybe it’s partly our fault. In response to the AGW claims it seems that good sites like this tend to respond with a shotgun approach, vs a rifle. Look at the recent articles in WUWT. They cover an exceptionally diverse list of topics.
That’s good in some ways, but it’s bad if it leads any of us from losing our focus.
So what is the number one concern about AGW?
The answer lies in what science is all about.
Science is NOT a collection of data. Science is a PROCESS.
When an answer (e.g. AGW) is proposed to a technical problem it is entirely up to the proponents to subject it to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
This has NOT been done — and is the number one deficiency of the AGW hypothesis.
What is happening is that AGW proponents are actually undermining real science in that they are asserting that “consensus” trumps the Scientific Method, that computer models are superior to empirical evidence, that the precautionary principle justifies specious extrapolation, that “Post Normal Science” is a better way of resolving technical issues, etc., etc.
In a word: this is bunk.
The Scientific Method is at the core of real science. Until AGW (and other illegitimate offspring — e.g. wind energy) are truly subjected to the Scientific Method they remain firmly in the category of being unproven hypotheses.
We simply must keep this is mind as the most fundamental of all issues here.
Despite my previous request for an iPad version I just discovered that when I plugged in my new iPad and registered it via iTunes that it downloaded the Climate app to it automatically even though I got it for my phone five days ago. (OK, I’m a bit slow… but I mean well).
So, Richard deSousa (August 7, 2010 1:20 pm) get the iPad. If you’re like me, with aging eyes and reading glasses strewn around the house, this device makes it much easier to read online content than the iPhone. The more I use it, the more I am impressed.
The only changes I would like to see made to the app is to have it rotate to a landscape format instead of the static portrait position, and include a Sea Ice subsection in Climate 101.
Great post … the efforts by the Aussie is unfortunate … great app
Sean Peake: I believe you should be able to install the App on as many as five devices around the home. We do actually have a sea-ice extent section in the Data section of the Climate 101 tutorials (5th choice on main table). If you drill down into “The Ocean” you will find some coverage there.
We don’t (yet) do the real-time updates – we are working on that right now..
Our Climate is now the Number 1 Weather App in Four iTunes App Stores:
1. India
1. Hong Kong
1. Brazil
1. Malaysia
Also number 2 in:
2. Canada
2. Turkey
2. Singapore
Number 3 in:
3. UK
3. Panama
3. Pakistan
And:
4. USA
If the Obama regime gets its way, not only won’t there be Android and Blackberry versions of the “Our Climate” app, the iPhone version will be banned because it discriminates against the blind.
Publish an Android app, please.
In a related note I don’t think it is possible to understate the level of polarisation around AGW is in Australia. It is arguably part of why the prime minister got replaced and definitely why the leader of the opposition was deposed.
It’s the sort of situation where you have alot of people who will financially demanding irrefutable evidence that there is a man made problem on one side and alot of people who are scared demanding irrefutable evidence that there isn’t a man made problem on the other.
To be honest it has more to do with the two speed economy and resources management than anything else but as no one wants to just come out and say that they focus on AGW..
Marketing Support Request:
If any of you have purchased the App on the US iTunes store, it would be great if you refresh your review and/or rating of the App on the App Store.
Since we pushed out the recent minor content update, some of your great comments have fallen into the “All Versions” bucket and are now not immediately visible to new prospective users.
It also appears we have annoyed the AGW crowd somewhat, as they have started to post some unreasonable (and in my view, unfair) negative comments.
Therefore, if you have something positive to say about the App, it would be great if you could do a quick review of the App directly on the iTunes App Store.
Every little bit of positive feedback helps persuade another doubter to get the App. Any help here you provide here would be great!
Another vote for Droid! Sorry, I do not do AT&T in the States.
Will there be apps for different platforms. I use Windows Mobile 6.5 What about BB, Android etc.
There is an app for believers of AGW!
Apps contest sees B.C. developers take on climate change with open data
http://www.straight.com/print/335987
Paul@Aeris
Another request: can you improve the screen resolution on docs that are enlarged using the 2x button? They are too fuzzy for these old eyes. Thanks
John droz, jr. says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:21 am
“I was fascinated by his site’s list of 119 reasons given by “skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each. ”
Did you actually look behind the ‘cursory dismissal’s? To see the reams of evidence and publications backing John’s work up? You are free to disagree, but don’t dismiss without checking your facts.
“When an answer (e.g. AGW) is proposed to a technical problem it is entirely up to the proponents to subject it to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
This has NOT been done — and is the number one deficiency of the AGW hypothesis.”
That’s just nonsense. But if you really believe that’s the #1 deficiency, then advantage Mr. Cook.
What is often amazing here is the overarching theme that seems to triumph as these posts and comments develop: all data is wrong if it suggests something other than what we already believe. Is that proper scientific method? Or is it better to look at evidence, put chains of logic together and emerge at a consistent explanation?
So maybe the #1 deficiency of anti-AGW is this: if there is any truth at all to rising temperatures, ice melt, drought, wildfires, habitat loss, sea level rise, etc … ie, the mounds of evidence compiled at Cook’s website … AND it is not anthropogenic, what’s causing it? And, as you stipulate, your answer had best follow scientific methodology.
The truth is that oil is running out. And this fairy-tale of global warming is to keep us in the illusion we live in because there is going to be alot of changes going around.