Citizen Science "Day" – Today through May 21

When I dutifully entered my “zero day” in the CoCoRaHS database today, their Message of the Day said:

The very first Citizen Science Day – Saturday, April 16th!

April 16, 2016 is the very first Citizen Science Day. We’re celebrating by telling you the what, who and why of Citizen Science so that you can join a project close to you and spread the word to all you know who wants to embrace science for humanity.

This celebration kicks off on April 16 and runs through May 21, 2016. Hundreds of events will be held throughout the country, and you can find them by clicking here: Citizen Science Events.

As you may already know, CoCoRaHS is a national Citizen Science Project (and one of the larger ones in the United States). We are so glad that you participate in it.

Enjoy the weekend and don’t forget to check out some of the other great Citizen Science projects out there!

I never heard of Citizen Science Day, so I checked out the first link. That went to a slick YouTube video that was the most content free video I’ve seen all day. (Okay, it was also the first I’ve seen today.) The text introducing the video was also content free, so I made this comment:

What: a “Day” that lasts 864 hours from 2016 Apr 16 through 2016 May 21.

Who: it doesn’t say any worth repeating.

Why: I don’t think it said anything, however, I know the why. Astronomy and ornithology appreciate citizen involvement. Climate science wishes we wouldn’t.

Where: A link to which lists nothing in NH, MA, CT, or RI. (I’ll bring the page to the attention of the Science Cafe folks in NH.) Other parts of the country are better represented, so take a look.

Maybe some people need slick videos to get interested in science. Citizen scientists don’t. If you included my text in the description, everyone could have skipped the video and would be looking up activities or entering new ones now.

Check out the database of events at . It’s US-only, except for one event in Germany, the 1st International ECSA Conference on Citizen Science.

And, check out CoCoRaHS, the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network. The data they collect is often reported in NWS reports and used in various research. It’s mainly “just” precipitation information, so Co-op stations provide more information, but their goal is to create a dense network of precip data to catch small events like thunderstorms and spring showers. We don’t need as dense a network of temperature data.

91 thoughts on “Citizen Science "Day" – Today through May 21

  1. I’ve been participating in CoCoRaHS network in Colorado for a few years on the western slope and was a storm spotter on the front range in the 80s. Us weather junkies need to apply our passion somewhere. Need to go out and check the gauge, we had rain and snow over night.

  2. I wanted to click on the You Tube video and it is just a screen shot. Do post it. Is it showing the snow so far in Colorado from today’s blizzard?

    • And hence the over-kill coverage of the “Royals” in media, esp here in Australia. I care not that some royal tart had to change from one GBP5,000 dress to another 4 times in a day! Must be a real chore for her!

      • oh but she wore a cheap…dress of onlyUk 50 pounds for the poor people visiting routine

    • Dodgy Geezer — How DO you British “subjects” STAND being called that? Just saying it to myself makes me shudder. “I will NEVER be anyone’s ‘subject'” is my fervently felt response. Guess it’s in my genes… my people left England in the 1600’s… and, yet, maybe, that is also why, glad as I am to be standing where I am, I look across the sea with an abiding fondness in my heart for you, too….
      Okay. I can see that I am talking way to much here, today — so — bye for now! 🙂

      • …How DO you British “subjects” STAND being called that?…
        It’s a feature of history. When you have as much history as we have, you’ll understand it. In the meantime, note that part of a monarch’s duty is to perform a similar role to that which the flag plays in the US psyche. Note also the way in which a king represents a country – documented, for instance, in The Golden Bough ….

      • Janice Moore just said she will never be anyone’s subject. I just made her the subject of the previous sentence and of this post. See how easy that happens Janice? Don’t get mad. I’m gone. I have to fertilize my pastures having finished raking. Have a great day. 😉

      • Dodgy Geezer
        Before you get lost in all that misty-eyed royal stuff, the American experience is more of the King George III variety.
        Fond remembrances of British monarchy are a recent development, primarily of having essentially gone bankrupt fighting WW1 & WW2. However, you do indeed have more history than the “colonies” – and you can keep most of it.

      • 😎
        History, culture and language.
        In the UK they’ve had “lords” and “subjects” under a lord for centuries.
        Here in the US our culture is to be be free from “lords” and subject to no one.
        (Of course we both have the same Lord and are trying to be more subject to him. I think that, perhaps, those raised in the UK may have an easier time understanding that concept since, in their culture, it is not “foreign” to them.)

      • Janice
        British dilution of the meaning of “subject” in that area started with Magna Carta and has progressed a long way. With the current arrangements I have a lot less fear of Elizabeth 2 than I would of a local president.
        To some of us it seems you folk are hell bent to install dynasties (Bush, Clinton, Obama et al) – presumably so you can reinvent Magna Carta?

      • Does any body really pay attention to the queen anyway? She seems to have the same social value in modern day england that an appendix has to the body. Here in the states the presidency is becoming much the same way, but for a different reason. The U.S. has become demographically shot and people vote according to how much wealth they possess. The president is elected by cultures that most of us don’t even see. Take for example the democratic primary. It’s the colored vote that is deciding who the nominee will eventually be. And in the fall, it will be the growing minority vote that will put another democrat in the whitehouse. Hopefully our lives have little to do with whoever the president is anyway. I’ve always assumed the same thing about the monarchy. Forget about the queen and that cardboard cut out of a woman will go away. I always say the same thing to fellow catholics about the pope. I mean, does anybody really pay attention to the pope?
        Here’s a fifties era joke that perhaps we might all pay a little heed to:
        roosevelt proved that a rich man can become president. truman proved that anyone can become president. and eisenhower proved that we don’t even need a president at all…

      • Oh, Arthur (Fonzarelli), lol, you WOULD tell a fifties joke, heh.
        Dear Dodgy and Ian and All British “Subjects,”
        I feel the need (given some of the comments above) to make it clear that I did not intend to communicate disapproval of your not minding being called a subject. I simply have a strong emotional (and also, to a lesser degree, intellectual) reaction when I hear that term (“subject”) so casually used and find it astounding that you do not mind it at all. It simply is. And that’s okay! One must, apparently, grow up with it. You, in your turn, likely wonder why I get tears in my eyes at the sound of “The Star Spangled Banner.” I love my country, so much. I just always have. It didn’t take much teaching in the home or at school. The seeds for the ideas of “liberty” and “freedom” and private property, etc…, were there from birth and needed only the slightest watering to spring into full flower.
        Yes, we have a fairly corrupted voting system in the U.S., now, where Democrats (mostly), when they do not actually get away with election fr@ud, fool voters in interest groups such as union members or minorities into thinking it is the Democrats who will “watch out for the little guy.” Public education is STILL the key: we liberty-loving people CAN win, if we would just take the time to reach out and educate. The Dems take the time to propagandize; we can counter that with the facts… but, rarely is that done. Thus, Republican sloth is the main problem.
        Re: Magna Carta — We have already “re-invented” that, (smile). It is called, “The Constitution of the United States of America.” “We the People, in order to form a more perfect union… .” Thank you for the inspiration! Thanks, indeed, largely to magna carta, our rights are secure no matter WHAT pompous donkey-in-search-of-a-legacy is occupying the Whitehouse. And we, and that includes the U. S. Armed Forces, will d1e to defend it.
        Yes, those constitutional rights have been trodden upon, e.g., the hideous take-over of the medical industry via the “Affordable Choices” act (Note: not one Republican voted for it). Nevertheless, those Constitutional rights are still there, waiting for a case… and a judicial decision… . The tide will turn. We are at a low ebb, now, with regard to 5th Amendment takings law, with Congressional ceding of ultra vires power to executive agencies such as the EPA, and with other constitutional provisions, but, there is a vigorous, determined, bunch of lawyers such as Jay Sukulow and Chris Horner fighting back. Those who support them will never give up. Certainly, it will take years, but the forces of liberty will win in the end (and be beaten back yet again, only to push back again — this has been going on since earliest days of the Republic). In the meantime, we are still, after 240 years, holding our own. America is!
        Good for you to feel such a deep loyalty for your monarch that you are comfortable being her “subjects.” It is a mystery that I simply accept.
        With love, your very distant but affectionate cousin,
        P.S. I recall reading something Mark Steyn wrote on the “subject” topic (as mentioned above), but IIRC, while his essay helped me to better understand, intellectually, the British point of view, he didn’t quite seem to completely understand or, at least, did not accurately describe, the American viewpoint.).

      • “Dodgy Geezer — How DO you British “subjects” STAND being called that? Just saying it to myself makes me shudder. “I will NEVER be anyone’s ‘subject’” is my fervently felt response. ”
        If you aren’t a subject you must be a predicate.

    • We haven’t been subjects for years – we are citizens of the European Union. Luckily, on 23 June we can start the process to change that by becoming an independent nation once more.

      • I’d much rather be a subject of Her Majesty than a citizen of a republic whose President thinks it’s his business to instruct us to remain EU serfs.
        Before you all wade in my grandchildren have dual nationality so I’m fond of you republicans too.

  3. I thought most citizens practiced science every day. When I toast bread, cook an omlette, make some tea…science is being practiced. No models allowed!

  4. I think everyone should try and replicate the Al Gore – Bill Nye science experiment then mail an abstract of their findings to the White House Communications Office.

    • lol —
      … or we could act as a “Team” and have one of us do the work with the rest of us making copies (with slight alterations to create plausible deniability, spilled soup or coffee in different places; using “which” instead of “that;” saying, “Hugs (ugh — no, no, not that) Regards” and “what a tragedy” instead of “Cheers” and “what a travesty” and the like) to which we sign our names and send THOSE in.

    • I think I’ll just replicate Al Gore. How much will you pay me not to release The Gorebot? Remember, I could make a Japanese movie, so think big.

  5. I nominate Barbara Boxer for Citizen Scientist of the Day. That’s Senator Scientist to you, Bub.

    • lol — good one, kim.
      (P.S. Thank you (sure hope you see this) for correcting my “Scooter Libby” (heh) to “Sandy Berger/Burglar.” — I never got a chance to acknowledge that — what a memory you have (no, no, my memory is NORMAL, lol)).

      • The FBI one morning
        Lost its notes suborning;
        Where is that toad?
        He’s wanted at a harrowing.
        Scooter Libby didn’t lie; Tim Russert did, with the connivance of the FBI.

        {BURMA SHAVE.}

      • Janice Moore, to get it right:
        You use your employers Hardware
        at working hours
        to comment here.
        What a lucky subject you are.

      • Janice, german justice has fined and disemployed turkey colleags for loading handhelds during work time at the companies.
        What World are you living in ?

      • Herr Wundersamer,
        I think you have me confused with someone else. I do not have a job. I am not a British “subject.” Therefore, I can neither “use {my} employer’s hardware,” nor “load{} a handheld during work time.”
        I am demonstrating that I am a bit silly to continue writing to you, but, that is hardly a crime, now?
        Auf Wiedersehen,

      • Janice Moore,
        is no hanging matter, ai’nt no capital crime.
        / Jagger / Richards /
        – sure it’s a catholic NSA RICO acts controlled UN green religious outfit.
        Cheers – Hans

  6. ******** For the Science Giants of WUWT *******
    As Mr. Werme observed above, for a true scientist, whether amateur (simply = not-for-money, may be highly competent, remember!) or professional, every day is a “science day.”
    The sun is just peeking over the hill as Bob Tisdale sits down at his computer and begins to pour over the data … Werner Brozek, miles away, is doing the same thing … an engineer walks out to his or her shop, flips on the light, walks over to the work bench, and pours a cup of coffee (from the maker which he or she timed to come on precisely 20 minutes before he or she walked in) and studies the project of the day… Ron House walks along a cliff-top path, stopping to scan the horizon with his binoculars, looking for swallows, a bit late, this year… Carsten Arnholm (in Norway) looks at his temperature gauge, then, logs it in a manual kept, now, for decades … and you…. and you, too…. sitting down at a PC or standing at a work bench or checking a weather gauge or just quietly thinking…. thinking….. wondering…. are out there, being the scientist that you are, that you were born to be….
    Oh, how I admire you all! A non-scientist (nope — I am not one and I’m not going to be one, not even for a month, lol) like I shakes her head and smiles at the gifts God has given each of you and which you use with such persevering diligence and such joie de vivre. It is wonderful. You are wonderful — every day, O Citizen Scientists of WUWT.
    And there is one among us whom we can all agree is pretty special…
    June 6, 2007

    You may remember a couple of weeks ago I got sideswiped by {someone who doesn’t deserve the publicity}, who in a letter to the editor called me a “weapon of mass destruction” because I’m actively involved in climate change issues locally. While funny, it did give me the impetus (aka kick in the pants) I needed to get very busy and serious about a project I had been contemplating for some time:
    A national repository of weather station site surveys.
    ZZZZ Snore, ho hum, you say? I’d normally agree, as the subject matter is the stuff of sleep inducers. But, there’s a hitch. It seems that the folks at the top of the food chain in climate research didn’t do their homework at the base level, and didn’t bother to do a quality control check on the many weather stations used in the climate records and the computer models used to predict our climate future. …
    So Monday, I go live with the website …
    BTW you can sign up to help, it’s free, easy, and fun too. Find the stations can be a bit of a puzzle, like GPS caching.
    I’ve been invited to submit a research paper, and I’m having a lot of fun too. Now I know why I lost the school board election, it was to give me time to do this. Everything happens for a reason.

    Anthony Watts
    ( )
    And here’s to you, all the dozens of WUWTers who volunteered to be “citizen scientists” that year — WAY TO GO! The truth came out! Thanks to you.
    And truth will, in the end — win.

      • Hooray for YOU, kim! 🙂
        (btw: what is a Panatomic X (size 120) and what do you do with it? — something brainy, given your mind, no doubt, but, what exactly I-have-no-idea, lol)

      • Clearly you aren’t old enough or not photographer enough. Pan-X was a fine grain black & while film from Kodak. It was used (oh dear, I need to check Google) in medium format cameras like the Hassleblad, and a close relative with a smaller spool size was used in the Kodak Brownie camera. Good stuff….

      • Thanks, Ric Werme. 🙂 — Well, I’m not all that young, lol. I’m old enough to have been mighty frustrated with the “new” digital camera’s slow action-stopping ability — MUCH prefer (until I can afford a top-of-the-line digital, I guess) my good ol’ mechanical 35mm SLR. Photography has given me some of the happiest creativity (I am not into developing or mechanics — just love to frame and create drama and beauty and “information”) of my life. Someday, I’ll take it up again…. along with several other things that have had to fall by the wayside, for now. I guess, now, the digital cameras are much better at quicker shutter speed (or whatever their “action stopping” mechanism is).
        Happy shooting, kim. (and you, too, Ric Werme — you sound like you must do it often)

      • Pan-X, size 120, no less. A Blast From The Past.
        A truly great film, with an astonishing ability to faithfully capture the finest details, and with an excellent linear working range.
        Thanks, Ric. The reference to Panatomic sailed right past me too.
        A quality camera, well considered in it’s use, has got to be one of the greatest all-around scientific instruments ever devised.
        Hi Janice.

      • Hi, Tony. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn’t the only one who did not know about the Px thing. At least you knew about the 120 thing, heh.

      • I’m old enough to have known better, but I just thought it was a reference to some clothing brand and size. Oops!

      • Noaa Programmer, LOL (BIG LOL). You are pretty cool to admit it — so, your mistake ended up being a good thing. Up one notch on the “cool” scale for you, np 🙂 … What?! You couldn’t go any higher? Oh, but (wink), np, OUR scale goes to…. ELEVEN! (or 120… or whatever… lolololo)
        Don’t worry, kim, you may be pleasingly plump, but np has no idea of what you look like, I feel quite certain. LOL, Ho, ho, ho, here comes BIG FAT KIM, a SIZE ONE-TWENTY! World’s record! Congratulations, kim! 🙂

      • “Janice Moore April 16, 2016 at 9:40 am”
        You should be able to pick up a Nikon D700 for very little these days. Very good digital SLR, and can use almost every Nikon lens made since the 1950’s.

  7. I tried to upload my project on the Scistarter website but it wouldn’t recognise the link I gave to the project website as being valid. So I’m posting it here in the hope that some of your readers will be interested in helping.
    I have been trying to persuade the European Space Agency that comet 67P/ Churyumov-Gerasimenko is not a contact binary, as they state, but a single body that sheared and stretched into two lobes. 67P is the comet that the Rosetta mission orbiter was sent to study. Stretch would have occurred via centrifugal force due to spin-up. Spin-up would be via the torque from asymmetrical outgassing.
    I have documented the visible evidence for shear and stretch in a 43-part (so far) blog, along with annotated photos of the comet showing the evidence for stretch. That evidence is in the form of mirrored matches between the head lobe and the body lobe (Parts 17, 30, 21, 4 and 1 are the best examples, in that order). Recent parts involve large areas of crust sliding across the comet, leaving translational matches from the slid crust sections to the tear that betrays their original seating point.
    The citizen science aspect of this project would be for people to read the blog and, if they can see the matches between head lobe and body lobe, to go to the Rosetta blog (link below) and leave a comment saying that they agree with ‘stretch theory’ for 67P as it is unofficially called. And perhaps cite the specific evidence/matches they have seen.
    Stretch theory is well-known on the Rosetta blog. Two of the Rosetta scientists have replied to comments regarding stretch with a neutral but healthily sceptical view. One has done a Rosetta blog post repudiating the theory.
    For those that do see the matches and come to the inevitable conclusion that 67P stretched, a comment at the Rosetta blog could help in keeping the scientists engaged enough to keep stretch theory in mind. At the moment a lot of time, effort and money is being spent on trying to understand how the comet could have such a rough terrain that doesn’t correspond well with current cometary theory. Rosetta scientists are talking about rewriting the formation history of the solar system. And yet stretch theory explains almost every large-scale structure on the comet.
    The latest stretch theory blog post concerning a 700-metre crust slide:
    The Rosetta blog:
    Marco Parigi was the originator of stretch theory for comets in general, long before Rosetta arrived at 67P. My blog concerns 67P only. Marco has done a blog on stretch too and works closely with me. I won’t link his blog here due to link overload. If this comment gets through I’ll link it in a reply.

    • Scute! WOW! In the hopes that some of the scientists who are scanning this thread will take you up on that intriguing offer, I’m posting this as a bit of PR:

      The citizen science aspect of this project would be for people to read the blog and, if they can see the matches between head lobe and body lobe, to go to the Rosetta blog (link below) and leave a comment saying that they agree with ‘stretch theory’ for 67P as it is unofficially called. And perhaps cite the specific evidence/matches they have seen.


      • Janice
        Thanks for that. I’m getting a bit of traffic from WUWT already. I’ve also linked Marco Parigi’s blog in a reply comment as I said I would.
        I would add that you don’t need any scientific background to see the matches. In fact, it seems that people with an artistic background see them more easily because they’re highly adept at manipulating shapes in their mind’s eye. Either that, or you have to be very slow and methodical in following my verbal descriptions while constantly referring to the annotated photos. And then ‘flying solo’ by confirming what you see, unaided, on the unannotated version.
        That said, very few people have actually nailed their colours to the mast and clearly stated they can see the matches for sure or always thought 67P had stretched anyway. About half a dozen apart from me and Marco. Another three or four are interested but not yet swayed. So anyone from here who does see the matches will be joining a very small club and (in my view at least) helping to direct the science away from the contact binary consensus to the correct theory which is that the comet stretched.

      • Cool! (that you are getting some views via WUWT)
        Well, Scute, I’m moving on to dinner, for now, but, after staring and staring at the photos in you Part 43, what came to mind was a mud slide sliding from (using o’clocks) 12 o’clock down toward 6 o’clock with a secondary, less powerful slide heading into the first “mud slide” from about 2 o’clock toward 7 o’clock.
        Reminded me of this (I watched a lot of this, living in Washington State at the time, May 18, 1980):
        (sorry for the poor quality photo — I did not take the time to find better, just wanted you to get the idea that, yes, indeed, it sure LOOKS like a liquid was involved!)
        I’ll read some more later. And maybe come up with a reasonably articulate post on your behalf at the rosetta blog. Thanks for the encouragement to a non-scientist to try!

      • Oh, brother — I’m trying to use Chrome for a browser and it posted my comment before I filled in my NAME! (so it went to spam as a mis-match e mail address-name piece of junk — grr)
        Okay. Here’s what I think I just wrote.
        Cool! (that you are getting WUWT directed traffic) Happy for you, Scute 🙂
        I stared and stared at the photos in your Part 43, Scute, and it sure does look like a mud slide to me. Two, actually: 1 mudslide from 12 o’clock down to 6 o’clock, the second (less powerful) coming in from about 2 o’clock heading for about 7 o’clock. If I can figure out how to say it, I’ll post something on Rosetta blog about it appearing to involve liquids (sure looks like it to me!) — the NOT-conventional theory, but, it sure looks like that to me.
        It reminded me of this (sorry for bad photo — I’m hungry and going to eat some dinner, now!) — I watched a LOT of video on local TV news (KOMO and KING and KIRO out of Seattle). May 18, 1980 — Mt. St. Helens woke me up (about 1 hour due north of Seattle — about 300 miles away). After the second “bang,” I was about to go yell at my brother to stop shooting baskets (the hoop was mounted on the house)… but, he wasn’t outside…..
        Thank you for encouraging a non-scientist to try!

      • Hi, Scute — I just went to the Rosetta blog for which you provided a link in your comment and I was stumped as to how to leave a comment about 67P (and how what appears on the photos appears to me to be a liquid flow event). Please tell me exactly what to click on (#1… then #2… etc…) to leave a comment where it will be helpful, there.
        Best wishes in your super-science endeavors,
        P.S. Why can’t you use your real name?

      • Janice
        Thanks for your feedback. Marco and I indeed think there’s a lot of mud involved or what I call slurry in the blog. And I think some did flow around a bit especially glooping over the edge back into the depression but freezing before it could do so. The main thing in Part 43 is that the rocky perimeter along the left hand red line slid all the way across the flat area (which was possibly slurry and helped the slide). It slid from the right hand line which was its original position. Low gravity and vacuum pressure on 67P make things behave very differently indeed but it can still result in some Earth-like phenomena like scree slopes and geysers. And if there were mud slides they would ‘freeze’ very soon after the stratum layer had slid across to reveal the slurry and expose it to the vacuum. What we see is the ‘silt’ left behind after the liquids in the slurry evaporated furiously (like water boiling more easily on Everest but way more aggressively). So it freezes in the sense of losing all its liquids rather than those liquids actually freezing within the slurry. However, depending on temperatures and depth of slurry, some liquids could remain and freeze at lower depths. The ‘mud’ could only flow as long as the liquids were still trapped in it and not evaporating or freezing. We think it’s probably H2O of course, but liquid hydrocarbons could be at play.
        You are welcome to leave comments on my blog (as well as the Rosetta blog) if you have any detailed suggestions or questions. I’m not sure if Ric or Anthony would want a long conversation about stretch on this WUWT thread but I’m sure they’ll say so if that’s the case and then we can move over to mine. But I’m equally happy for comments to stay here and not be on my blog.
        I should say that mention of liquids on comets goes against all cometary models. However, stretch also goes against these same models because comets are deemed to be too brittle to stretch. The trouble is, the actual observations of the comet show that it stretched.

      • Janice
        I’m Andrew Cooper. The WordPress system defaulted to my WordPress commenter name when I set up the blog so I just used that. I expected it to be a quick job and be done and dusted in three or four posts.
        My Rosetta commenter name is A. Cooper. You can reply to one of my comments saying you’ve seen the stretch blog and what you think about it. By replying to me you should automatically be ‘on topic’. For example, in the recent Rosetta blog post linked below the 12th comment is mine and it basically talks about the slide in Part 43 in relation to something else.
        I’d keep it fairly succinct to start with because the moderation is quite strict. Also, if you mention slurry etc. you may get the regular scientist commenters taking you to task. Then again, you don’t have to answer them back and you can reiterate that it really does look like slurry.
        Alternatively, if you find the Rosetta blog interesting, you could read several recent posts and get familiar with what they’re talking about and also the regular commenters. You’ll also see other comments of mine (and Marco’s) that you could reply to, even if it was just that you agree with stretch theory. Mind you, I don’t want to put words in your mouth- it’s early days and you’d have to see the matches to give your support for stretch. There’s no hurry so you can take your time. After all, I’ve been trying to persuade the Rosetta scientists since August 2014 in the Rosetta blog comments and December 2014 in the stretch blog, which I link on the Rosetta blog. They have officially acknowledged stretch theory’s existence since 12th October 2015. That was the date of the Rosetta blog post that repudiated it.
        Thanks very much for your help!

      • Dear Andrew,
        What a generous man you are. I will do some reading… . Thank you for responding to my low-level inquiries. You are a good teacher. That you have persevered so long is admirable, indeed. I want very much to support you, but, if I feel that my comment would do more harm than good, I’ll refrain. Please know that it would not be because I have ignored you.
        Take care, Scientist!

      • Janice
        Thanks for your support. Part 44 is out in a few days- another crust slide. Everyone is welcome to have a look and tell me if they can see the matches.

  8. They got me with “science for humanity”. What the heck is that? Is “science for humanity” better than any other sort? Anything promoted “for humanity” is a greenie-thing. A bit like “for the children”. Someone’s manipulating for something and tugging on the guilt lever. Not interested.

  9. I thought science was about precision and eliminating ambiguity. These guys can’t even follow the definition of the word ‘day,’ one of the most used, most understood words in all the English languages.

  10. Re Janice Moore’s comment on the subject of ‘Subjects’. Madam, it is a delight to read such a civilized letter.

    • Why, Fred of Greenslopes, how kind of you to say so. It is a delight for me to know someone took the time to read it (and was pleased, to boot!). The respect and thoughtfulness you showed me here (“Madam,” — how lovely) made my morning!
      And, thank you, asybot, too, for the generous “thumbs up” back up there 🙂

  11. Hello from Australia. Bad news. Never heard of ‘CSD’. Absolutely no traction with public or media.
    Total waste of time and effort it would seem.

  12. Here’s a bit of citizen science. Of the first 70 posts, 21 are from “Janice”, and about 45 are off-topic jibber-jabber. It seems to me like some of you are actively trying to wreck _Antony’s blog_. This is not “Janice and her pals” blog. You should treat your host with more respect.
    [Thank you for your concern, but as this was my post I decided to let things slide. The subject of the post is not very important, I did little research to add value to it, and pretty much none of the other commenters seem very attached to it.
    In some of my other posts, I have come down rather hard on people come up with some OT comment or notice as one of the first comments.
    While I agree that there is more jibber-jabber than I’d like to see at WUWT, especially since Climategate when readership surged, some amount of it is good for developing a sense of community, and that’s one of the reasons WUWT is so successful.

    • At the risk of confirming your accusation, Sleepalot, I write here to say, “I hear you.” No, I was not trying to sabotage WUWT. I was just having a great time. I was wrong to write so much. It was just that several different topics ended up requiring (as I saw it) a response. I have no one to “talk” to (but the dogs, lol) these days, and I was having a great time and forgot myself.
      I will try to do better.
      You may not have noticed, but, I am commenting on very few threads these days, overall (compared to what I used to do).
      Thanks for the reminder.

      • Just ignore the grump Janice, he obviously needs a nap ! Personally, I enjoyed ALL the various conversations ! Science is a very big world !

      • I noticed you missing on quite a few threads recently, Janice, and wondered how you were (glad to know you’re okay). You probably don’t need me to say it, but I think you can ignore sleepalot who either wants to start a bun-fight or throw the thread off topic. As far as I know posting a comment for the sole purpose of hitting out at another commenter is a no-no so I believe he/she is off-base.
        As for science day – I’m still trying to work out what kind of science is NOT for humanity. Why do they want citizens to do “science for humanity”? Why not just science?

      • Thank you, Marcus. Thank you, A.D. (I DID need you…).
        Much appreciated.
        Indeed, A.D. — it has the ring of desperate pleading, “Do it for humanity!” A bit of an insult to true scientists — as if they need to be guilt-tripped into doing something. Or something like that. Well, you and I may not be able to articulate exactly what it is that bugs us about that phrase, but it definitely did not ring true.

    • (I’m not a “concern troll”.) I consider this to be one of the most important sites in the war against false alarmism. There’s a chance that “people who matter” on both sides of the issue may come here; “weighty” scientists, politicians, journalists, etc. If they see reams of jibber-jabber they can disregard the site and
      disregard the skeptic group. First impressions matter. This is a propaganda war.

Comments are closed.