Comments on: Weblog Awards duped by deniers — again!

By: slelplype

slelplype — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:01:45 +0000

hm. funny )

By: G Alston

G Alston — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:22:27 +0000

The conventional wisdom has it that the political left practically owns the internet and was a major reason why the right lost the last election cycle. And then I visit here once and discover that voting for science blogs is the result of a vast right wing conspiracy. Seems to me that one side or another must be in error; they can’t both be right in this case.

Given that about half of the Watts posters are not conservatives, this suggests that voting for science blogs may not be the result of a right wing conspiracy after all.

Joe Romm, you have officially jumped the shark. Sputter and froth in 5… 4… 3… 2…

By: Darren C.

Darren C. — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:28:01 +0000

I am splitting my votes between Pharyngula and CA.

Pharyngula is always good for a read – I love PZ’s style. I guess you could question its scientific merit – it seems to be more of an atheist blog these days – but that’s fine with me. We need more people like PZ.

CA, OTOH, is by far the most scientific of the blogs listed. I don’t care what your definition of “scientist” is – to me it is someone who applies the scientific method and CA certainly does that.

I am amused to see Bad Astronomy listed. Phil should just cut to the chase and rename it buymybook.com. It has really gone down hill the last couple of years as far as any scientific content goes.

By: Stu

Stu — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:48:21 +0000

“if you read ‘WattsUpWithThat’ and think that a blog run by a radio weather presenter is worth paying attention to, then you need to sit back and just accept what every real, credible climate scientist on the planet is telling you.”

…

Just like people need to sit back and accept what the USHCN figures are telling them? Anthony (and other volunteers) has thankfully actually pulled together enough scientific curiosity to personally go out and do some proper quality control on these stations. Nobody else seems to be interested, which is sad, because even Jim Hansen seems to admit that the network isn’t upto scratch.

“The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating.”

See http://surfacestations.org/

We are forming our assumptions on climate with bad data. Bad data equals bad science.

So maybe Anthony is worth paying attention to after all.

Voted WUWT.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:07:58 +0000

Jeff — If you are going to be wrong, I suppose it is best to be cryptic, too.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:06:57 +0000

You Joe, you.

By: hapa

hapa — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:06:20 +0000

On the grander scale, this manner of taking the public for fools is precisely why the AGW dog and pony show is in its waning moments.

because let’s face it, climate scientists are actually gay black hick muslim jewish wetback welfare mothers from kulturpoveristan, in disguise, trying to subvert our society by showing us our plans aren’t good enough or fair enough or honest.

“you can’t fool me. i can only be fooled by the following people: …”

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:02:41 +0000

Jeff — Who the heck are you talking too?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:55:46 +0000

Speaking as a Popperian, it seems to me that you don’t really understand how this “science” thing works, do you?

By: MartinGAtkins

MartinGAtkins — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:10:30 +0000

>“What papers were independently peer-reviewed and by who?”

“For the IPCC, start here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Citations to studies published in peer-reviewed journals can be found at the end of each chapter of each report. Example:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ pdf/ assessment-report/ ar4/ wg1/ ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf”

I didn’t ask what peer-reviewed journals they were citing, I asked who were the peer reviewers.