I didn’t even know this was going on, but apparently this humble blog (HA!) is in the running for Best Science Blog at the 2007 Weblog Awards!
So if you have a mind to, show me some love. You can vote once every 24 hours. As I write this, I have about 10% of the vote. PZ has 38%. Sigh. I have no plans on egging on a fight this year, so stand relieved, BABloggees.
I’ll post an update next week. Voting ends November 8.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
11% (until another 24 hrs pass)
J/P=?
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
MY vote is in, BA! Until the Sun goes off the main sequence, and/or Young-Earth Creationists finally get a clue, you will be THE Man!
Do I have a man-crush? Possibly…that WAS a really cool pic of you in the SkepDude Calendar.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 am
Love given.
14.6% versus 38.0%
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
I gave you some love, too. You’re up to 15.3%, now.
I’ll probably be sorry for saying this, but I hope PZ doesn’t win. He’s really irritating, sometimes.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I’m surprised there’s no mention of the other leading blog there, ClimateAudit. I’m almost tempted to vote for PZ instead of BA just so that ClimateAudit becomes less likely to win.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I couldn’t resist, too!
18% and rising. Go, get’em all!
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
You are awesome we are showing you love in San Francisco !! Go Phil i hope you win.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Humble my arse! I voted for Climate Audit. Go Steve!!! And I’m shocked to find Real Climate and Open Mind not nominated. Gee, I wonder why?
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Inconceivable! Was Google down?
How did you miss this!?
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Done and Done, Hey Neil Gaiman’s journal is in there two, check ! good stuff.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Oh, come on! Go after PZ! Grow a spine!
(up to 22.6%!)
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
22.8%!
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Voted for you, BA! Finally, I got to give something back in return for this cool website!
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Be careful here…. Among the Science Blogs is “Junk Science” currently with 4.6% of the vote. Have a look at Fox columnist and Phillip Morris paid advocate Steve Milloy’s website and then see what a few other people say. Hell, just read his own words. He hardly belongs among the list of actual blog about science or by scientists (what, no Cosmic Variance??).
sigh…
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Best science blog… probably not. Best science advocacy blog… different matter entirely. Sorry, Doctor.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
23.7% now, thanks to me.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
How about thanking me for alerting you? I may be a skeptic but you and your fans should have a shot at glory. And did you post on this comet? That was amazing…
http://www.spaceweather.com/comets/gallery_holmes_page3.htm
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
oops hit the wrong button voted for something starting with ph, jist joking you are at 24 % now.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Bad Astronomy
ClimateAudit
Junkscience
Starstryder
These are my absolute MUST read every single day!
Science becomes fiction without proper auditing. This keeps everyone honest with their data and analysis.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Even though the last blog awards got me hooked on PZ’s blog, you still get my vote!
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Michael Pierce:
Junk Science will pay you $125,000 if you can prove that he is wrong!
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
So go get your cash!
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
The going rate for my vote is $5000.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Congratulations! There are some outstanding blogs in that category. I found you from Pharyngula and certainly like what you’re doing here so I’ll be back.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
You’re up to 26% now!
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
What? No entertainment fight this year? I thought they were the spineless ones!
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
It was embarrasing last year going after PZ’s award and got bitchy with some woman trying to add mutlitple votes. Better to be dignified and accept if win or not.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Pharyngula: 34.9%
Bad Astronomy: 29.3%
You’re getting up there, Phil!
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Well, I just cheated for ya…
I have 20 computers here in the lab, so you got at least 20 more votes from me.
I’m not going to be in lab tomorrow, but I’ll be cheating again on Sunday.
…and no I don’t live in Chicago!
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
This would definitely be the best science site if the BA would spend less time on politics and religion!
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
You’ve got my love, Phil. The gap is closing.
But the resident invertebrate still leads, though not by much.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
We are back on track O_O!!!! =D
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Vote placed!
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
My vote is in, BA!
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
To win, you must gain the cephalopod vote. To help you out, I give you this to add to the cute factor:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/dcowan38/board_posts/bobtail2.jpg
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I voted first and checked out the competition after; and I went to the climate audit site. I would need to be a meteor/climatologist to understand what the hell he was talking about. I couldn’t make hide nor tail of it. At least between this site and PZ’s site I have something I can whiff. I’m pulling for ya this time, BA. Not cause of a man-crush or anything, but for making me aware of the 17p/Holmes comet. Myers never wrote nothin’ about it.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
The vote is now 735 (Pharyngula), 667 (BA), it looks like it is going to be close.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Pharyngula 33.7%, BA now 30.7%.
Oh, and Sci_Tchr – science is not something that takes place no matter what else is going on in the world. As politicians try to chip away at funding, and fundies (in particular) try to cast doubt on findings, if scientists and those interested in science don’t bother fighting for it, eventually there’ll be nothing left to fight for.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I appreciate the effort PZ puts into fighting Creationism, but other than that he’s completely obnoxious. I’m putting in a vote for BA.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Hey all–Don’t forget to check out the Celeb blog nominations.
Some guy named Wil Wheaton is nominated. Maybe we should toss a few votes his way too.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:05 am
Okay Phill, can we make a deal here? If you add my site to your little link thingy – which it should be under anyway, because it is definitely an anti-antiscience site, then I’ll make a blog post asking my readers to please vote for your blog (since mine isn’t in the running anyway).
And yes, I do get enough traffic that it could most definitely make a significant difference. See, you show me some love and I’ll return the favor. Fair?
I mean come on, the only time you even mentioned me was when I made a video about you… and then you go and make posts about Alison Rebecca and such. Both of whom I know personally. You know how hard it is seduce…. I mean… um… ask to a respectful and friendly luncheon…. a woman when she’s been all over Bad Astronomy and I haven’t?
Being on Bad Astronomy is like “The Bigtime” I mean… it’s tough trying to look all big and successful to a woman who’s achieved that level of fame and fortune, ya know?
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:05 am
I are voting cat
I are voted for you!
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
Still creepin’ up…! You’ve regained your rightful place near the top.
33.2 to 31.3
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day
(Skeptic’s Annotated Bible)
SCIENCE!!?!
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:01 am
Well smzarba, that about describes the big bang model as well doesn’t it?
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 am
Well, smzarba, that about describes the big bang model as well doesn’t it?
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:39 am
Last year, definitely. This year, no. This has become more of a political blog rather than about astronomy and science.
Continue posting about current astronomical events, though. I did enjoy your “on-the-scene” video and narrative as you were observing Comet Holmes last week. It inspired me to dust off my 130mm reflector and take a look. Awesome!
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
You’re down by .5% as of 8:47am EST.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:05 am
32.2%
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 am
Hey, get ready for blog wars, BA is and PZ running neck-and-neck again. By the way why doesn’t a site like realclimate.org, which has a tremendous following get nominated?
Steve Huntwork With regard to that challenge:
“UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.”
This is unprovable. I need to go from A-B. I state the best way to do this is to go at 100 m.ph on a road on which this is clearly dangerous. So we put it to the test. There is no way you can disprove I am right till I actually crash. A similar problem lies with the above test. By the time you can claim this prize the world will be very different. Also I very much doubt the world will be disasterously worse by 2100. But two things to think about. There is no absolute saturation (in other words there is no high end-point to man-made global warming, (unless we eliminate ourselves). The effects will go on long after we change our habits. In other words 2100 may be fine, what about 2500?
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
As of 10:03 AM EST, it’s a tie!
Keep those votes coming, people!
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:14 am
I voted for Phil and tipped it one over PZ’s site.
Will try to remember to vote from home as well.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 am
As of 10:31 EST we’re ahead by 0.2%! YAY!
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:49 am
946 to 937 in favor of BABlog! woot!
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
Yay! now you’re in the lead!
Just don’t let it drop folks!
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
I always knew you were devious, Phil, but reverse psychology? Isn’t that an old trick?
Well, your readers fell for it.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
Like they say in Chicago – vote early and often!!
And if you know any dead people, get them to vote too!
As I type this, Phil has 1000 votes to PZ’s 989.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 am
You do realize you’re winning, right?
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
well voted my second time hopefully the followers of th squid won’t cheat this time, up to 31.3 %.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Steve Huntwork wrote:
>>Junk Science will pay you $125,000 if you can prove that he is wrong!
>>http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
>>So go get your cash!
Steve Millow is trying to appear as if he is emulating James Randi. However, he isn’t even close. Look at rules 2 & 3
“#2 Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
#3 JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.”
I wrote to Steve Milloy asking him to clarify those rules. Who is JunkScience.com? Are these determinations made by solely by Steve Milloy (who is not a scientist)? Not surprisingly, I never received a reply.
Unlike the JREF challenge, this one is 100% hot air.
J. D.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Junkscience.com is an industry propaganda rag.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
well voted my second time hopefully the followers of th squid won’t cheat this time, up to 31.3 %.
Followers of the squid? You’re lucky we’re good footsoldiers and each use 8-computers like our Octopus Overlords to keep you space-cadets in the lead.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
12:28MST:
P 1078 29.9%
BA 1116 30.9%
(and it says I have less than 24 hours since my last? It was before I went to work, 11:30 yesterday???)
J/P=?
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Is it just me, or is the fact that all climate related nominees are antiscience disturbing?
I’d vote for cosmic variance if it was there, but barring that I’m all yours, Phil.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[...] Phil! BA is in the running for ‘best science blog’ at the 07 awards. Voting ends November 8th. You can vote once every 24 [...]
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Lab Lemming: precisely why do you consider, as a statement of fact not just mere opinion, ClimateAudit to be anti-science?
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Up to 30.9%! In the lead! Woo-hoo!
(sorry for the exuberance. I’ll go lie down now….)
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Mike M: I got a few notes about it from various folks; plus I was away from home and didn’t have great internet access, so I kept the entry short. Still: thanks for letting me know!
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
PZ seems to be trying to use reverse psychology himself – he’s telling the folks to vote for another blog!
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
PZ is so lame, I think he wants to win real bad.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:32 am
30% Still hanging on, Phil. Good luck to Nov 8!
November 4th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Okay, I voted for you… and you’re winning!
Sadly, Texas is still doomed.
November 4th, 2007 at 6:23 am
How sad is this, seriously?
Neither Bad Astronomy or Pharyngula qualify as science blogs. Both are blogs about science, not strictly science blogs. The difference is that on blogs like Climate Audit science is actually produced and debated, while on BA or Pgula the approach is observational. And that is not all. On both blogs politics, personal stuff form majority of the content.
For an example: The evolution vs. creationism “debate” is not a science debate, because creationism is not science. It is a psychological and political debate.
On the other hand, the climate debate is very real, open, complex and unsolved on many questions.
Both BA and Pgula seem to be of so bad and little real quality when it comes to actual science, that they are no better than junkscience.
All three are irrelevant and add nothing to our scientific understanding.
Who wins the vote? Who cares? What does it matter?
“I vote 20 times from my lab every day” Wee, really? How interesting, how significant.
November 4th, 2007 at 6:54 am
BA, I voted for you again.
@How sad is this vote:
Why are you here if you are just going to complain and whine like a five year old? Take a hike.
November 4th, 2007 at 7:35 am
BA takes the lead!
And for “How sad is this vote” – Dude, get a life.
November 4th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Hey How sad it is to vote… Don’t you see that we’re just doing that for FUN? You know, FUN, the thing you obviously lack sometimes?
And I think the creationism vs evolution debate’s plenty science AND political. Because they are trying to pass off ID as a science and destroy the science classes, you have to destroy their arguments with science, see?
Don’t be a sourpuss you know?
November 4th, 2007 at 8:34 am
@William:
I’ll tell you what, William. You convince the politicians to stop politicizing science and I’ll convince Phil to stop talking about politics on his science blog. Deal?
November 4th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Alright, I am pretty sure that this has been covered many times over by now, however, this is Phil’s blog first and foremost. He can post whatever the hell he damn well pleases to post on here. So, saying that you will convince him to not post political subjects on his own blog is quite astounding. I mean, if you read the posts here, you would understand that.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:08 am
@The DoLittle
If you really want to cheat, burn 20 copies of Knoppix (live cd of linux), boot knoppix on your 20 lab computers, vote, restart every computer in knoppix again (ram is erase), vote, restart, vote, restart, vote….
So you will get during your work time :
8hours per day/(1min for reboot and reach site)* 20 computers = 9 600 votes
And it will be a clear win,
Although, I prefer being fair and vote once every 24 hours.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
How sad is this vote?on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:23 am
“How sad is this, seriously?”
All is fair in love and war.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
(smoke filled room)…tick tick tick (teletype) tick tick tick (with cigar in corner of mouth, slides back 1940s hat,)… well let’s see…ahh good…as of today, (11/04/2007) BA is still in the lead! Swell.
November 4th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
How sad is this vote?on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:23 am
“On the other hand, the climate debate is very real, open, complex and unsolved on many questions.”
Actually, I learned the answer in my ninth grade general science class. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and burning fossil fuels increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One would expect this to result in global warming. If it didn’t, we would be faced with a major conundrum. The debate does not seem “real” to me – it seems staged, staged to influence the scientifically challenged and provide support for those with a prefabricated position.
November 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“Although, I prefer being fair and vote once every 24 hours.”
No, no, no.
It’s only one kid, only one vote.
Ever.
November 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
It’s a good thing we have people like you Brian who already know it all and don’t need to be taught anything. Let’s just tell all the scientists to go home. We allready know everything with perfect accuracy.
November 4th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
some blokeon 04 Nov 2007 at 3:18 pm
“It’s a good thing we have people like you Brian who already know it all and don’t need to be taught anything. Let’s just tell all the scientists to go home. We allready know everything with perfect accuracy.”
I am very interested in science. For instance, I check physorg.com every day and typically read a couple of articles, mostly about astrophysics and particle physics. Physorg.com prints synopses of many of the scientific articles currently being published in scientific journals. In going through the titles to find the ones I want to read, I usually see one or two (each day) about global warming. Almost all of them are either confirm or presuppose that global warming is occurring.
Try this: check physorg.com for a week (most articles come out Monday through Friday) and just count the number that indicate that anthropogenic global warming is happenig as opposed to the number that indicate that it is not. My guess is that you will not find one single article that indicates the latter. I would be interested in your telling us your tally, if you want, next weekend.
November 4th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Brian, I said nothing about global warming. I have no opinion to express on the subject in this forum. Anything I could express on the subject would be trivial.
November 4th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I saw you speak on Friday at UNL, hope you win!
November 4th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
some blokeon 04 Nov 2007 at 5:16 pm
“Brian, I said nothing about global warming. I have no opinion to express on the subject in this forum. Anything I could express on the subject would be trivial.”
If I have offended you or caused you distress, then I apologize. As a human being with feelings, you are more important that the sum total of all my ideas. I sincerely mean that.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
No need to apologise Brian, I am neither offended nor distressed. I was merely bemused by your attempt to trivialise a complex issue to the level of 9th grade science.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
some blokeon 04 Nov 2007 at 10:20 pm
No need to apologise Brian, I am neither offended nor distressed. I was merely bemused by your attempt to trivialise a complex issue to the level of 9th grade science.
If the scientific community seemed to be telling me that anthropogenic global warming was not happening, I would believe them. I have no stake in this issue. I know that there are many people who know more about climate science than I do and who study it in a sincere and unbiased way. I have no political preferences. We are all human beings and I wish everyone well.
I truly believe that we are best served by understanding the truth of the situation. I don’t actually have any more than a passing scientific interest in climatology. I like math and physics, particularly astrophysics and particle physics. In pursuit of these interests, I read a lot of scientific articles and magazines and frequent web sites such as physorg.com, physicsweb.org, bautforum.com, and several others. I see the titles and sometimes read synopses of articles about climate not because I seek them out, but just because they are interspersed among the articles that I am mostly interested in. These are not the sort of advocacy articles that you find in many political and social magazines, they are articles by scientists reporting their latest findings. Most of them only address a particular piece of the puzzle, whatever small piece the group (its usually a group) was working on. The articles virtually all seem to me to point the same way, towards anthropogenic global warming. If they didn’t all point the same way, I would tell you that they didn’t. There does not seem to me to be a debate within the scientific community about global warming. All the “debate” seems to be among politically inclined nonscientists.
I invite you to try these same sources. Just go to physorg.com, for instance. You can look at this weeks articles or check their archives. You will be hard-pressed to find any articles that indicate that there is no anthropogenic global warming. Go ahead – try it.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:28 am
You’re still winning, BA!
November 5th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Really? In the 9th Grade? Are you what, in the 11th by now?
By the 9th Grade, I’d already been bubbling air through sodium hydroxide and discovered that there was very little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it was a signal for life. I’d also learnt that the Sun had cycles and that during a horrible cold period called the Maunder Minimum the Sun had no spots at all. I’d even read by that time about Herschel’s observation of the solar cycle in the price of wheat.
I also learnt from reading the Encyclopedia Britannica about the great thicknesses of chalk and limestone formed when the amount of carbon dioxide was very much greater than it was today and how life at that time thrived. (Yes I was a nerd)
It’s a shame you didn’t learn much science in the 9th Grade, even the importance of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas. You missed out on a lot.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:48 am
John Aon 05 Nov 2007 at 7:39 am
“”Actually, I learned the answer in my ninth grade general science class. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and burning fossil fuels increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Really? In the 9th Grade?”
Hi John. Actually, just after I entered that post, I realized that I’d taken biology in the ninth grade – so the “general science” came at some point before that. Your apparent impression that I do not know much about climate science is correct.
My comment of 04 Nov. at 2:13 P.M. was somewhat glib, but my impression that a very high percentage of the papers mentioned on physorg.com, for instance, that in any way deal with or mention global warming indicate the belief of the authors that it is happening. Part of my impression of the opinions of the scientific community at large comes from these articles. Then there is the conclusion of latest IPCC report, produced by over 600 scientists from 40 countries that the probability that global warming is caused by human activity is over
90%.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Climate Audit is gaining on you, Phil. They’re probably pumping up their vote in the hopes that a victory here would be good PR. Pharyngula appears to be dropping back.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Quiet Desperationon 02 Nov 2007 at 2:02 pm
“The going rate for my vote is $5000.”
Quiet Desperation,
We need you.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Your at 27+% and that is more than the other guy.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Taking a skeptical position is the right thing to do as a scientist. Science is about letting the data speak for itself and not trying to spin the numbers or make your work fit your world view. Climate Audit does just that. Steve is doing some great science sleuthing and he should be commended for it. His posts are all about the numbers and not about politics.
We all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that those California fires cause a lot of CO2 to go into the atmosphere. We all agree that we should avoid putting greenhouse gases such as water vapor from fuel cell cars, nuclear power plants, agriculture, and ethanol engines into the atmosphere. We understand that every time we breathe we put harmful carbon into the atmosphere, and that every time we pass gas we put harmful methane into the atmosphere. We are aware that socialist countries like France have 15% unemployment and lots of water vapor emitting nuclear plants. We also are aware that fermentation from their wine making releases large amounts of CO2. That said, we also know that wealthier nations can be cleaner nations because they can develop the technology to make it happen using their superior Capitalist systems.
Even with all the above knowledge, it does not mean that the ends justifies the means and that you can just automatically accept the science that fits your world view and ignore the rest. We know that consensus science killed a lot of women by recommending hormone therapy for hot flashes, for instance.
The climate is very complex and has a lot of variables. Let the numbers speak for themselves.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I’m still looking for the um… science part.
Where do you keep the science part of this science blog?
I’ve found the mankisses for wesley cruscher – I found the astronaut hero worship. I found the denigration of christianity section. I found the bad mouthing of NASA’s director section (I suppose because Griffin is unimpressed by Hansen and the hockeystick team) -
I found plenty of bad.
Where’s the science?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I guess they don’t emphasize reading skills or critical thinking at Bob Jones University, so the right-wingers missed this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/15/politics-science-me-and-thee/
November 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Brian:
Since when did 600 scientists or a million Frenchmen constitute the veracity of anything? Do we have to appeal to the beliefs of group of scientists regarding Relativity or Gravity or that the Earth orbits the Sun? What about evidence? Doesn’t matter any more?
Does it matter that more than 10,000 scientists from many countries signed a petition saying that the Kyoto Protocol was unnecessary and the scientific case for AGW not proven? Does it matter that the revealed review notes from the last AR4 strongly disputed claims made in it which were simply brushed by the authors aside without explanation?
Perhaps it doesn’t. Scientific consensuses in history have a disturbing habit of being wrong. Ask Alfred Wegener. Or Einstein.
That doesn’t mean that AGW doesn’t exist. It doesn’t mean that climate change is not happening (when has it never not changed?). It does mean that I remain completely unimpressed with arguments along the lines of “X scientists place a 90% certainty that AGW is happening”
as if in science, such a statement meant anything.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It’s a popularity contest, not a fight to the death. I admire Phil, so lets keep things civil, OK?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Michelle said:
“Hey How sad it is to vote… Don’t you see that we’re just doing that for FUN? You know, FUN, the thing you obviously lack sometimes?”
Well, for only trying to have FUN there seem to be quite a lot here VERY interested in winning and sound as if they are willing to do ANYTHING to get there. IOW: There’s no FUN in LOSING!
The poster in favor of CA has a point but the point seems to be complaining that a “Science Blog” should only be defined as a blog where science is conducted and BA is a blog that talks ABOUT science instead. Frankly, I think both should be included.
RealClimate apparently didn’t receive enough votes to make it to the ballot. Elsewhere, someone conjectured that RC’s propensity for deleting critical posts might have driven their audience elsewhere due to the very apparent lack of balance.
Of course anybody asking “Where’s your data?” or “Why did you omit these data point?” and “Why won’t you disclose your exact methodology?” or “Aren’t you jumping to conclusion just a bit?” is obviously a contentious right-winger not worthy of consideration. The science is SETTLED dontchyaknow and no other conclusions can be reached.
But it’s irrelevant whether RC encourages or discourages dialog. It is still a science blog run by actual scientists and is one of the primary sources for learning their position and take on criticism. It should have been included on the ballot but I guess the people have spoken.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Dav,
Although that I have posted several times on RC, with only a few deleted, the general attitude of RC is to suppress relevant scientific questions, where they don’t agree with. Just try to ask something about the validity of strip bark pines as historical temperature proxy, something that is openly discussed at CA. And relevant, if the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period, one need to know the origins of natural climate variability, before we can know anything about the influence of CO2…
Science is never settled, but agreed, in scientific matters, there may be a majority that forms a “consensus”, and a minority which disagrees. That doesn’t mean that the consensus is right and the minority is wrong. Science is not a popularity contest. What matters is if the facts support the majority or not.
I have a lot of experience with scientists who did make strong statements in the past (about different matters than climate). If they withhold data (or methods), you may be sure that they have something to hide which doesn’t support their statements.
That has nothing to do with right/left ideology, but with how science should work. If I was a US citizen, I probably would have voted Gore for president (but would have regretted that after I saw his “Inconvenient Truth”, because of a lot of unscientific exxageration).
But I agree, RC should have been on the list too…
November 5th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
FerdiEgb,
I agree: science is never settled. A theory should withstand all criticisms and any criticism should be met with reasonable response. Valid criticism, that is — I don’t mean the well-that’s-YOUR-theory kind.
I get highly suspicious when someone is unable or unwilling to produce the data used for his/her results and/or is evasive when asked exactly how the data were processed but who nonetheless still expects me to accept the results on faith and change my life accordingly regardless of cost. It also makes me wonder when a person, whose work is entirely statistical, stands before a NAS panel and proudly proclaims “I’m no statistician.” Whatever could have been intended by a remark like that?
What’s puzzling are the number of scientists who don’t seem to see anything wrong with the handwaving or, at the very least, tacitly support it by saying nothing.
My comment was meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Someone once told me to avoid irony and sarcasm in posts as both are easily misconstrued. I couldn’t turn down the opportunity though so I guess I should accept any resulting fallout.
Anyway, this is far off topic for this thread.
Cheers,
DAV
November 5th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
People that have nothing to hide don’t act like they do, or at the very least, if you act like you have something to hide, don’t be surprised if some people think (or wonder if) you’re hiding something.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Climate Audit is an awesome site that is doing the real climate science that the over-politicized AGW/IPCC-climate-catastrophe-hypers will not do. More specifically, they are like the peer reviewer from hell, checking the work to see if it is actually *correct* …
They (McIntyre and others) debunked bad use of statistics in a ’seminal’ paper (Mann et al), uncovered errors in GISS temperature reconstructions, have managed to get the climate community to acknowledge errors in how proxies have been handled. A lot of Climate Science from Hansen and from others has been tilted to get a result that fits the “dominant paradigm” and if the data, doesnt fit, they’ll tweak a few knobs until it does. Climate Audit is the good cop catching bad science.
I dont think Climate Audit deserves a weblog award, they should have gotten that Nobel Peace Prize that was given to the AGW fearmonger Al gore.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Climate Audit is an awesome site that is doing the real climate science that the over-politicized AGW/IPCC-climate-catastrophe-hypers will not do.
How many peer-reviewed publications do they have on the subject?
November 6th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Davis: “How many peer-reviewed publications do they have on the subject”
An interesting question. How many should they have before they are correct? For that matter, why not review them yourself? What they do is entirely in the open and the data, methods and results are freely available. Participation is encouraged. So why rely on someone else’s opinion? Go see for yourself.
As for peer review consider: MBH98, which has become highly politicized and the results of which appear in Al Gore’s film, contained and depended upon a serious statistical flaw. Did the Principle Investigator, who in his own words “is not a statistician,” consult a statistician? No. Does he now rely upon aid from statisticians? No. Were any of the reviewers of MBH98 statisticians? No. So that begs the question of what value-added service the peer reviewers supplied when reviewing a work based entirely upon statistics.
The problem with the AGW crowd lies in the fact that much of the work is of equally low quality. Are they ultimately right? How can we possibly know? Should we just take their word for it?
If you ever get a chance, read the story of N-rays and ask yourself if any of it sounds familiar.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:26 am
An interesting question. How many should they have before they are correct?
If they’re “doing the real climate science,” then they should be publishing the real climate science papers. That’s an important part of science — communicating your results to other people in the field via peer-reviewed publications.
For that matter, why not review them yourself?
Because I’m not an expert in climate science. Are you?
If you ever get a chance, read the story of N-rays and ask yourself if any of it sounds familiar.
It’s helpful, in that the story illustrates that it generally doesn’t take long for science to correct itself — N-rays were debunked in fewer than two years. But you had some other point?
November 6th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Pharyngula: 23.3%
Bad Astronomy: 26.9%
GO PHIL!
November 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Davis,
(*Sigh*) I think I know you from somewhere else using the same old tired arguments.
The majority of the work (if not all of it) at CA is investigating how statistics are being used by “real climate scientists.” One doesn’t need to be a “real climate scientist” to know if the statistical calculations use bogus methods and invalid underlying mathematical assumptions. It’s only necessary to know statistics.
I agree that if you don’t understand the math and don’t understand what the math is about then you are less qualified to form opinions but it doesn’t hurt to fix that by asking for help. That’s how we learn.
Your argument essentially is no different than claiming that one needs to be an architect to understand the building construction part of architecture and that building engineers can’t know it because they aren’t architects.
The story of N-rays all about how easy it is to fool oneself when insufficient care isn’t taken. The speed at which science corrects itself depends solely upon how often it is examined under a critical eye and how often work is double-checked. In the field of climatology, and paleoclimatology in particular, it appears that rarely if ever happens.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I think I know you from somewhere else using the same old tired arguments.
I assure you, you do not know me from elsewhere.
The majority of the work (if not all of it) at CA is investigating how statistics are being used by “real climate scientists.â€
The original claim made here (not by you, unless you’re using multiple names) was that CA is doing “real climate science.” You’re telling me they check statistics, which is a different claim altogether. Had that been the claim, I would not have made my statement.
Climate science is a huge, complex field, and requires a great deal of special knowledge in order to “do” it; I’m not necessarily claiming you need to be in the field, merely that you need a rigorous background. Your analogy is a straw-man version of my position.
In the field of climatology, and paleoclimatology in particular, it appears that rarely if ever happens.
I am extremely skeptical of this claim. Your broad dismissal of the entire field runs counter to my experience in academic disciplines.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:42 am
“The original claim made here (not by you, unless you’re using multiple names) was that CA is doing “real climate science.†You’re telling me they check statistics, which is a different claim altogether. Had that been the claim, I would not have made my statement. … [etc.]”
Which is why you should check things for yourself instead of relying on opinions and comments of others. Had you done that you would have known. Postulating is fun and is even useful at times but has an inherent GIGO danger.
To quote an advertising slogan, “Just Do It!”
Cheers,
DAV
November 7th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Phil,
One more drop in the bucket!
Dave Mitsky
November 7th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
I am extremely skeptical of this claim. Your broad dismissal of the entire field runs counter to my experience in academic disciplines.
In paleoclimatology, it appears people often publish papers based on information they have collected but they keep the source data secret, refusing to make it available to other researchers or the general public even when journal policies and grant policies require this. Without access to the raw data, true independent verification of the statistical conclusions is impossible. When somebody says “I collected some ice cores/tree cores/sediment cores and here are the results of my analysis” but the raw data they analyzed remains secret for 20 years (not an unusual case), it’s likely to take 20 years before it’s possible to find errors in the analysis.
The ClimateAudit project is about getting the data and methods out in the open and actually trying to replicate and validate the results that have been claimed. Double-checking the work. Peer review doesn’t do this, nor does the IPCC process. It seems like a pretty valuable contribution to the science.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I’m on board with Climate Audit. There you will find hard statistical critique to try and keep climate scientists honest, how can this be a bad thing in science? Good luck Steve, your showing this year is a tribute to your hard work and courage to say what needs to be said.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Gotta hand it to you, Phil. You’ve got a loyal following.
Today between 9:30 AM EST and 9:45 AM EST BadAstronomy had 9108 votes some 900 behind CA but your loyal readers rallied and by 11:20 AM EST they tallied up 1446 votes! The largest increase for the rest was: +885 for CA, +103 for JS and +96 for PZ, the others were less.
Did I mention you’ve got a great blog? I’ve been dropping in here periodically even before it became a more or less daily thing.
Congrats!
DAV
November 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Statistics? Bo-oring! I don’t believe that CA is getting votes because it’s a good, readable, entertaining blog, which you’d think would be the point of a popularity-based vote. As someone said up above, it’s not as if you can vote science into being true.
CA looks as dry as a stick to me, not nearly as entertaining or informative as Pharyngula or Bad Astronomy, both of which are well-written enough for me to think that I’m able to follow their arguments.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“Statistics? Bo-oring! I don’t believe that CA is getting votes because it’s a good, readable, entertaining blog, which you’d think would be the point of a popularity-based vote”
Hmmm, yasss!
None of them would make it to the top 10 Boob Tube slots. There are lots of us who don’t actually think of science as entertainment — at least not consciously. Would CA be more entertaining if it followed a WWF Smackdown format instead of resembling a Hissy Fit? I suppose for some it would.
CA wasn’t created to entertain. It’s serious business: an investigation into science results that are being used for political purposes. We there would like to know we aren’t being sold snake-oil. As it is, it’s one of the few places where someone can get firsthand involvement in an ongoing project of this type. Being entertaining would just be a distraction even if it didn’t also supply added reason for dismissal.
Yes, BA is entertaining but deep down I’m sure Phil is really hoping his readers would develop an interest in firsthand investigating and thinking for themselves which often means (OH! NO!) calculating stuff. Ya know: the bo-oring crap.
Take heart! Maybe next year Bo-oring But Doing and Exciting But Just Talking will be separate categories in the Science Blog division.