Did the pillars of heaven just shake? Did the devil shiver?
PZ Myers just endorsed me for Best Science Blog 2007. So did Deltoid.
Of course, the reason they are doing so is that I am the front runner, with Climate Audit close behind. It looks like the opposing forces in the epic battle for the reality of science are consolidating. Steve Milloy of Junk Science just endorsed CA:
JunkScience.com has been nominated in the category of Best Science Blog although we’d like to suggest you consider a vote for ClimateAudit, largely because various ideologues are apparently trying to suppress their vote.
If you have ever wondered about the unreality of Milloy and his site, there you go. Who has tried to suppress anyone’s vote? What a silly claim. PZ and I haven’t said flattering things about CA and JS, but that’s hardly suppression.
Where do you stand? Apparently the Weblog Award site is very slow. But keep trying; I am marginally ahead of the others right now! If I win, I will use this award to relentlessly hype my book (which I am almost done with, just days away!). "You know, Keith, as winner of the Best Science Blog Award for 2007, I am probably best able to write about asteroid impacts and gamma-ray bursts…" It adds a certain zest to interviews, don’t you think?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I’ll be on your side – because I simply can’t allow a denialist to win. But I do like your blog, personally. Now if only I can load that website to vote…
November 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
While I’m not one to take part in all this climate debate (I never read your global warming posts.), I don’t like these two dudes’ attitudes. They are full of themselves and whiners. They obviously started up a silly war by misquoting and misunderstanding all of you guys in attempt to win the award. Of course, I’ll do all I can so he doesn’t win…
..which is voting for you. Yea… Not much more to do.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
[...] BA Blog: Vote! Best Science Blog 2007 [...]
November 7th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
FWIW, Climate Audit isn’t used to “hype a book.” I enjoy both BA and CA blogs, but have to say that the latter is more concerned with the science than the cultural phenomena peripheral to science.
Anyone who claims CA is “denialist” simply hasn’t read the blog and seen that Steve McIntyre 1) thinks the 20th century is warmer than the 19th, 2) can’t get anyone to give a satisfactory explanation from first principles of why doubling of CO2 would give a 2.5C rise in temps (although he would welcome a valid and comprehensive explanation), 3) demonstrated the statistical flaws in the tree-ring reconstructions, 4) found the Y2K error in the GISS temperature records, 5) has undertaken his own project to understand the anomaly in recent Bristlecone Pine tree-ring widths (the so-called CO2 divergence problem), 6) has tried to get climatologist who refuse to archive their data to comply with the policies of their funding agencies and research publishers, 7) has promoted an audit of the US Historical Climate Network stations (of which a significant fraction are non-compliant with published standards),
and has stated time and again that he is neither for or against the idea of greenhouse gas contribution to warming. If all that is “denialist”, the more scientists should be denialists.
So vote how you want in a silly popularity contest, just give a valid reason for doing so.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Voting site has been down (not just slow) for a while now.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Climate Audit is not a denialist website, its an audit website. Steve McIntyre does not deny global warming whatsoever.
A comment by a reader in a recent thread:
“A while back, I [was] wondering why we weren’t discussing actual AGW science, and I think I finally understand. The point of this blog is NOT to discover anything new about AGW. It is simply to audit what AGW proponents say. And as it turns out, this is also the most effective counter attack against AGW (although that’s not why Steve is doing this).
In effect, the analog of your question is like:
A meeting [occurs] between potential investors, Steve M (who was hired by the investors), and folks from the mining company, and after having been proved that they faked the report showing that there was gold in dem der hills, they turn to Steve and say
“well, if you’re so smart, you tell me where the ore isâ€.
And if I’m right about all this, Steve’s response would be:
“I don’t know, and I don’t careâ€.
Steve and the investors then leave. The only issue was not whether the trend is up or down, but the integrity of the proponents.
[Below is Steve's direct response to this comment]
Steve: Gunnar, in your last part, I think that you’re (finally) catching on to my approach. I don’t assume that there’s gold in every patch of moose pasture or a “signal†in every concatenation of “proxiesâ€. Look at a couple of my very early posts on Bre-X (or Enron).”
November 7th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
To expand, this award is not a competition between best right-wing blog (which CA isn’t) and best left-wing blog (wich BAB isn’t), it’s about SCIENCE. CA has spent more time on trying to get scientists to do proper science (ie allow their work to be repeated and falsifiable (THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF SCIENCE)) than any other subject. This is not the work of a “denialist”, but of an auditor. Hiding data, methods, and code does not good science make.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
For the most part I enjoy reading both BA and CA. And I’m sure whoever wins the best science blog award will be able to proudly say that at least some of the people who like their blog did a great job of voting early and often.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
The problem with CA is not CA…it is that it gets endorsed by hacks like Milloy, or the people that truly believe AGW is a hoax perpetrated by those wanting to install a one-world gov’t (e.g., Limbaugh). The other day, there was a discussion here about the distinction between a blog author and its commenters…I think a similar thing happens with CA, unfortunately.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“Climate Audit is not a denialist website, its an audit website.”
[...]
“The point of this blog is NOT to discover anything new about AGW. It is simply to audit what AGW proponents say.”
I call “bunk”.
If he’s not biased against AGW then he’d audit what *both* AGW proponents *and* AGW opponents say. The fact that he selects only the proponents demonstrates his bias quite clearly.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Oh, and I’ll be glad when this thing is over so all the CA goofballs will stop trolling this site and climb back under their rocks.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
What opponents? Name a recent published paper opposing AGW (not refuting proponent claims) that did original research that is worthy of auditing?
In the most recent thread, Steve says: “We presented the results of “apple picking†to the NAS panel showing that you could select proxies and “get†an MWP. What does this show any different than someone else’s cherry picking? If I put my critic’s hat, I would be just as critical of such an effort as I am of the little cherry picking exercises by the Team.”
In essence, he’s saying that, just like with the Principal Component Methodology used by Mann, he has criticized the cherry-picking that leads to exaggerated Medieval Warm Periods.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Until someone else finds a way to talk about Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, and other such interesting things, my vote will rest with Invasive Species.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Why are you excluding those papers that refute proponent claims?
Oh, wait. That’s the field that Stevie is in, and he wouldn’t want his own claims audited on his own site.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I feel a draft.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Monsieur Please (plait)
From a readers perspective I like the concept of your site and you deserve my heartiest congrats on the effort you have quite clearly expended BUT the site is scruffy, difficult to follow and navigate. CA, however, is well presented, with subject matter available by one click, interesting, honest and intellectual. If the webblog award site wasn’t such a bloody mess I would have voted many times for CA, Sorry
November 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Let’s see, a comments thread with CA-supporters-on-the-basis-of-statistics and Doc…
Ooh, look! Screw Jerusalem, the Space Shuttle’s landing!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“[Steve McIntyre] has stated time and again that he is neither for or against the idea of greenhouse gas contribution to warming”
Is he also neither for or against the Heliocentric system? Evolution? Does he always prefer to ‘teach the controversy’?
At the moment, science is winning by a little under 300 votes from the controversionalists.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Voting for someones blog you don’t even know or believe in just so someone elses doesn’t win is clearly suppression. However, voting is politics anyhow. Saying unflattering things about others doesn’t get you very far either.
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=Suppression
November 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
And another wheel comes off your rusty little wagon…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm
November 7th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“Is he also neither for or against the Heliocentric system? Evolution? Does he always prefer to ‘teach the controversy’?”
Red herrings. Go look at the CA blog, ignore the trolls and partisans, and think about the science without a political bias. He’s not trying to “teach” anything; he’s trying to learn what is verifiable and true. That means rocking the boat. Um, sort of like Galileo and Darwin, come to think of it….
November 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
CA gets it’s share of ultra consevative global warming deniers commenting there, but they soon get bored and move on. The site has tried to remain apolitical.
The regulars are just looking for accurate research. The work McIntyre is now doing on tree rings and other subjects is all available to the public, and technical scrutiny is welcome.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
It’s a little annoying to have to vote each day for our BA overlord. What happened to just voting once in an election?
Besides, the BA should really win for the baddest and not the best science blog.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Despite the fact that the web awards are completely meaningless as all they really show is who can mobilize the most “voters”. There is one good thing in that they have made me aware of Climate Audit, which I now enjoy almost as much as BA.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
If they have a vote for the best weblog award voting website, I’ll vote for the one that can actually manage a reasonable amount of web traffic without falling over…
And as regards the “auditor”: if he looks like a duck impersonator, and walks like a duck impersonator, and quacks like a duck impersonator, he needn’t get all huffy when people feed him soggy bread.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I’ve got the girls I helped with last months Breast Cancer Awareness blogs voting so there’s a few more for you.
And Eric, I would take offense at the ‘duck’ comments but I understand your meaning.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Who wants to bet that however this turns, people will play Stupid Number Games to still “win” (i.e. PZ + BA > CA + JS and similar)?
Last time I checked, science wasn’t about winning, nor is it particularly about being “right” in the ideological sense…
November 7th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Why do so many of these Weblog Awards gotta split along quasi-political lines? It’s sort of depressing. I liked it better last year when the split was a taxonomic one.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Mike M.on 07 Nov 2007 at 4:06 pm
“And another wheel comes off your rusty little wagon…”
Mike,
The wheels come off our wagons when we leave. Life is a sweet gift, a gift with an expiration date.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Dear Phil,
I have seen your blog, thanks to the Best Science Blog Awards, and the comments at Climate Audit (where I am an irregular contributor, as I was on RealClimate, if not censored).
As good as Bad Astronomy is aimed to debunk non-scientific “common knowledge”, CA is aimed to look at what is said to be “scientific” knowledge, which is not always what it looks like.
Steve McIntyre is not a climate change denier (neither am I), he is sure that more CO2 causes some warming, but what he wants is that the science about how much warming that will cause is funded on the underlying data, not the more political promotion around the data.
What he discovered, is that a lot of the “science” proving that there was no MWP is based on cherry picking the right series of proxies which “proves” their point, and using bad statistics which mines for “hockeysticks”. The same for e.g. number of hurricanes and sea surface temperatures, etc… It is extremely important to know the cause and influence of natural variability, before one can say anything about the impact of the increase of greenhouse gases.
I have done myself some digging in the reality of the “projections” of GCM’s in forecasting future temperatures. Some simple EBM (energy balance) model (taking temperature as result of energy changes of the different independent variables as simply linearly related), obtained at a one-day course at Oxford does a better job in following the temperature of the past century than the very sophisticated GCMs of today. See: http://www.bu.edu/cees/people/faculty/kaufmann/documents/Model-temporal-relation.pdf where the performance of simple climate models outperforms the best GCM’s of today.
Important is that with the simple model, one can change all parameters and constraints within what is physically meaningful, that is beyond the 3°C for 2xCO2 which is more or less fixed in current models. One can reduce the impact of (sulfate) aerosols (very unsure, and probably highly overestimated) and consequently one need to reduce the impact of 2xCO2 to get the 1945-1975 cooling period straight. See the results at: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
There seems to be rather many misconceptions about McIntyres blog at Bad Astronomy, why not give a guest comment by McIntyre on your blog and a guest comment of yours at CA (after the contest)?
Meanwhile, the popularity contest of Best Science Blog is going on, it seems that BA will be the winner of this year, with CA second… Nevertheless I think that CA goes much deeper into science, with a lot of very valuable contributions (and of course a lot of good, bad and ugly commenters, as on any blog)…
Sincerely,
Ferdinand Engelbeen
November 7th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I like both sites but to be fair they’re not quite the same thing. BA is more a populist infotainment approach to science while CA is undertaking some serious research. As the above poster said, CA found the y2k error in the GISS data as well as the compliance problems in the network of stations. For that alone it gets my vote.
But that vid of the moon was awesome and that’s why I’ll be back here.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:51 am
As an suggestion that the content on Climate Audit runs contrary to scientific method, this comment demeans you and your website Mr Plait:
“battle for the reality of science are consolidating”
Two of the explicitly stated objectives of Climate Audit:
- Promote the full, open and timely disclosure of all data and information for published research.
- Promote more complete, indpendent and replicaton of published claims and research.
Can you exmplain how these do anything but advance the reality of science”?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I think its been a fascinating exercise in getting people who read one blog to try taste some of the others.
So, I’d encourage CA readers to read the BA’s blog. It’s mostly good stuff that I can enjoy and agree with.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:45 am
By the way BA, your readability score is:
November 8th, 2007 at 8:12 am
[...] za nauku, glasajte za BadAstronomy.com – Vote for science, vote for [...]
November 8th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Phil,
* If you are a skeptic like it says at the top you ought to be supporting climateaudit.
* It’s not Steve M’s fault that his site attracts some nutters.
* Your site is painfully slow, thanks to all those irritating ads.
* I haven’t yet found any interesting science on it (the space shuttle has landed? Wow!)
* I’m voting for climate audit – no ads, real serious science, and no book-plugging.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Paul, there is a difference between saying it and doing it. That is not to say that ClimateAudit is not scientific, but simply quoting their mission statement will not convince many people here. We have seen too many such mission statements and promises to just accept them unquestionably. Just look at the mission statement from the Discoveru Institute’s “The Center for Science and Culture”, one of the most powerful and notorious anti-science organizations in the country:
Nothing there looks particularly anti-science to someone not familiar with the conflicts between science and creationism, but the organization uses pretty much every anti-science and denialist technique under the sun (often involving outright lies) to further their religious agenda.
Now let me emphasize this: I am not saying ClimateAudit is at all like the Discovery Institute. I don’t know anything about the blog. My point is that just quoting a mission statement is far from a convincing argument regarding how anyone actually behaves in practice. What is worse, in this case you just quote a part of the mission statement, which is a key warning sign of cherry-picking to people familiar with anti-science tactics. I suggest you not do that in the future if you expect people to take you at all seriously. I personally cannot find those objectives myself to verify the rest of the objectives, but it is still looks very fishy.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I’ll be on you’re side, because AGW denialists sound just like holocaust denialists and suspiciously like apartheid supporters, OK?
But, seriously – why use such an emotive word, with respect to someone who doesn’t agree with your intepretation of a very hazy concept, like global mean temperature? (Hell, we’re talking about 0.5 degrees celsius: it goes from about 14 to 28 each day, where I live. How about you?)
Was Galileo an Earth-centric denialist? Was Darwin a creationism-denialist? How about Barry Marshall – the ulcer denialist? Einstein, the aether denialist? John Snow, the “smelly air” denialist?
Should I go on? Or, do you get the idea that scientific theory and disagreement go hand in hand?
Do you know that it’s just possible that you might be wrong and the “denialists” might be right, from time to time. Were that not the case, we’d still be sacrificing virgins to the Sun god.
That you call them “denialists”, rather than, “people who don’t agree with me”, connotes a desire to tar them with an unsavoury and negative brush. To lower them, almost to a criminal status.
If one can win their arguments with science and logic, they need not have any resort to name-calling and derogation. Calling someone a “denialist”, because they don’t agree with you, is no crime. In fact, it’s at the very foundation of scientific enquire.
Grow up!
November 8th, 2007 at 9:20 am
You misunderstand, Guest. A denialist is not someone who disagrees with a scientific idea, a denialist is someone who reject scientific evidence because it disagrees with ideas they have for non-scientific reasons. Galileo, Newton, and Darwin were not denialists, they were simply scientists following the evidence. The Church that punished Galileo for saying what he saw were denialists because they refused to even accept the evidence existed. Creationists who rejected Darwin’s ideas in his time, and who still reject the considerably different but enormously better-supported theory of evolution today were and are denlialists. The people who still think the world is 6,000 years old are denialists of all scientific knowledge we currently have. And people who say the average temperature of the world is not changing, or that humans can’t cause massive climate changes, are denialists.
As for your “evidence”, short-term local temperature fluctuations and long-term global climate changes are two entirely different things. Trying to use one as evidence against the other is, quite frankly, one of the silliest climate change denialist claims (and they get pretty silly). Short-term local temperature fluctuations are just that, local (they only affect a small area) and fluctuations (they go down and up) and short term (any change is soon reversed). Long-term global climate changes are just that as well. What happens is that the fluctuations go about and down around a certain mean level, and the mean of all areas around the world give a picture of the global mean temperature. With global climate change the global mean temperature changes, so the temperature continues to fluctuate but the low end and high end of the fluctuations change. For instance glaciers melt during the summer and grow during the winter (a grossly oversimplified view, I admit). If the average temperature increases, however, they will grow less in the winter and shrink more in the summer, causing (if the change is big enough) the glacier to shrink and then disappear entirely if the change continues over a long enough period.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:54 am
blackcat wrote: “Now let me emphasize this: I am not saying ClimateAudit is at all like the Discovery Institute. I don’t know anything about the blog.”
For someone who doesn’t know anything about the blog, you sure have a lot to say about it through innuendo. Your point was that mission statements don’t necessarily reflect a blog’s quality. You should have left it at that. You need to go to CA and spend a few months getting up to speed. If you are a fair-minded person who is genuinely interested in getting to the truth of AGW, you will be rewarded.
You write: “a denialist is someone who reject scientific evidence because it disagrees with ideas they have for non-scientific reasons.” Steve McIntyre is not denying science; he is, like Darwin, Newton and Galileo pointing out flaws in its methods and conclusions. And he’s finding lots to point out, enough, in fact, to cast grave doubts about those who claim certitude and consensus about these often complex issues.
Go to CA and read the recent installment about Mann et al, Wegman and the NAS Report. It is posted for the benefit of newbies. It should open your eyes. If it doesn’t, perhaps you are a cat calling the panther black.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Just to synchronize our use of terms with that accepted by the community at large, here is Wikipedia’s definition of “denialism”:
Denialism describes the position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly.
Note that the term would not properly apply to a genuine skeptic.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I didn’t insinuate anything. I simply provided a counterexample to prove my point. You provided evidence that is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. And I never accused McIntyre of being a denialist, I said that Guest didn’t understand what a denialist is.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
If the average temperature increases, however, they will grow less in the winter
Wow, glaciers growth in the winter is a function of temperature? There was me, thinking precipitation drove glacier growth in winter.
Next time I want to make ice cubes in my freezer, rather than adding water to the ice cube tray, I’ll just turn the temperature down. Sounds like a far more effective mechanism. I’m so glad I’ve got TheBlackCat to save me from “denialist silly claims”.
Of course, I’m only yanking your chain here. I think Bad Astronomy seems a pretty good blog, and I personally think the standards of the comments here are far, far higher than those at Pharyngula. ClimateAudit is still going to get my vote though; it is less accessible, but is engaged in front-line science. And Steve Mc is highly objective in how he goes about things. Bad Astronomy takes a close second in my view.
Good luck to all in the closing hours of the contest, and if nothing else, the opportunity to visit some other interesting sites is perhaps the most important thing to come from the awards.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I just now [1850 UT] went to the voting site and voted w/o a problem or delay.
As they say here in Louisiana, vote early, vote often.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Didn’t BA win this contest a couple years ago?
You could still use a second best science blog on the web blurb on the book jacket.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Blackcat, there are many, many “denialist” papeers published in peer-reviewed journals. The number of “denialists” is increasing! Not only is the debate NOT over, but it’s getting more intense. Btw, bad astronomy contributor Jim Oberg could be labeled a “UFO-denier” using the methodology of the pro-AGW crowd. For that matter, the pro-AGW crowd can be called “deniers” since they denied the Medieval Warm Period until Steve of CA shot down Mann in flames.
As for “overwhelming consensus,” the fact that peer-reviewed journals are publishing skeptical reports means that the subject is still controversial and by no means settled. Incidentally, the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the Seventies was that another Ice Age was likely. Were they wrong then, or are they wrong now?
Mango, are you sure you’re not really Oliver Stone? I mean, there were conspiracy theories that the 2004 elections were fixed by computer fraud. Like the 9/11 conspiracy theories!
November 8th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
It’s my impression that Steve McI has a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There’s nothing wrong with checking the numbers on someone’s work, but he seems to overestimate the over-all affect of those errors to call into question the over-all conclusion. That’s where he loses me.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Dennis, can you give an example of where McIntyre overestimates the overall effect of those errors to call into question the overall conclusion?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Wow, it looks like you’ve magically pulled ahead. Let’s hope this sticks!