I stand by what I said. While I can’t speak for Phil, I can speak for myself. I’m not trained as a climate researcher, so all I really have to go on in determining the validity of the science is the published, peer-reviewed evidence; which, as I noted before, overwhelmingly supports the AGW position. If “skeptical” researchers like McIntyre and Watts have concerns about the quality of the evidence, then they should be publishing those concerns — or better, their own evidence — in respected, peer-reviewed journals, not just blogging about it. The fact that they do not seem to be doing this leads me to the conclusion that their evidence is probably not as strong as they claim.

In short, my trust is in the peer-review process; blogs are great for presenting the evidence, but not for critically reviewing it.

You didn’t comprehend what I said. To reiterate: these two bloggers are skeptical of *some* of the published science because of the problems they find with it. What problems? Continued use of suspect data (strip-bark bristlecone pine tree ring series that an NAS panel has said to avoid; continued use of surface temperatures data from demonstrably invalidly sited stations), invalid statistical procedures (tweaked principle components analysis and RegEM infilling) that have not been verified by professional statisticians. Then there’s the refusal of a number of climate scientists to make their publicly-funded data available for examination and analysis, contrary to the requirements of the journals their papers are published in and the way science is supposed to work.

If such things were rare, then your criticism of these bloggers might have merit. Unfortunately, the problems are recurrent, and are not corrected by the climate science community.

If you read these blogs carefully, you would see neither one denies global warming, but they both are highly critical of the tendency to accept any conclusions based on authority rather than evidence.

Besides I like both you; to me there is no competition.

And yes…I remember when this site was up against Climate Audit and how they zerg’d BA with painful walls of apologist text and splitting hairs. I am glad science only blogs are winning this time. It’s easier on the head. <3

The skeptical position is to doubt a claim until and unless presented with positive evidence. The published evidence overwhelming supports the AGW position. The bloggers at Climate Audit and Watts Up With That have been presented with the evidence and still doubt; they doubt in spite of the published evidence, not because of it. Therefore they are not skeptics.

I googled him, and it appears that he’s a catholic apologist who among other things, apologetically defends the fact that the abortion performed on the 9 year old raped Brazilian girl was wrong, and even under those circumstances, considered murder.
http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Either way, these popularity contests don’t mean much as to the content of the site, and I know Phil and PZ enjoy this kind of tongue-and-cheek humor, not exactly taking it seriously. It does help identify the collective will of global warming denialists, or catholic apologists, or new earth creationists, or magic as natural phenomenalists, etc.

Despite a lack of cephalopods here, I voted for you.

Who is Thomas Peters?

See, now. Look what you did. You brought Hitler into the discussion, so you’ve already lost. You really should have waited until well along in the argument to bring him in. This is just evidence that you have no basis to support your side.

Another shameless self-promotion from Dr Plait!!

You got to love this guy!!!!!!!

And Phil, hope your book is reaaaally good, it costs me the soul to import it to Brazil (2 weeks to go yet..)

lol

Your views are backward. If hassenpfeffer is banned, then what culinary advances will be cut off? It would mean that countless palates in need of new and innovative gastronomic creations would be denied such needs!