Climate

Weblog Awards duped by deniers — again!

As President Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all the time. Once again, the people running the Weblog Awards have been suckered into legitimizing anti-scientific denialism.

The finalist list is out for the 2008 Weblog awards “Best Science Blog,” and two of the ten finalists are anti-scientific websites primarily devoted to spreading disinformation (and noninformation) on global warming– just like 2007.

The 2007 “competition” ended up being yet another classic exercise in the right wing perverting an otherwise reasonable web idea — online voting for the best science blog. As Desmogblog explained in a post titled, The “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” beating “Vast Left Wing” Voting for Best Science Weblog, the right wing voted en masse for Climate Audit and the rational people all voted for Discover magazine’s excellent Bad Astronomy Blog. In the end, the process was so controverisal that the Awards folk simply called it a tie — saying each blog ended up with exactly 20,000 votes.

It would be ironic that the choice of best science blog was not made scientifically — except that the result was an anti-scientific website run by someone who isn’t even a scientist has for the past year posted on his website a “Best Science Blog” logo. That isn’t ironic. It is both tragic and farcical.

It would be like James Frey winning an award for Best Memoir — but not like Dick Cheney winning an award for being the best Vice President, since Cheney is actually a VP.

To quote Lincoln again:

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

And calling Climate Audit and Watts Up With That science blogs — or for that matter calling the Drudge Report and The Onion science blogs — doesn’t make them ones.

And that brings us to 2008.

You’d think the Weblog Awards would have learned from the past and either dropped the category or the anti-science blogs. But as the saying goes, the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

On Monday, voting will begin again on Best Science Blog, and I don’t think you need to be a scientist to predict what will happen next. It would be nice if the deniers split their vote, but they didn’t do that last year. That means all the rational people can’t afford to waste their vote.

Much as I’d love to recommend voting for RealClimate, the smart money has to be on voting for last year’s co-winner — Bad Astronomy Blog. So you can’t even recognize your favorite science blog, since you don’t want to let the deniers win — again. And that’s why this whole thing is a farce.

I do intend to write more about the denier websites, but since I’m still technically on vacation, I’ll leave that until next week. However, let me reprint something that gives you a flavor of how anti-scientific Watts Up With That is. In my post on Inhofe’s annual disinformation blast — Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points — will the media be fooled (again)? — I noted the screaming headline from Inhofe staffer Marc Morano

Sea Levels Fail to Rise?

And then I debunked it as follows

SEA LEVELS ARE STILL RISING MORE THAN 50% FASTER NOW THAN PRE-1990

On what does Inhofe’s office base the “Sea Levels Fail to Rise” claim? Nothing more than a single blog post by a former TV meteorologist, Anthony Watts, who runs a denial website. That post claims “We’ve been waiting for the UC [Univesity of Colorado] web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story.”

University of Colorado, Boulder

Does it look to you like the recent data shows that the rate of sea level rise has slowed, as Watts says, let alone stopped, as Inhofe suggests? If so, I suggest you get your eyes checked. In particular, look at the most recent data points at the upper right. They are precisely on the long-term trend.

Yet Inhofe’s office looks at the data and sees “Sea Levels Fail to Rise?” Who are you going to believe, traditional media — Inhofe and Watts, or your own lying eyes? In fact, JPL has two nice side-by-side graphs of sea level rise that show the rate of sea level rise since 1993 has consistently been about 70% higher than pre-1993 — a far bigger jump than the climate models had projected:

Sea Level Graphic

The sea level rise data is in fact a reason to be more worried today about the pace and scale of global warming, not less.

It is absurd to call Watts Up With That a science blog. You might just as well call the Drudge Report a science blog. Or John Tierney a science writer. Oops.

The Weblog Awards should not be legitimizing anti-scientific denialism.

One more thing: Yes some people have e-mailed me to express their dismay that I didn’t make the finalist list. I confessed to being a tad pissed off for about an hour. But how annoyed can one really be not being on the same list as Climate Audit and Watts Up With That? I am more annoyed that I wasted your time voting to nominate me. It is odd and unexpected (at least by me) that Weblog Awards would use popular vote to select the winner but an undemocratic process to select a nominee.

I had thought I might be a finalist and beat the deniers. But it is more likely a general interest web science site can garner the votes to beat back the right wing.

In any case, the Weblog Awards are certainly entitled to run their competition however they want.

But they should not be entitled to call a tail a leg. The only thing to do now is to try to stop the anti-science folks from perverting the process again — and then pressure the Weblog Awards folks to simply drop the category in its entirety next year. My apologies again for wasting your time and frankly for not figuring this out and working to stop this farce sooner.

Tags

60 Responses to Weblog Awards duped by deniers — again!

  1. Dave Andrews says:

    Well, I am quite left wing in my politics and regularly read CA, RC and WUWT and Open Mind as well as many other climate blogs. If I vote, based on my experience, I would vote for CA.

    Perhaps Mr Romm you shouldn’t generalise you own prejudices so much.

    [JR: Yeah, you’re left wing — and a horse has 5 legs. Anyone who would reads WUWT regularly and would vote for CA over say RC is by universal acclamation right wing.]

  2. Keith says:

    Mr. Romm, you might look at the nominations list for best science blog to see how they determined the nominees. They had 142 nomination comments here but they also had criteria for nominations described here. Comments disparaging other nominees were automatically discounted.

    [JR: Yes. I am aware of all that. How is any of that relevant to this post?]

  3. Ian Forrester says:

    Well Mr. Andrews, (Dave A, isn’t it?) after reading the rubbish you post on Tamino’s blog, it does not surprise me that you would vote for climatefraudit.

  4. David B. Benson says:

    Depends upon the science. “The Onion” is highly scientific in its own way. :-)

  5. Joseph says:

    Jeez, Joe, calm down. You and tamino both must have gotten into a bad batch of eggnog with your wild-eyed rants first thing in the new year. Thanks for letting me know that WUWT is a finalist, I had missed that. Anthony will be getting my vote.

  6. Rod UK says:

    Oh dear! How ridiculous and unjust that a science blog run by a non scientist might win a minor, virtually unheard of internet competition.
    Next thing you know there will be a non scientist winning an Oscar for a science documentary. What is the world coming to?

  7. Nick says:

    So you can get an award for cyber-stalking?!?!? I learn something new every day…

  8. Fred says:

    so by the same logic all the Believers who use advanced statistics but can’t understand what an average is should be disqualified by participating in the great con ?

    No way, where would our entertainment come from every day when CA rips Tamino a new asshole for another stats fraud and stupidity.

  9. Rick says:

    the blue graphs compare a hundred year trend to a 10 year trend. No fair – you could cherry pick some spots in that 100 year graph if you wanted to make another 10 year graph with a steep incline – (1910 – 1920) for instance.

    I’m starting to hate graphs

  10. paulm says:

    Dave A, what is the main thing which convinces you that global warming is not happening?

  11. Francis says:

    Oh boy, we are getting desperate now….
    It will only be a matter of time before the Alarmists will finaly run for cover, whining about Climate Audit is an absolute pathetic attempt
    to try to remain relevant.
    Give it up Joe, you start to sound disturbingly yesterday’s news.
    We the people on the left need a voice that wants to step up and
    admit that it was all a hoax, nothing more, nothing less.
    An expensive one at that. It’s hard for a liberal to agree with Inhofe, but for once he is very right.

    [JR: Yes. You sound like a progressive to me. I admit it — the entire scientific community has conspired to convince the public that the Earth goes around the sun and that we landed on the moon. You caught us. We won’t do it again. Now you can take that tinfoil hat off.]

  12. Arthur Smith says:

    I notice Jennifer Marohasy’s site is on the list in another category. Also desmogblog. I suspect a lot of the sites on that list are dubious in one way or another.

  13. hapa says:

    you know, there’s a multi-generational commitment to “applied science” that’s partly to blame for this level of public distrust. military, pharma, genetics, psychology (for messaging/”consensus building”) — the enclosure of knowledge for use by paying institutional customers upon the public.

    knowing that there was a psychological operation by the US military against american citizens, to slant coverage before and during the iraq operation, why not something bigger? why not a hoax the size of AGW?

    none of these people know anything about probability or standards of evidence. anecdotally, though, “scientists” have conspired with power plenty of times to build a narrative.

    this is illiterate but not irrational.

  14. B.D. says:

    If so, I suggest you get your eyes checked. In particular, look at the most recent data points at the upper right.

    I suggest that YOU get your eyes checked. The 60-day smoothing line has been making lower highs and lower lows since the 2006 spike. Does it mean that sea level has stopped rising? Not necessarily, but you have to be pretty narrow-minded to not see how the graph could be suggesting that.

  15. ozzieaardvaark says:

    Hehe. You really know how to work a crowd, don’t you Joe? That sour grapes bit get’s them every time, huh? And that posting a graphic and telling folks it doesn’t say what it says is quite effective too. You are a blessing to mankind my friend. As a global warming skeptic (denier in your shrill, overwrought lexicon) I can only hope that you continue your good work :-)

    OA

  16. Lamont says:

    The argo blog has this statement on 2004-2008 sea level trends:

    “For the period since Argo achieved global coverage, 2004-2008, there is no significant trend in the globally averaged temperature. There is considerable regional and depth-variability over this time period, but the global mean temperature is approximately constant. Given the 50-year temperature record, a 4-year period of constant temperature is not particularly unusual, and should not be taken to indicate any change in the multi-decadal warming trend.”

    http://argo3000.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-much-have-ocean-temperatures.html

    Earth oblateness measurements also agree with a flattening of OHC warming short-term:

    “Dynamic oblateness (J2) observations reflect changes in the latitudinal distribution of mass within the Earth system, and hence can give insights into processes involving water transport and sea level rise. We seek to use records of J2 variations deduced from satellite laser ranging, together with altimetry results, to provide an independent geodetic constraint on changes in ocean heat content (OHC). We show that the size and signature of the J2 signal presented here do not support a recently published report of rapid oceanic heat loss beginning in 2003, which was subsequently attributed to Argo and other instrumental bias effects. Our results are consistent with recent findings of a flattening of the OHC trend at this time inferred from the bias-corrected Argo data, and demonstrate that J2 observations, in combination with other observational and model data types, can provide useful constraints for monitoring and validating ongoing changes in the Earth system.”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035115.shtml

    And I don’t know why we need to freak out about this. Peak-to-trough insolation in the solar cycle varies by about 2W/m^2 which is about of the order of AGW as well (but the solar cycle is cyclical so it washes out on the order of decades). But having OHC and sea level rise flatten while we’re in a solar minimum doesn’t change anything about AGW. Its all just cyclical weather variations (in this case cyclical space weather).

    I don’t know why we need to setup this dichotomy where the solar cycles can’t have *any* affect on climate versus the solar cycles being *entirely* responsible for global warming. The latter viewpoint is clearly wrong, but I think the former position is also wrong as well.

  17. Mark says:

    B.D.: You could say the same thing for 1994-1996, 1998-2000, 2003-2005, etc.. Get the picture?

    Watts is a former TV weather anchor – about the extent of his qualifications in climate science. Maybe his ridiculous selective presentation of short-term data is a product of this. At any rate, he appears to do this sort of thing on a regular basis.

    I also tend to find it tad ironic that a “best science blog” is determined by a very unscientific method such as that of American Idol (vote early, vote often!) I did not vote for RC (which would have been my choice) for that reason. To most contrarians it seems, science is not much more than a public relations battle, conducted on blogs and the comments sections of op-eds, one I’m not very interested in engaging in.

  18. Mark says:

    Since the so-called “Best Science Blogs” is about popularity, Technorati has a somewhat more scientific approach for this measurement. The Journal Nature cited Technorati data when listing the most popular science blogs of 2005. RealClimate finished 3rd.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/multimedia/50_science_blogs.html

    Here is how some in question currently rank. The higher the authority / blog reactions and lower the ranking, the better.

    Climate Progress:
    Blog Reactions: 6,299
    Authority: 630
    Rank: 3,813

    Real Climate:
    Blog Reactions:3,717
    Authority: 672
    Rank: 3,487

    Climate Audit:
    Blog Reactions: 2,745
    Authority: 372
    Rank: 7,967

    Watts:
    Blog Reaction: 1,951
    Authority: 119
    Rank: 37,740

    Just for comparison, the most popular blog (of any type):

    Huffington Post:
    Blog Reactions: 360,468
    Authority: 28,378
    Rank: 1

    http://technorati.com/blogs/www.realclimate.org?reactions

    http://technorati.com/blogs/www.climateprogress.org?reactions

    http://technorati.com/blogs/www.wattsupwiththat.com?reactions

    http://technorati.com/blogs/www.climateaudit.org?reactions

    http://technorati.com/blogs/www.huffingtonpost.com?reactions

    The fact that Watts is a finalist certainly makes the “Best Science Blogs” methodology suspect. Vote early. Vote often. Oh…and don’t forget to spread the word…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/weblog-awards/

    “I’m in. You are +9 and counting.”

  19. B.D. says:

    B.D.: You could say the same thing for 1994-1996, 1998-2000, 2003-2005, etc.. Get the picture?

    Umm, no you can’t. I get the picture – your bias prevents you from seeing what is really happening in the graph.

  20. Peter Wilson says:

    So the rate of increase in sea level has now increased to 13 inches per century – truly terrifying!

    Joe, the general tenor of your comments to those who might disagree with your analysis is puerile, offensive and completely unnecessary in a civilised debate. It may be hard for you to believe, but it is possible to be both rational and disagree with you. It isn’t very hard for the rest of us to believe!

    [JR: Given your first sentence, it’s clear that the scientific literature is of no interest to you. The point is the rate rose sharply recently — and that on our current emissions path it is going to rise sharply again — and again — and again. But for you deniers, if the weather outside is cold now, and a couple of anti-scientific websites say there is nothing to worry about, then why should we care about what real scientists say.]

  21. Smithee says:

    This pedantic partisan and deliberatively confusing post illustrates why ClimateProgress was NOT nominated for the award. Watts stated that the SHORT TERM TREND has been shrinking since 2006 — not less and not more. This clearly appears from the graph. The 2006-2008 is not identical to the 1994-1996, 1998-2000 etc situations, since in the recent period minimums and not only maximums (as previously) have declined.

    [JR: Your “science blogger” wrote: “It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005.” I guess if you agree with that, then he may be the science blogger for you. Seriously, look at the graph. There are some points above the trend a few years ago, and we had that cold winter last year that got the deniers all hot and bothered. The recent data is clearly on the trend line. What is the point of Watts post — if not to feed the kind of denialism that Inhofe’s staffer used his post to push.]

    Now this, of course, is only a short term trend, and is — at least for now — of ilttle weight compared to the massive upward longtime trend. But your insistance on the longtime trend is in no way a valid “debunking” of Watts claim, which only concerned the shorttime trend.

    Your arrogance of ridiculing “Climate Audit” and “WattsUp” as having the scientific pedigree of the “onionblog” is preposterous and counterproductive. You know very well that in the past these two blogs have published valid criticism of GISS data, for exemple, which was acknowlegded by Goddard/NASA and led to corrections and thus better data, better science. Any science, any theory needs criticism, needs opposition. So I think you should be grateful when clever “deniers” actually give you the opportunity to improve your science. A science without opposition very rapidly degenerates to ideology.

  22. DavidONE says:

    I’ve noticed the Deniers are more often lying about political / worldview affiliation – as done in the comments here by Dave Andrews and Francis. Who are they expecting to fool?

    From having little interest in, or knowledge of, the stark difference between right / left thinking, it has become abundantly clear that one defining difference is that right wing / conservative / libertarian types will happily reject scientific reality when it conflicts with their political ideology / personal sense of entitlement. And, of course, they will lie shamelessly through their teeth to try and win the argument.

    I find it quite encouraging as it suggests increasing desperation. The Deniers of ACC are becoming marginalised and will increasingly become targets of derision and mockery – just like their fellow creationists, moon hoaxers and 911 troofers. All as it should be.

  23. MikeU says:

    Have you actually read the posts at CA? Steve McIntyre spends most of his time analyzing the work of paleoclimatologists in a good deal of statistical depth, and has found numerous problems with it. He’s doing that community of scientists a valuable service, if they’ll stop sniping at him (and stonewalling him) long enough to listen. His work is vastly more in the spirit of scientific inquiry than the climatologists whose work he audits, who respond by attacking him personally, by stonewalling on data or methods, and by using inappropriate pejoratives like “denialist”.

    His work is interesting and insightful, and multiple scientists with peer-reviewed research in various branches of climatology make routine appearances there to contribute to the discussion. Real science can stand up to rigorous review, and doesn’t talk about “concensus” or about trying to shut down opposing viewpoints. This “debate” (scientific or otherwise) isn’t even close to over, nor do I expect it to be for literally decades to come.

  24. Alan D. McIntire says:

    There’s been a spat here over “long term” versus “short term”.
    Why not take the really long term. Notice how drastically the
    earth has cooled over the last 65 million years?

    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    Of course one could also consider the astronomical long term:

    http://discovermagazine.com/1993/may/avisionoftheend222

    Earth will definitely fry in the next half billion years or so, making it REALLY a twin of Venus.

  25. JimV says:

    I get a laugh reading comments on this blog. I believe in global warming but more important, I believe in climate change. What is the difference? recently the earth has been warming, I don’t deny that. I believe that increasing CO2 levels may raise temperature 1-2 degrees C in the next 100 years. I don’t necessarily agree that a warmer earth is bad. Longer growing seasons have improved food supplies world wide. I wonder what the world would be like if global temperatures dropped by 2-4 degrees C.

    The point I would really like to make is that science is never settled. Anyone arguing that point is a politician not a scientist. I don’t believe anyone can say for sure that most of the warming is due to man made CO2 and do claim that it is makes me laugh.

    [JR: What makes me laugh is people who say they “believe in global warming” and “climate change” but don’t believe what science says about those things. If we listen to folks like you, it’s gonna warm 5-7C this century, and no one will enjoy that catastrophe. You’ll probably live to see the 1 to 2 C warming we’ll get in the next few decades.]

  26. MartinGAtkins says:

    The full quote is.

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

    I think it is more appropriately applicable to endless stream of propaganda you AGW fanatics spew out.

    I don’t think I have ever seen such a pathetic dummy spit by a blogger in all my travels. Grow up.

  27. Mark says:

    Mike U:

    “Have you actually read the posts at CA?”

    I have. In a recent post, he snipes at Al Gore and deliberately confuses weather with climate, a common move among disingenuous contrarians. The whole focus on Gore has a purpose – to convince readers that global warming science is strictly political, with “alarmists” following Gore, a politician, while “reasonable” scientists know better. This Gore obsession is almost universal among contrarian folks.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4718

    “Real science can stand up to rigorous review.”

    I tend to agree with that, although peer review isn’t a guarantee of accuracy. To my knowledge, McIntyre’s contribution to peer-reviewed science is a comment or two on a temperature reconstruction (which is more than the vast majority of them) – some of the conclusions of which have been highly contested. The rest of ClimateAudit is mainly a slew of various questionable/unsupported assertions with a bit of self-promotion.

    MartinGAtkins:

    Your comment:

    “I don’t think I have ever seen such a pathetic dummy spit by a blogger in all my travels. Grow up.”

    is highly ironic given:

    “…endless stream of propaganda you AGW fanatics spew out.”

    Unlike the contrarian crowd, most of the claims from the huge majority of climate scientists is actually supported within the peer-reviewed science.

  28. Neo says:

    legitimizing anti-scientific denialism

    Everytime I read something like this, I think of Robin Warren and Barry Marshall.

    In the 80’s they were viewed as crackpots and lunatics, in 2005 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine (yes Virginia, every so often the Nobel folks get something right).

    [JR: Most people, however, think of the flat earthers and of those who think NASA faked the moon landing. You folks who want to destroy the health and well being of billions of people need a better argument than the nano-hope that maybe the handful of remaining crackpots on your side are in fact not crackpots but future Nobel Laureates.]

  29. Dave Andrews says:

    paulm,

    I have never said that the globe isn’t warming – that would be stupid. What I question is by how much, the role of AGW in the process and whether the effects are as bad as warmers say they will be. There is no one “main reason” for this but multiple reasons which would take ages to relate.

    DavidONE

    Something that really pisses me off (and I think that is the first time I have got really angry in any blog post) is people who know absolutely nothing about me saying that I am ‘lying’ in what I post. You may disagree with the scientific aspects of what I say, but I am NEVER, NEVER, EVER less than honest about myself.

    It’s something you might learn from.

  30. DavidONE says:

    Dave Andrews,

    I started educating myself (as best a layperson can) about climate science about three years ago. I started debating the topic soon after with ‘sceptics’ on the internet. Almost without exception, the deniers of scientific reality are liars or delusional. I’ve encountered one person who openly admitted that he had been fooled by the ‘ExxonMobil’ propaganda. Just one. The rest *know* they are right. The rest will claim up is down and black is white.

    Deniers do not enter the debate in good faith. They’ve already made their mind up based on political / religious ideology. And they lie. They lie about their qualifications, they lie about their affiliation, they lie when they regurgitate what they know to be debunked bullshit. They lie to maintain their delusions and denial of scientific reality.

    Maybe you’re honest and therefore simply confused – I don’t know. I do know, however, that 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.

  31. MartinGAtkins says:

    Mark Says:
    January 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    “Your comment:”

    >“I don’t think I have ever seen such a pathetic dummy spit by a blogger in all >my travels. Grow up.”

    “is highly ironic given:”

    >“…endless stream of propaganda you AGW fanatics spew out.”

    “Unlike the contrarian crowd, most of the claims from the huge majority of climate scientists is actually supported within the peer-reviewed science.”

    Do you mean the “huge majority of climate scientists ” at IPCC? What papers were independently peer-reviewed and by who?

  32. hapa says:

    unheard martyrs of climate truth, residents of small island nations send their sympathies, they feel your “pain”

  33. Dodgy Geezer says:

    “…The recent data is clearly on the trend line….”

    Err, yes? Of course it is. That’s why it’s called a ‘trend line’.

    The trend line indicates the average trend of the data between the two points in question – in this case, about 1993-2009. So it will be close to ALL data in this period. That line helps you see what the sea level is doing in relation to the longer-term average, and you can clearly see that from about 2002-2006 it was higher. Since 2006 it has dropped quite sharply – in fact, for the last few years the trend has actually been downward.

    Do you really have difficulty seeing this?

  34. Joe says:

    You are Dodgy, for sure

    What I see is that the latest data is on the trendline, thus utterly invalidating Watts’ and Inhofe’s claim. I have no idea what you see.

    It is certainly true that you can pick an arbitrarily high point in 2006 and say sea level has declined since then — but that arbitrarily high point was well above the trendline. Thus you would be effectively saying, sea level rise soared in the few years leading up to that arbitrary point, and then it leveled off.

    Why weren’t there any headlines two years ago that sea level rise was soaring. The answer is, Watts and Inhofe are biased and cherry pick.

    The point of the trend line is to tell us whether the rate of change of sea level rise is changing. It ain’t.

    Maybe you need new glasses, Geezer.

  35. Peter Wilson says:

    No, I’m sorry, the data as posted is quite clear, and insulting anyone isn’t going to change it. There clearly HAS been a minor dip in the rate of increase lately, whether that means anything or not is open to debate of course, but come on, who are the deniers here!?

  36. Peter Wilson says:

    Furthermore Mr Romm, I am quite conversant with the scientific literature on sea levels, my comment was quite accurate, 3.3 mm/year is 13 inches/century. Any acceleration you may see depends entirely on the timeframe you chose, and Mr Watt was entirely correct to point out that the very recent trend is in fact downward.

    Or does the fact that Mr Watt is “only” a weatherman mean that, even when he points out something patently obvious, it then becomes wrong. Just what qualification does qualify one to comment on this issue – and do you have it, Mr Romm?

  37. Joe says:

    Peter:

    You can call a tail a leg, but I’m afraid it’s still a tail.

    Your comment was inane. The science is quite clear that the rate of warming and sea level rise is going to rise, and rise sharply. Citing the current rate of sea level rise as a reason not to worry, as you did, shows either a stunning ignorance of the issue which you declaim or a strong desire to mislead and confuse the public.

    The “very recent trend” in sea level rise is not downward, unless you twist the meaning of the word “trend” until it has no meaning whatsoever — unless a tail is a leg. I see you have added the word “very” — but that is clearly wrong. The “very recent trend” (i.e. over the past 6 to 12 months) is sharply up.

    Your reasoning is sharply down.

    My qualifications are on this website and easy to find here and elsewhere.

  38. Neo says:

    [JR: Most people, however, think of the flat earthers and of those who think NASA faked the moon landing. You folks who want to destroy the health and well being of billions of people need a better argument than the nano-hope that maybe the handful of remaining crackpots on your side are in fact not crackpots but future Nobel Laureates.]

    Gee thanks. I put one post on your blog and you are able to deduce from one data point the entire trend of my stream of thought .. ending with You folks.

    Now who is being non-scientific here ?

  39. Michael S says:

    The science is quite clear that the rate of warming and sea level rise is going to rise, and rise sharply

    Is this the same science that can’t back-predict historical temperature cycles? Or the same “science” that can’t even duplicate annual cycles remotely correctly? Or the one that ignores ocean cycles and solar cycles? And convection and clouds?

    Using wildly overestimated parameters for CO2 and feedbacks, needed to overcome the fact the most important factors are not included in the models will generally produce the same worthless forward and backward projections we have seen so far. Have fun predicting anything other than hot air with that…

  40. Dano says:

    Nice to see, Joe, that you can get the Chorus, Amen Neandertals all riled up.

    It’s good to see what kind of people are in the fringe minority every once in a while.

    Best,

    D

  41. Mark says:

    MartinGAktins,

    “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

    DavidONE,

    That’s been my experience too, although I don’t assume bad faith from all of them. Some are willfully misinformed, no doubt, but not all. Generally, when you debate a contrarian, they throw out a standard fallacious or false argument (i.e. “no warming since 1998”, “it snowed in St. Louis today”). When you refute their argument, they disappear or move on to the next talking point. The process repeats itself. Eventually, they return to the first talking point on another thread. It’s pretty tiresome. They appear to never learn although one has to wonder if that’s really the case…

  42. Joe says:

    Yes, Dano, it is the Neanderthals who use the scientific method, and the anti-scientific deniers who are the homo sapiens sapiens.

  43. Mike M. says:

    All right! You can always count on Dano to bring up the level of hateful bigotry and arrogance in a discussion. Hey little D, the fringe minority is the 18% of Americans who believe that global warming is real, human-caused and harmful…

    http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/features/art26253.html

    By the way, I can see why you avoid joining the fray at CA since 98% of it is over your head but what keeps you from bringing your superior intellect and broken links over to Wattsupwiththat? Afraid of being beaten like a rented mule there, too?

    So, Joe! Did you see Harold Ambler’s piece in HuffPo?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

    Blasphemy! In the church, no less!

  44. Peter Wilson says:

    Joe

    Yet another ad hominem remark – typical! The “science” is not at all clear that there is “going to be” a rise in the rate of sea level rise, that is purely conjecture based on models which have failed so far. At the moment the rate of rise is 13 inches per century, and there is no convincing evidence that will accelerate at all.

    [JR: Rest of post deleted for repeating long-debunked denier talking points and continued ad hominem attacks. Anyone who doesn’t understand that the rate of sea level rise will accelerate simply has no concern for science and should stick with Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.]

  45. Dave Andrews says:

    DavidOne,

    What an arrogant person you are. You say deniers are “liars ” who “know” the truth with absolute certainty.

    Time to take an honest look at your own beliefs

  46. David B. Benson says:

    Michael S — It appears you have not actually bothered to determine what science actually does know. I suggest changing that by reading “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

  47. Mark says:

    Mike M.,

    More irony, revealed simply by reversing a couple of sentences…

    “By the way, I can see why you avoid joining the fray at CA since 98% of it is over your head but what keeps you from bringing your superior intellect and broken links over to Wattsupwiththat? Afraid of being beaten like a rented mule there, too?”

    vs

    “You can always count on Dano to bring up the level of hateful bigotry and arrogance in a discussion.”

    Now, to your link:

    “Hey little D, the fringe minority is the 18% of Americans who believe that global warming is real, human-caused and harmful…”

    Here is the full survey:

    http://www.ecoamerica.org/docs/ecoAmerica_ACVS_Summary.pdf

    What you left out is the word “strongly” in front of “believe”. “Agree somewhat” is also a choice. If someone answered “agree somewhat” (or don’t know) to any of the questions that make up the “OnBoard” label, they aren’t part of the 18%. In fact, I would answer “agree somewhat” to human-caused, since there are natural contributors to warming/cooling, although the human element is clearly dominant in recent decades. This would put me outside of the 18%. Others who might answer “agree somewhat” to any question are those who aren’t scientists but who generally accept the scientific consensus.

    Some other interesting findings:

    74% said, “We need to lead other countries in solving global warming.”

    “The government needs to create a department dedicated to solving
    global warming, as they did with the department of homeland
    defense to combat terrorism.”

    Republicans: 44%
    Democrats: 78%
    Independents: 59%

    “It’s our duty to stop global warming.”

    Republicans: 60%
    Democrats: 87%
    Independents: 69%

    Hmm…not really a minority after all.

    Most Americans believe that a “green economy” can save them money and
    bring jobs back to the US. 83% agree that, “Installing ‘green’ technologies will
    save us money” and 82% believe that, “Manufacturing solar panels, wind
    turbines and other alternative energy equipment is a good way to bring
    jobs back to the US.” 68% believe that, “Promoting a ‘green’ economy with
    new environmental technology could be the ‘Gold Rush’ of the 21st century”
    and 62% believe, “Green collar jobs will boost the economy.”

    It’s an interesting survey. Thanks for posting it. While the majority of Americans agree with the scientists on the core issues (there are other surveys that also back this), there is still clear dissent among the general public that doesn’t match the virtual consensus seen in the peer-reviewed science and the major academies. This is largely a result of persistent disinformation from contrarian websites, blogs, TV, and AM radio and a general strong personal ideological desire to want to ignore it.

  48. Mark says:

    Another finding from the above survey:

    “Lesser-educated Americans are more likely to: think that global warming is not
    a big problem; think that it is God’s responsibility; not sacrifice economic growth
    or pay taxes to stop it; trust that oil and car companies will solve the problem.
    They are less likely to believe that their actions contribute to global warming.

    Americans with college and graduate degrees are more likely to think that
    there are things they can personally do to stop global warming, and that it will
    cost less to address it now rather than wait, and that we should tax pollution.”

  49. Francis says:

    I have to react to the response that you wrote at the bottom here:
    JR: Yes. You sound like a progressive to me. I admit it — the entire scientific community has conspired to convince the public that the Earth goes around the sun and that we landed on the moon. You caught us. We won’t do it again. Now you can take that tinfoil hat off.]

    It took me a while to write as I was shoveling my driveway for the 17th consecutive day, 3 times, 2 hours each just on Saturday alone.

    It is the highest form of arrogance to tell me that one can’t possibly be a progressive without accepting the hypothesis put forward by Jim Hansen and so endorsed by money machine and Warmer in Chief Al Gore.
    It is disgusting and insulting at the same time.
    If you need this blog to have a life, so be it. But I suggest you find something else to do before other progressives wake up and
    find out what a fraud all this has been.
    Stephan Dion in Canada has learned that the hard way. Our country is predominantly left of centre, he tried to run the Liberals on a “Green Shift” program and voters “en masse” threw it out like garbage on a Monday morning. It has cost him and our party dearly.
    It is no wonder that Obama hardly touched on it during the last election.
    I hope that cooler heads will prevail in his administration, we can learn a lot from the European experiences with schemes to control carbon.
    By the way: for you to suggest that the “entire scientific community”
    would agree and underwrite the decarbonazation because Jim Hansen says so is absolute bull. And you know it.
    If I read one more time that we have a consensus, I will have to make sure to have ample supply of pepto bismol handy. What a joke.

    [JR: I’m leaving this in just so people see what we are up against. As regular readers of this blog know, I don’t believe in the scientific “consensus” (nor do I like the term). Actual observed climate change is happening much, much faster than the consensus had suggested, since the consensus is a watered-down, least-common-denominator text that every single member government must sign off on word for word.]

  50. hapa says:

    ah good times. i remember when a bush supporter said i was arrogant for calling the iraq war and the president unpopular a couple years ago. gotta love that old-time “fath-based” humility.

  51. MartinGAtkins says:

    >“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.

  52. Jeff says:

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

  53. Joe says:

    Jeff — Who the heck are you talking too?

  54. hapa says:

    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: …”

  55. Jeff says:

    You Joe, you.

  56. Joe says:

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

  57. Stu says:

    “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.

  58. Darren C. says:

    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.

  59. G Alston says:

    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…