Anti-science website on verge of being named Best Science Blog

Okay, this is not as big a deal as, say, the election of John McCain and Sarah Palin would have been. But, Watts Up With That is currently leading the online (i.e. non-scientific) Weblog Awards voting for Best Science Blog, as feared (see “Weblog Awards duped by deniers — again!“).

Watts is a major global warming denier and sufferer of anti-science syndrome, as evidenced by his reprinting and endorsing a broad-based attack on the integrity of the entire scientific community [see “Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)“].

If this annoys you in the least or if you are just feeling bored today, you should vote here for Watts’ closest competitor, Pharyngula. Vote soon, though. The “polls” close today, Tuesday, at 5 pm EST.

29 Responses to Anti-science website on verge of being named Best Science Blog

  1. Dana says:

    FYI the voting link UFL has an extra backshlash on the end.

  2. Dana says:

    Sorry URL, not UFL.

  3. Al Gore says:

    Calling a web site that encourages debate “anti-science” is childish. Why don’t you attack their scientific arguments rather than just hurling ad hominem epithets. If you cannot use science to refute them, then you’ve already lost and the debate is over!

  4. othercoast says:

    “Watts is a major global warming denier”

    But he agrees that there’s climate change, doesn’t he?
    If one looks at the un-falsified data he presents (admittedly, a novel approach to climate “science”), one can only see that he does not, in fact, deny the climate cooling of the last 10 years.

    “and sufferer of anti-science syndrome”

    That’s a bit like Jews being called Nazis.

    How is it scientific to place temperature recording stations in locations that are experiencing ever-increasing artificial heating?
    How is it anti-scientific to point out this outrage?

    If Watts is so obviously wrong, why are you so afraid of readers being steered his way? Is it, perhaps, because all his data and methods are transparent, reviewable, and repeatable, and source-cited like any good science paper, as opposed to the carefully obfuscated fake-data and conclusions presented by the alarmists like you?

  5. Gerry says:

    Typical Leftist Fascist tactics – shut down anyone who dares to tell the truth.

  6. Tipper Gore says:

    Al, shut your pie-hole.

    Let’s just take this at face value. If people err on the side of believing in global warming, what horrors will knock at our collective door? Hrm…?

    With the world’s population growing exponentially and the obvious need to feed that population, it doesn’t matter if we all convert to veganism or breed a billion more cattle to feed folk. Agriculture requires machinery, which burns tons of fossil fuels, and cattle fart up a storm, tossing methane into our atmosphere…that bit’s inevitable.

    If you want to support people who deny global warming and thus, block attempt to make our operations more efficient, hinder attempts to make big polluters take a bit of a hit for our future, what good are you doing? Really…

    This debate’s ridiculous, Al. Come home and do the dishes.

  7. Andy Freeman says:

    > If you want to support people who deny global warming and thus, block attempt to make our operations more efficient

    They’re not blocking attempts to make our operations more efficient. They’re blocking attempts to mandate certain technologies.

    When solar etc is actually more efficient, there’s no need for mandates, subsidies, and so on. Until then ….

  8. Tipper Gore says:

    Oh, I’m sorry, you must be one of those magical elves that piss oil, fart constant streams of pure methane and have coal for boogers.

    I (and all my neighbors…and all my neighbors’ neighbors) have free access to wind and solar power.

    Try and make me sound foolish. Read Einstein’s ideas on energy production for populations, and you’ll see that the most obvious and logical solution is to harness free potential energy that’s already more than abundant.

    The only reason that it’s not economical is scale…the same damn reason any new technology is comparably expensive at the beginning of its uptake.


    Al! I still need those dishes cleaned.

  9. Kojiro Vance says:

    Joe asks readers to vote for a website that is gratuitously anti-Christian and has posted some particularly vile cartoons mocking the Catholic Mass.

    Nice one Joe – so much for liberal diversity and tolerance. Oh, I’m sorry, you like to call yourselves progressives.

    [JR: I’m trying to stop a viciously anti-scientific website from gaining credibility. It is the Weblog Awards that created this farce. If you don’t like it, vote for anti-science. I am not endorsing a given website, so don’t claim that I am, don’t claim that I am dndorsing his content. I am am asking readers to vote for his website. I’ve already said I would like this category shut down.]

  10. Kojiro Vance says:

    No matter – it appears that the Weblog awards have closed and WUWT is up by about 1,900 votes. The judges have to review the results so we’ll see. If Watts wins I predict Joe and others will say such things don’t matter, but if that is true, why ask people to vote for the blog in second place?

    Do you have an example where Anthony was particularly vicious? Or is just anybody who disagrees with you wrong and anti-scientific?

    [JR: He posted and endorsed a vicious smear on the integrity of the entire scientific community, as I have blogged.]

    What is it about Anthony’s blog that bother’s you? Is it that Anthony would dare to look at the NOAA weatherstations that provide data that goes into the AGW models? As a scientist and engineer it seems to me that it isn’t a good idea to park vehicles or locate air conditioning units close to the temperature measuring instruments. Or my favorite, putting a light bulb on a daylight sensor inside the Stevenson screen so that the light comes on at night. You think that might have an effect on the temperature reporting?

    As a scientist Joe, you should care about the quality control of the data that goes into the climate models.

    My specific complaint about Pharyngula is that he posted last week a 4 panel cartoon by anti-Catholic fundamentalist Jack Chick that mocked the Eucharist. As a practicing Roman Catholic I found it deeply offensive. Myers should be able to make his arguments about evolution without resorting to such antics. This wasn’t the first such post. Myers frequently swerves off the road to launch drive-by attacks on Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religions.

    Somehow I don’t think if Pharyngula were vehemently anti-gay or if Myers was a skinhead that Joe would be so quick to send folks over there.

  11. Steve Bloom says:

    Sorry, Kojiro Vance, no self-respecting scientist would take Watts at face value as you have. For example, what are the peer-reviewed, replicable standards for determining the effect on a temp sensor of e.g. an air conditioner 10 feet away? Oh, there aren’t any? No kidding.

    You know, I put a little effort into trying to educate Watts back in the early days of his blog. My main contribution was to point out that the scientists working on this stuff had figured out these problems years ago (it wasn’t even until maybe 25 years ago that it became clear that there would even be a need for surface temp data suitable for climate analyses) and had taken steps to compensate using the existing USHCN network, and about 15 years ago had begun planning for a new climate-quality Climate Reference Network that was completed at about the time Watts began his little campaign.

    Building a new network is an odd thing to do for people bent on rigging the data to show more warming than there really is, don’t you think? Oh, and I should not neglect to mention that the U.S. continental data that Wattts is convinced must be rigged actually show less warming than most of the world. Go figure.

    The funny thing is that Watts didn’t even know about the new network until I told him. Yeah, there’s a real scientist.

    Later on, an independent analysis of the USHCN stations Watts had categorized up to that time found that there there was little difference between the alleged “high-quality” stations and the remainder (using the NOAA-corrected data). Watts and his friends couldn’t find a flaw in the analysis, and in the end just carried on as if nothing had happened. Some people seem to have hard time giving up their pre-conceptions.

  12. Kojiro Vance says:

    Steve – thanks for the civil reply. So how does one get information on he newer network? If there is high quality network, why doesn’t Watt’s detractors just show people. That seems like a much better argument than just calling him names. If the crappy looking weather stations aren’t making it into the climate models then it seems like a waste of time to have volunteers check them.

    People on both sides of this debate say some pretty stupid things.

  13. Dano says:

    f the crappy looking weather stations aren’t making it into the climate models then it seems like a waste of time to have volunteers check them.

    Volunteers aren’t checking them.

    They are taking pictures of them. Huge difference. There are no – zero – controlled and replicable temperature measurements happening. IOW: its all show. All hat and no cattle. A sham. Publicity stunt.

    So how does one get information on he newer network?

    By following the link Steve provided you.

    If there is high quality network, why doesn’t Watt’s detractors just show people.

    The network Watts was trying to discredit is high quality, as Steve told you already.



  14. Rick says:

    A picture is worth a thousand words. And a temperature station in the middle of a parking lot is worth a few degrees of global warming.

    It’s not science if you are ignoring variables.

    [JR: Your second sentence indicates you don’t understand science.]

  15. Dana says:

    What’s with all the Watts fanboys commenting here all of the sudden?

    My problem with Watts is that his site is full of grossly amateurish data analysis. In some cases intentionally misleading, as with

    Or in a more recent example, he took a single anomalously low atmospheric CO2 concentration data point and used it to make some absolutely ridiculous suggestions.

    Needless to say, CO2 concentrations resumed their increasing and accelerating trend immediately after this anomalous point (and I’m sure Watts failed to mention this). But this is the kind of thing Watts does – cherrypick individual data points and use them to make absurd suggestions and conclusions. His data analysis is absolutely amateurish, and for his site to win any kind of science award is a joke.

  16. HibiaMub says:

    как сказал один очень умный человек которого мы все хорошо знаем )

    Каждый розовый, взоры ласкающий куст
    Рос из праха красавиц, из розовых уст.
    Каждый стебель, который мы топчем ногами,
    Рос из сердца, вчера ещё полного чувств.

  17. FlosteEreree says:

    очень занимательно было почитать

  18. jadaduaste says:

    Отличный пост, прочитав несколько статей на эту тему понял, что всё таки не посмотрел с другой стороны, а пост как-то очень заинтересовал.

  19. PewspeedLell says:

    Спасибо за статью. Восхищена как всегда

  20. irrelpcert says:

    а вот вопросик можно? У вас время после поста указано. Это московское? Заранее спасибо!

  21. VKmaniamen says:

    Все самое лучшее для Вконтакте – картинки вконтакте

    Не проходи мимо!

  22. Не создавайте себе чужих проблем.

  23. steeps says:

    !Благодарю! Класный пост вышел! Так продолжать!

  24. Из лабиринта всегда есть выход… к Минотавру. хочу купить диплом

  25. pelayo says:

    Спасибо! Прочитав аж задумался…

  26. interrupted says:

    Отличная информация!

  27. Interesting idea. If you have free time, pleas came to my site. Thith is it – free online spades.

  28. In it something is. I will know, many thanks for the information.