Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 Next
Comments 48101 to 48150:
-
DSL at 02:34 AM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Magma, can the lazy get a live link for that quote?
-
tmac57 at 02:33 AM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Since part of the problem,as pointed out by several commenters,is that the voting is more a sign of zealousness,as opposed to popularity,maybe the Weblog Awards could get around that by restricting the voting to only one vote per person.Not a cure,but that would prevent 'ballot stuffing' so to speak.
-
Magma at 02:21 AM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Some 'awards' are not worth the effort. As The Guardian quotes the Bloggies founder:
But it seems that science blogs would rather complain about the results than try to submit nominations themselves, so I'm not very motivated. No point in eliminating sceptic blogs from the category when there's not much down the list to replace it with.
Why play in a rigged game when the prize is worth so little?
-
DSL at 01:55 AM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Not necessarily different, no. As with the widespread "if by whiskey" arguments using "catastrophic," the term "alarmism" can mean many things to many people. To me, the current rate of drop in ocean pH is alarming, because acidification events damage sealife, disrupt ecology, and threaten the food supply, and the current rate of drop is likely unprecedented (Honisch et al. 2012). It wouldn't be so alarming if I knew that the world was preparing to do something about it. Instead, the world is being successfully influenced by fake skeptic blogs that claim it's no big deal.
If you look carefully (actually a brief glance will do) at the history of CA, WUWT, Jo Nova, et al., you'll see that advancement of the science is not at all a concern. These sites attack climate science. They do not work with scientists to advance the science, and they never have. The rhetoric on these sites screams, "climate science is a hoax! Doubt! Doubt! Doubt!" I would not characterize them as "pseudoscience." I understand what Feynman is saying re sociology and psychology. They are necessarily "soft" because humans are extraordinarily complex, and we have to read ourselves from within our current historical moment, the bias toward which is quite difficult to overcome. Feynman doesn't account for the more recent advances in cognitive science and the converging sciences of psychology and biochemistry.
Climate science is, in general, not "soft" in that way. The physical processes involved are studied in the usual scientific way, and that study is thoroughly grounded in physics, chemistry, and biology. Climate modeling has a "soft" aspect simply because the human response is involved. The variable with the greatest range of movement in all climate modeling regimes is the human response.
-
Eclectikus at 01:16 AM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Okay, thank you DSL #45. Yes basically I had the computer models in mind. Anyway I'm talking about Climate alarmism as pseudoscience, not about Climate Change, and Climatology as a whole. Please, note these are very different things, isn't it?.
-
DSL at 01:05 AM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Ecletikus, you say: "they are no susceptiuble of falsability, and fail to fulfill the Scientific Method." Precisely what are you talking about? The fundamental theory has been tested in lab, inferred from satellite (MODIS), and directly measured from surface (e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004). Are you on just about modeling? If so, say so. Blanket coverage usually gets a body into trouble. If it iss about modeling, perhaps you could list your specific complaints on the appropriate thread.
-
DSL at 01:00 AM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All: "For Gods sake people, engage one another."
I thought you said you weren't interested in discussing the science. -
Eclectikus at 01:00 AM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Hi all!Just a note about pseudoscience. The term itself is a modern term who started on XX century. The pejorative connotation is still more modern, coming from probably when it was linked with homeopathy, astrology and so on...For example, Feynman includes Social Science and Economy on pseudosciences (but without the pejorative tone): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrwI am almost sure that Feynman would do the same with Climate Alarmism today (again without the pejorative tone), because in many senses, suffers of identical failures than Economy, Sociology... they are no susceptiuble of falsability, and fail to fulfill the Scientific Method.To say that blogs as WUWT, and many other in the same wave are pseudoscience crap, says nothing about these blogs and a lot about the people claiming that. IMHO you better should ask yourself why people read skeptics blogs more than others, and where are the differences.Best Regards. -
Tom Curtis at 00:36 AM on 4 March 2013Living in Denial in Canada
Ray @9, so what? Australia can afford its $23 AU per tonne carbon price applied to the largest poluters only. California, presumably, can afford its $13 AU per tonne carbon price applied to a wider range of entities. The fact that the two carbon prices apply to different ranges of entities means a simple comparison of price does not tell you the relative costs of the schemes, but that is beside the point.
The key point is that both Australia and California, by implimenting a carbon price, will find their economies adapting to a low carbon economy. That means both will be well placed economically when global agreements on carbon pricing are eventually implemented, at which time their carbon prices will be brought into line with each other, either by design or by trading between different carbon markets.
In contrast, nations and states with no carbon price will either come into a global carbon pricing system with high emissions because they have not already started adapting; and hence at high cost - or worse, based on the fear of that possibility will hold up the implementation of a global scheme to the disadvantage of us all.
-
Ray at 00:14 AM on 4 March 2013Living in Denial in Canada
Bill Everett@8 You're forgetting the expansion in the human population plus the desire of those in third world countries to attain the living standards of the first world will alsmost certainly lead to higher CO2 production. And Tom Curtiis@7 you state iron ore can be turned to steel using arc furnaces or charcoal. But is this actually happening? And as for the Clifornian Cap and trde the auction in February was $US13. 62 (about $A13 for each 2013 allowance and $US10.71 (about $A10.00 ?for each 2016 allowance. Neither is close to the $A23.00 price set by Australia.
-
shoyemore at 23:10 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All
Words like pseudoscience or anti-science were never used about Copernicus, Gallileo or Newton becasue the term "scientist" was not even coined until the 19th century.
"Skepticism" is the Apple-pie of denialism. Who could possibly be against "scepticism"? But I think true scepticism is the recognition of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, and that it will change is response to observations. What do you say to someone who refuses to assimilate and understand evidence, who continually shifts the goalposts and who regurgitates arguments already refuted?
-
BillEverett at 23:01 PM on 3 March 2013Living in Denial in Canada
Tom Curtis@5, I won't debate what might or might not happen by 2050 regarding the legal status of non-permitted emissions nor whether criminal penalties ahould be added to civil penalties, etc. It's off-topic. I won't discuss the details of possible 2050 visions here unless those details are directly relevant to assessing whether the existence of a widely shared vision of the future, now only 37 years away, might be useful in reducing implicatory denial. The question I raised is what to do about implicatory denial, i.e., the large middle (in many cases, the majority) of people distributed from active denialists to climate researchers and activists. The middle believes the science, believes AGW is a serious problem, believes something should be done about, BUT continues BAU and doesn't demand appropriate action from government and business. My question is why are they in the implicatory denial state and what might suffice to make some of their behaviors conform to their beliefs.
Ray@6, I have a good idea of the distribution of wealth and life styles around the globe and can envision a quite different world in 2050, for example, a world in which almost nobody cooks with wood or animal dung.
In Calhoun's 1968 lecture at the AAAS meeting in Dallas, Texas, a simple model was presented involving five historical revolutions and two future revolutions. The historical revolutions were identified as the traditional-sapient revolution (about 33710 BC), the living-agricultural revolution (about 8157 BC), the authoritarian-religious revolution (about 519 BC), the holistic-artistic revolution (about 1391 AD), and the scientific-exploitive revolution (about 1868 AD). The future revolutions were identified as the communication-electronic revolution (about 1988 AD) and the compassionate-systems revolution (about 2018 AD). It seems to me that Calhoun was reasonably accurate regarding the communication-electronic revolution, a "new perspective of life as an information exchange network and ... the development of theories and electronic technologies for the transfer and condensing of information as the means for enhanced coping," which is particularly surprising to me given the simplicity of his model. If his prediction regarding the compassionate-systems revolution is just as accurate, which I hope it is, then the world will be very different two decades from now.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:26 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All @36:
"I think the thing I most disagree with is the aggravated use of negative discriptives to label others."
Climate4All on his blog:
"Men of science that support ‘climate change’ use unethical and deceitful rhetoric in order to maintain the control and flow of money to support the biggest scam in the history of Western Civilization."
The phrase "stunning hypocrissy" comes to mind. Clearly he does not want to practise what he preaches, but rather simply objects to accurate descriptions being applied to AGW deniers.
-
Tristan at 22:21 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
A climate change contrarian would call a properly skeptical blog 'warmist'. It was a joke.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:56 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
The 'bloggies' are fine for awards on social topics. They would probably even be fine for factual topics if there weren't large anti-fact communities. However, since that isn't the case I'd agree that boycotting makes sense.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:54 PM on 3 March 2013Living in Denial in Canada
Ray @6, it would help if you were better informed. Specifically, diesel and petrol are not exempted from the carbon tax. Rather, the tax is charged against them by withholding of fuel tax credits equal to the value of the carbon tax. As fuel tax credits are only available to business as a means of defraying the cost of the fuel excise, this means only business the carbon tax on petrol and diesel, just as (by design) only business pays the carbon tax directly at all.
You are equally misinformed about iron ore, which can be turned to steel with low or zero CO2 emissions either by using arc furnaces and/or by using charcoal as the reducing agent. Consequently there is no need to limit the export of iron ore per se.
While it would be desirable to limit coal production, this is best done by the purchasing countries imposing their own carbon tax at sufficiently high rates, whereupon Australian coal will become uneconomic as a fuel source. Reducing coal production by this method minimizes economic disruption both in Australia and for our trade partners. In that context, it is noteworthy that the major purchaser of Australian coal, China, is introducing a carbon tax. However, I certainly am against expansion of Australia's coal industry and consider moves to do so by Campbell Neuman (Queensland's Premier) foolhardy beyond belief. That is both because of the long term threat of global warming, and because if CO2 emissions are not curtailed soon Queensland's Great Barrier Reef will soon (withing forty years) be destroyed. In that event, Neuman by expanding coal exports when he should have been preparing for their reduction will justly be titled the Premier that destroyed Queensland's greatest natural treasure.
The EU's carbon price is low because of two design flaws, the allowing of stock piling of carbon credits; and the legislated allocation of carbon credits that did not respond to the fall in economic activity generated by the global financial crisis in 2008. These are desing flaws that can be avoided by learning from experience, as for example, by California.
Following your approach of finding in each little obstacle an absolute barrier to furthe progress, we would have abandoned democracy long ago because Hitler was democratically elected. We, however, do not need to be so foolish. The task before us is managable provided we act now and not hide from the facts because we might find an appropriate response inconvenient.
-
chriskoz at 20:57 PM on 3 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9
"Australian climate outlook remains bleak" not because Tony Abbot is destined to become new PM but because people still see Climate Change as a partisan issue here. And within the leading parties themselves, there is no sign of bipartisan approach as in the scase of U.S. security establishment repoted in the last article.
That's IMO a better measure of progress towards climate change mitigation rather than the fact that AUS has CTax introduced while US has not. When the major political force (Libs) can get away with the claims that the whole effort is "the hoax based on the lie" and score favourable polls based on that, something must be wrong with the mindset of that electorate. Why can Tony Abbott ride his career on such pure and silly denial about climate change issue? Because we as large public have not grown up to tackle the issue yet. Have we shown that we've grown up, Tony would change his mind about it very quickly.
-
jyyh at 20:36 PM on 3 March 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #2: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline
I've been waiting The Onion to comment on this, but so far nothing.
"State department OKs a useless and ineffective pipeline", or something like that.
-
chriskoz at 19:15 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
I don't read all of those "bloggies" competeing for some abstract "award" so I'm not even qualified to comment here. All I read is useful articles and comments that can enhance my knowledge about the world. with respect to climate science, SkS and RC, and ocasionally other sites referred therein, are such sites.
I appreciate the quality of moderation making such sites as SkS & RC so clean of rubish that internet is otherwise full of. Thanks guys for your good work! BTW, a post by Tristan at 14:37 PM on 3 March, 2013 falls into the category of nonsense sloganeering that should be deleted. Thanks!
-
Ray at 18:00 PM on 3 March 2013Living in Denial in Canada
Bill Everett you seem unaware that the majority of humans don't dwell in the G20 countries. All of the items on which you comment are well beyond the financial abilities of many of the countries in the so called third world. Unfortunately the denizens and the governments of these countries have food, shelter, treatment of endemic disease, increasing population longevity, reducing deaths in childbirth, as far higher priorities than lmiting their CO2 emissions. And Tom Curtis if you really, really want Australia to cut CO2 emissions, agitate for the abolition of coal and iron ore exports by Australian companies. As you must know even though on a per capita basis Australia is a high CO2 emitter, the small population means we don't contribute much to global CO2 levels from our own use of fossil fuels. Interestingly, I wonder why the government excluded petrol and diesel oil fron the CO2 tax. Perhaps that omission should be remedied. And why, do you think, is the European ETS now trading at around $6 per tonne rather than $23 per tonne?
-
NewYorkJ at 17:33 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All, in your response to DSL in 27,
"If we were to judge this post as an assumption of the overall content..."
At first I thought this was an indication of generaly naiveity about wuwt, but in your latest comment
"I was a big WUWT reader..."
Now it's more likely an exercise in obtusity. DSL'e examples are pretty representative of the kind of material wuwt has (as you should be well aware of) - the regular and blatant misrepresentations it engages in. There are fundamental differences between this type of site and that of wuwt. This site is careful to represent the peer-reviewed science accurately, to take a good faith look at the evidence. It's not perfect, and occasional mistakes are made, but what wuwt does is nothing more than political propaganda. That is not a pre-determined conclusion, as you are implying here. It's a conclusion formed from plenty of observations, and these observations are very well-documented here.
I'm more sympathetic to your argument on labels. After using "warmista" and "alarmist" on your blog, maybe you have had a change of heart. I don't care what labels people use, as long as someone doesn't cry foul about it then proceed to cast similar labels.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:21 PM on 3 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Phil Shehan, not at all off topic, IMO. It also shows that when Monckton told a mob in Sydney,
"So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you, we are going to prosecute you and we are going to lock you up!"
it was not just hyperbole. Monckton by his actions, and Nova by here approval, show that given the ability, the denier movement will resort to any legal expedient to ensure nobody hears the truth about climate change.
It may be considered unfair to tarnish all deniers with this brush, but until Watts, the Pielke's, Lindzen etc renounce Monckton and his totalitarian methods and flamboyent disregard for truth, they must be considered to approve of them. He who remains silent, consents.
-
Climate4All at 16:56 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Tom Curtis @34 | I think the thing I most disagree with is the aggravated use of negative discriptives to label others. I undestand the need to label, but it's regurgitation begins to sound like cries.
Let me put it another way. Marcello Truzzi wrote about this exact thing in an article called, 'On Skepticism'. Here is a exerpt of that article:
"Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive. Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim."
If we allow ourselves to diminish doubts,by black balling, name calling and unwilling to consider that science is unsettled, we no longer become scientific skeptics, but pseudo-skeptics. Truzzi even went as far as to describe the difference between the two. Review his work and test yourself on where you might lie on skepticism. Not Climate Change or Anti-Science, but your own approach to science. You might be surprised at the results.
Personally, I don't support slander. I was a big WUWT reader and commentor there. I even started my own blog. I even practiced the art of getting censored at this site and RC and Tamino. may have even got banned at one of them. Then it occured to me that none of this was about science. But about propaganda. So I quit. I think it has been well over a year since I've commented on any post, anywhere.
I've been writing a book and doing research on climate forcings. But when I saw John admit to withdrawing from the bloggies and his reasonings, I couldn't resist.
For Gods sake people, engage one another.
-
Philip Shehan at 16:39 PM on 3 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Actually my above post is not off topic because "Count1" of Monckton's charges concerns Press's alleged fraudulant conduct for merely disputing Monckton on this:
Count 1
Press falsely stated: “The argument of ‘no recent warming’ is wrong and has been debunked time and again.”
Yet just days before Press uttered his false statement The Australian had reported that Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the science working group of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, had admitted that the U.K. Met Office and other scientific bodies were right to find that there had been no global warming for 17 years....
his allegation that I had been incorrect was a lie and a deception constituting serious professional misconduct and scientific fraud, or he did not know these things, in which event his presumption of knowledge that he did not in fact possess was also a lie and a deception constituting serious professional misconduct and scientific fraud.
-
Philip Shehan at 16:33 PM on 3 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Tom Curtis, I hope it is not too much of topic to direct you to my comments #60 and #65 on Mockton's official complaint to the University of Tasmania calling for acadenic Tony Press to be sacked, accusing him of fraud and deception for merely disputing Moncktons argumements. My description of Monckton's conduct uses terms that while entirely correct would probably be struck out here. "Ludicrous" is one should pass muster.
It's on Jo Nova's blog.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 3 March 2013Living in Denial in Canada
BillEverett @4, emission of CO2 is not a crime against humanity. It should not be treated as such and suggestions that we should do so are out of order. If we regulate emissions, as we should, then it is a simple matter to penalize unregulated emission. One simple expedient would be a fine set by law to equal 2 or 4 times the maximum value paid at auction for emissions permits (in a cap and trade system) or at 4 times the carbon tax rate. If unregulated emissions are discovered several years after the event, the rate used to set the penalty should be the maximum rate over the intervening period. Such a penalty ensures that compliance is always cheaper than non-compliance regardless of the price on carbon at a given time.
It may be that keeping emissions of the books may appear a commericially viable means of evading carbon prices. In that event, an additional fine equal to the cost to the company in concealing the emissions plus the cost to the government in uncovering it should also be levied. Again, this ensures the commercial cost of non-compliance exceeds the cost of compliance.
Finally, directors and senior offices of the company should be made civilly liable to company losses resulting from non-compliance.
There is no need to criminalize commercial activity, even non-compliant commercial activity. There is absolutely no need to invoke the measures used in cases of crimes against humanity. Attempting to do so will only turn ours into a society not worth saving.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 16:22 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4all, your lecture on conflation is even more laughable than the thing itself, which you perpetrated, not the bloggies. I did not make any mention of the voters. The voters are irrelevant to your argument and my analysis of it.
I talked only about your conflation. You, not the bloggies, were the one trying to conflate the idiotic ramblings seen on blogs like WUWT to real scientific debate. You, not the bloggies, suggested that calling this BS pseudosience was a bad "mentality" that shuts down scientific debate. That's nonsense. There is no other way to describe it. And now please do not start screaming ad-hom, another concept of which I am quite cogniscent. Saying that BS is BS does not constitute an ad-hom. I analyzed your argument as being a load of it. You can try to demonstrate that it's not, by all means go ahead. However, you will fail, because it truly is BS, that's an objective reality. Not everything is a matter of opinion. When talking about reality, there is a right answer.
-
BillEverett at 16:08 PM on 3 March 2013Living in Denial in Canada
Possibly off-topic comment: An important issue is raised in this post without concrete suggestions for dealing with the issue. Moreover, dealing with the issue is probably outside the mission of the SkS site. Nevertheless, I continue.
The issue: What to do about implicatory denial?
Example of a vague (non-concrete) suggestion for dealing with the issue: We each need to behave consistently with our belief that AGW is a serious threat.
I think one of the reasons for implicatory denial is the lack of a clear, detailed, articulated vision of how we want to be living in 2050 with the problem "solved." In other words, not knowing exactly where I want to be, it is hard for me the think about where to go next in order to finally get there. My first rule of thumb for attacking a difficult problem is: Begin at the end.
Briefly, here are a few skeletal suggestions for a 2050 vision. Non-permitted commercial emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is treated in the courts (including the International Court) as a crime against humanity, similar to genocide. We live and work in shelters (homes, office buildings, factories, etc.) that are maximally energy efficient, that produce useful energy forms and carriers, and that are connected to intelligent energy grids as both a sink and source of energy, depending on the variable circumstances. We move ourselves and physical materials and products the minimum needed and most efficiently. Our healthy diets are produced sustainably. And so on.
The development and communication of a consensus vision for 2050 might help to free people from the stasis of implicatory denial.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:03 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
C4A @31, here is an example of the typical disspassionate debate we have come to expect from AGW deniers:
Of course, you must not have heard of any such demonstrations, or that little thing in the US called the Tea Party to make so fatuous a comment as your response NewYorkJ.
(And just a little cameo for John Cook, check out the conspiracy theory on a placard in the center rear of the picture.)
-
Tom Curtis at 15:55 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All @25, Phillippe Chantreau @28, the term "pseudo-science" was invented by philosophers of science as they attempted to determine the distinction between theories like astrology (which is pseudo-scientific) and astronomy (which is scientific). It was only later that it was discovered that theories like Young Earth Creationism, Scientific[sic] creationism, Intelligent Design Theory, and the vast majority of what purports to be skepticism about AGW also bear the hallmarks of pseudo-science. IMO, Imre Lakatos's discussion is the best on the subject.
I must say that Climate4All's response to shoyemore is on a par with an inveterate liar objecting to his lies being called such because recognizing the lies for what they are is an attempt to close down debate. I'm sorry, C4A, but the deniers excluded themselves voluntarilly from the scientific debate when they decided to resort to pseudo-science. I am not going to pretend that what they typically do is actual science just for their rhetorical convenience.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:44 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All @25, regardless of your thoughts on the matter, those blogs where nominated, and by an objective measure were far more popular than WUWT. WUWT won based on the fanaticism of its followers, not their number and certainly not on the quality of the blog. It may be inconvenient for you to recognize these facts, but if the Bloggies do not recognize them, and so something quickly to restore credibility, the bloggies will be a mark of poor quality rather than high quality.
-
Climate4All at 15:31 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Philippe Chantreau @28 Definition of conflation : blend, fusion; especially : a composite reading or text. I didn't conflate, the voters did. If there were more voters from sites like SkS, Real Climate, Open Mind, etc, this discussion would be mute. So ask yourself, 'why are there more voters from those 'other' sites?'
Ill rephrase my response to NewYorkJ @18 You said,"Deniers also tend to be more zealous and motivated to influence public perception" My response to this would be to lookup articles with those exact terms you used, and find that it isn't the skeptics chaining themselves to the gates of the whitehouse or demonstrating their rights to demand change.
DSL @ 27 If we were to judge this post as an assumption of the overall content for SkS, one could say that it has nothing to do with science. But this is just one post. Just as it is at other websites, there are many different articles that have no bearing on climate science.
Moderator Response: [DB] All-caps converted to l/c bold per the Comments Policy. -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:27 PM on 3 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9
Shame the US Security Establishment can't have a wee chat with the Albertan troglodytes.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 15:21 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Good choice, John. The Eureka award says all that needs to be said.
-
Tristan at 14:37 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Q: What would you call a properly skeptical blog?
A: Warmist.
;)
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:35 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Personally, I prefer the initials B.S. to long words like pseudo-science. That is the best way to refer to the ideas of those who try to convince people that the World is flat or that CO2 snows in Antarctica and phase diagrams are a ploy from conspiracists. Climate4all's conflation of this kind of nonsense with true scientific debate is laughable. There are such things as anti-science and pseudoscience, they consist of giving something the appearance of science when in fact it is a bunch of BS. Some sites mentioned above are prime sources for this kind of junk. Everybody can have an opinion, some opinions are completely worthless, they're not granted value by virtue of their exsitence.
There are some objective criteria in science. Questioning the norm for the sake of doing so when the norm is so well established that everybody who has a clue has moved on, that's pseudo-science. Being skeptical is part of doing science and it is not shunned, except when one is skeptical of things so obvious that they simply demonstrate ignorance or incomprehension of the subject.
-
DSL at 14:27 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climaate4All, you're not serious. Science is essentially skeptical. What Willis Eschenbach does regularly at WUWT is not skeptical. The response to Steve Goddard's odd musings is not skeptical. The WUWT comments policy (or, rather, its enforcement) does not encourage skepticism. Note that Watts performed his first study on surface stations and didn't get the answer he wanted, so he tried it again (and had a rather embarassing fail, despite having trumpeted it as a back-breaker before it had even been peer-reviewed. What a showcase of skepticism!). Skepticism is not simply doubt. Consider the recent Luedecke fiasco. Would you call editor Zorita's decision to publish Luedecke properly skeptical? Would you call the Washington Times decision to publish this properly skeptical?
What would you call a properly skeptical blog?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:19 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All... But the bloggies do not distinguish between those focuses (zines, etc). In fact, as Tom points out, those blogs where actually nominated in 2012. But despite having traffic levels that are 100's to 1000's of times larger, they still lost out to WUWT.
I mean, if you want you can continue to rationalize aspects of the category until you get down to a description of exactly what WUWT is, then voila!, WUWT is the defacto winner.
-
Climate4All at 14:02 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Tom Curtis @23 I think that sites like Mashable, and others like it, shouldn't be included in the Bloggies. Sites like that are more of a webzine than a blog. I've always considered blogs to be more interactive. Also, Mashable is more than about science. Its a diverse multi topic webzine. If it was just science, I doubt it would be ranked that high. Blogs encourage reblogging and comments. Just things to keep in mind.
Shoyemore @19 I really don't know what to make of the types of commentary that use words like anti-science and pseudoscience. I'm sure words of that sort was heard often by Copernicus,Galileo,Newton, etc. We would still think the world was flat with that kind of mentality. Science is about a re-evaluation of the norm. Skepticism should be encouraged, not shunned.
NewYorkJ@18 You said,"Deniers also tend to be more zealous and motivated to influence public perception"
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering snipped. -
Tom Curtis at 12:14 PM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Matt Fitzpatrick @23, if his concern is that a more restrictive voting system will introduce a bias, he can adopt the simple expedient of renaming the award "the most popular" blog in each category, and using the Alexa rank (or some other similar ranking system) to determine the winners. To see the level of distortion in his current system, consider the relative rankings of the five semifinalists in 2012 for best science blog:
His system was thoroughly biblical for it made the first last and the last first. He would have us believe that a pseudoscience site is better than four other genuine science and tech sites, all of which are more popular than the pseudoscience site based on Alexa rating.
I suspect that his problem is not concerns about biasing the results, but that a different method will significantly reduce traffic to his own site, which must be massively boosted by attempts to stack the vote.
Regardless of his real concerns, however, if he does not fix his clearly broken system, winning a bloggy will become a mark of shame rather than of distinction.
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 11:48 AM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
And it wasn't just the finalists that were heavily skewed toward a single science topic. Leo Hickman of the Guardian reckoned yesterday that 13 of the 17 semifinalists were climate contrarian blogs: "Climate sceptics 'capture' the Bloggies' science category".
Even though the bias of the current voting system toward a single science topic is clear and increasing, Bloggies founder Nikolai Nolan worries that restricting voting to qualified experts would still bias the results in some way. Mr. Nolan, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If expert voting results in less bias than the current system, it's a good thing.
-
Farmer Dave at 10:42 AM on 3 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
I have just had a quick look at Reality Drop, and it looks great - a really cool concept. The initial load of story content is either US centric or global science. Does anyone know if users can load Australian content? The next few months are likely to be really ugly in Australian politics and a tool such as this could help counter the dark tide of misinformation in which we are sure to find ourselves swimming.
A related matter is the topic spread. Here in Australia the dark tide of misinformation also includes a concerted push against renewable energy, with important policy instruments like the Renewable Energy Target under sustained attack. Are such topics off-topic as far as Reality Drop are concerned?
-
Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 3 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
Foxgoose raises the issue as to whether this is a type of astroturfing. The answer is no, it is not. Astroturfing is the use of paid employees to give the appearance of popular, grassroots support whereas Reality Drop attempts to give tools to the assumed pre-existing popular acceptance of, and willingness to do something about AGW. If, in fact, that popular acceptance does not exist, the "Reality Drop" project will fail.
And, Foxgoose, I believe your prior comment was deleted because it made suggestions of fraudulent activity (astroturfing) contrary to the comments policy, and that your currently displayed comment will be deleted as all moderation complaints are. The later is because they are necessarilly of topic, and because once a moderator has seen them, they have served their legitimate purpose. Such complaints, if reasonable can, and has in the past promoted debate among moderators about the correct interpretation of comments policy.
This comment may well be deleted as a reply to a deleted comment (and as a comment on comments policy). I hope Foxgoose has time to read it before that happens.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:53 AM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
BarbelW @5, not the most popular blog. If that is what it was rewarding, the award would go to the blog with the highest Alexa rank immediately after nominations closed. Rather, the prize is for the blog with the most vocal supporters. There are many popular science blogs whose supporters would be disinterested in a campaign for the blog they enjoy to win an unscientifically polled popularity contest. Indeed, my respect for John Cook and SkS would have decreased had the blog above campaigned for votes rather than withdrawing from this idiotic excercise in finding out which rabble shouts loudest.
Climate4All @17, as SkS has been previously nominated in the best religious, and best humour awards, it is safe to say that some deniers are prepared to nominate SkS simply for the sake of causing embarassment. Indeed, I believe just such tactics have been openly canvassed at WUWT, where of course, Anthony Watts annually pleads for votes from his readership. This makes a mockery of the awards, and the runner of the award should be ashamed that he regularly grants the award for "Best science" to a blog dedicated to pseudo-science.
Shoyemore @19, don't forget the many non-climate related science blogs out there, eg, the Panda's Thumb, or Pharyngula and of course, many others I am not aware of due to my narrow interests.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:52 AM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Actually, it's not a measure of popularity at all. It's a matter of how fanatical your audience is.
Remember, this is the "Best Science and Technology Blog" category. That means it includes some of the 100 highest traffic websites in the world. Engadget, Mashable, etc. These are huge sites with millions of visitors a month.
That WUWT has won this category repeatedly tells you zero about the quality or popularity of the blog. The only thing it tells you is that Anthony Watts is telling his readers to go nominate him and other websites like his, and they all dutifully follow his command.
That's not popularity. That's a fanatical following.
-
Foxgoose at 09:07 AM on 3 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Your previous comment was deleted because it made suggestions of fraudulent activity (astroturfing) contrary to the comments policy. This current comment was snipped due to moderation complaints. This site's comments policy has not changed...and neither has your laissez-faire attitude towards adherence to it. -
bill4344 at 09:02 AM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All post a long-winded rationalization typical of those who somehow believe you can vote for the laws of physics!
If it's all just some lumpen popularity contest based around who the fans think is the dreamiest then The Bloggies should simply renounce any category such as 'Best', or 'Science', for that matter. This is the kind of thinking that has McDonalds as the world's best restaurant, One Direction as our greatest musicians, and the Twilight Saga as the greatest set of movies in history. Sad.
-
shoyemore at 08:42 AM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Climate4All @17
There are good science weblogs, other than this one, that devote themselves to explaining peer-reviewed science and discussing the implications. Good examples are Science of Doom, Open Mind, Real Climate and ScienceBlogs. To lump these in with sites who invite and encourage pseudoscience for propaganda purposes makes a mockery of the word "science". Do the Bloggies recognise sites that discuss Intelligent Design, Dowsing, Parapsychology and Homeopathy? If such sites were "popular" should they be promoted to the "scientific" category?
-
NewYorkJ at 08:37 AM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Political material in general is more popular than science material. The blogosphere in general is highly-political, and denier blogs are certainly so. A high chunk of those with political persuasions aligning with views against climate change mitigation will add a few denier blogs to their regular reading. Pro-science blogs attract mainly those who are interested in science, which is inevitably a smaller subset of the political crowd. Politics inevitably has a much wider audience than science, so it should be no surprise to see all those GW denier blogs up there in the science category and few other topics.
Deniers also tend to be more zealous and motivated to influence public perception. They don't have science or qualified scientists on their side so they go with alternative routes of gaining broader acceptance, and they see Bloggies as one such route.
-
Climate4All at 08:20 AM on 3 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
We are talking about blogging right?
Blogs are a disccusional or informational site published on the WWW.
The Bloggies is an award system for the most popular blogs, divided in many categories.
Weblogs win on how popular they are. Readers vote and the blog with the most votes win.
Lifehacker won the award for most popular science or technology weblog 3 times. Lifehacker didn't win it because it was the most scientifically thorough or truthful. Lifehacker won it because it was the most popular at the time.
There is even a category for the most popular gay weblog. If the criteria for winning of that award was based solely on its gayness, and not it popularity, we would arrive at a different winner.
The Bloggies is all about whats trendy and most engaging by its readers.
So it purely comes down to traffic. You know that John.
So you want to withdraw you nomination? Thats your right.
But what about the ones that nominated you. They think you are popular.
SkS even made the finalists list. That is an achievement in itself.
(-snip-).
These 'anti-science' blogs are only popular because their readers enjoy them, and these readers amount to hundreds of thousands if not millions.
You should thank your readers for voting for you and not making it about the science. You do them a disservice.
Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering/inflammatory tone snipped.
Prev 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 Next
