If they are going to include my blog on their list of the top 30 science blogs, I can't help but link to them. There are some good blogs on their list which is only marred by the inclusion of Anthony Watts' anti-science blog.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
"they are going to include my blog on their list of the top 30 science blogs"
(Muffled splutters)... No, really, no, I mustn't ... it's just too obvious ... I must resist the temptation ... (rams hankie in mouth to suppress giggles) ... "Top 30 science blogs" ... oh my God .. what next? ... the Pachauri Prize, perhaps? No, don't, stop it, stop it now ... I'm hurting ... (rolls on floor convulsed with laughter)
Marred by the inclusion of RealClimate.
Is Duff's spluttering because he's such a fine judge of science? Or because he wouldn't have clue? Perhaps Duff prior disclosure helps answer that question: See [Duff's Proud announcement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) that he "*wouldn't know a Loess line from a fishing line!*
What the £$%&!
Wow!
So, we have the "It's science, and it's difficult if you don't put the effort in" blog perhaps.
And then to balance this out we have the "It's not science, but it's easy to understand because we say what you'd like to be true" blog included.
Lists! Who'd have 'em?
(But congrats on the "achievement" anyway.)
Duff and el gordo in 1 and 2. The denialists seem motivated to try and hurt Tim with their evidenced based assault (Sarc).
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, Times got at least two right!
Well deserved Tim. And Duffers confirms that!
Um, yeah, because it's far more reliable getting info from unqualified sceptics than the people who have collected, analysed, and published the results of the data for 20 years.
That's why when I want an unbiased opinion on whether I need reading glasses, I see a podiatrist.
I can't shake the idea that the inclusion of Watts was a kind of token counterpoint to spare Timesonline the wrath of the internet crazies. Normally, I wouldn't care, but in the big picture it seems China is currently lobbying to let that kind of logic encroach on AR5. I don't object to scepticism, but when trying to make an objective assessment of something, it shouldn't be given a pedestal simply for the sake of it. Its prominence should be based purely on its own merit.
David Duff thinks 1998 was 10 years ago, so why the hell would anyone listen to him?
Its always nice to see non-scientific scribes like Duff and el Gordo throw in their pennie's worth of ignorance here. How on Earth el Gordo thinks he has the ability to separate good from bad science on the basis of the usual nonsense he peddles is beyond me. But he is always good for a dose of comic humour.
Bottom line: Congratulations Tim. Not only is Deltoid # 1 for me but it is the only site I write into these days.
Should read:
"If you want to know why the latest NHS catastrophe or climate change scandal are nothing of the sort, despite what our reports tell you, someone on our list will have it covered. Just probably not WUWT."
Wot - no [Bad Science](http://www.badscience.net/)? Oh dear.
I note that, so far, the main thrust of the comments there has been very Anti-Watts. Although good old Girma has made an appearance :D
Well done Tim, you're in some lofty company that should encourage you to keep your standards up.
Maybe I'm a bit too fanatic, but perhaps you and other blogs dealing with AGW should tell Eureka you don't want to be on the same list with WUWT? Tell them to put DenialDepot there instead of Deltoid.
Or would that backfire?
âWatts Up With Thatâ - scientific? On what basis?
Watts' repeatedly continues to promote articles that are in stark contrast with the facts, it is impossible to consider WUWT is scientific in any manner whatsoever.
Posted in the Eureka Zone Comments section
The posts by Duff and el gordo are like a bad car accidents - gruesome, but impossible to look away from.
Jeff Harvey: "Not only is Deltoid # 1 for me but it is the only site I write into these days".
What a relief, see, I told you, there is a God!
David Duff has revealed, elsewhere, that he is a big fan of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Which pretty much tells you all you need to know.
JamesA
> I can't shake the idea that the inclusion of Watts was a kind of token counterpoint to spare Timesonline the wrath of the internet crazies.
It's also useful as bait for the rational masses - just look at the comments - swamped with people deriding WattsUpMyArse's inclusion.
Newspapers' primary purpose is to sell newspapers (21st century = generate clicks). If they can do that by stirring in some 'controversy', they will - and they do. Thank the gods for blogs like Deltoid, Real Climate, Bad Science, Bad Astronomy, et al.
Nice work, Tim!
In a strange way, I'm a fan of them, too. The only thing I love more than science is comedy.
'The only thing I love more than science is comedy', but separating spoof from truth is a problem.
Sir David King (Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser) said the CRU hack was too sophisticated to be carried out by a local nerd and believes a foreign secret service is the culprit. Winston Smith thinks it's really MI5.
So you are a Poe! I thought so!
1 Duffer,
So funny. BTW did you vote for any of the ASS blogs in that other poll?
2 el gordo,
And yet Watts is in there, albeit last.
3 jakerman,
I believe the correct and original version is something like "wouldn't know his arse/ass from a hole in the ground".
TS,
Alas but it is an alphbetical order.
7 James,
Please reconsider your use of the word "scepticism". It has a proper meaning. To use it to describe denialism is a debasement of the language.
24 jakerman,
Doh! It's getting late. :(
That's funny because you thought the same thing.
What an amazing coincidence!
Isn't it? It's almost like you're trolling for attention.
No. Francis Renier on another thread has directed us to a Guardian story which suggests Paul Dennis is a suspect. Surely, he's just a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb?
>> impossible to look away from.
>> Posted by: JasonW | February 4, 2010
There's software for that problem.
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107
> Comment by David Duff blocked. [unkill]â[show comment]
> Comment by el gordo blocked. [unkill] â[show comment]
No. Francis Renier on another thread has directed us to a Guardian story which suggests Paul Dennis is a suspect. Surely, he's just a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb?
You're the expert here. Why don't you tell us what Watts and McIntyre told you to you think?
John
You should get out more, it broadens the mind. I like desmog and Bishop Hill, but neither are mentioned among the 30.
el gordo, is Bishop Hill the source that source you were reluctant to name, the source that [kept embarrassing you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…)?
He calls Watts an "eco-friendly" blogger.
TS,
I like the term "pseudosceptic". A person who likes to think they are, but who exhibits no real sceptical qualities (eg, doing enough research to determine which information is factually correct and which is not). The denyosphere is heavily populated by them.
Congratulations on completely avoiding my mockery of the way you change your mind from post to post while never acknowledging you were wrong.
And now you've given me the "Get out more!" attack I've never seen outside of a sixteen year old girl's MySpace.
Quiggin uses delusionist which is quite apt. I like agnotologist which describes their activity in cultural terms.