Will the Real Science Please Stand Up? -- Global Warming Denier Site Set to be Crowned the "Best Science Blog"

Global warming denier site set to be crowned the "best science blog."

There once was a little known website fighting the so-called "global warming alarmism" being spread by that underground cabel of conspirators some of us call "scientists." But the site was no longer little after the Matt Drudge, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity right wing echo machine got through with it.

Since it's anointment, the Watt's Up With That blog run by former TV weatherman Anthony Watts has become quite the sensation amongst the climate denial blog comment trolls. And now it seems that the site is about to win the award for "Best Science Blog" in this year's Weblog Awards.

Has it seriously come to this? Are there really no blogs out there more worthy than one that spends its days trumpeting the likes of Junk Science as a reason we should ignore the dire warnings of climate scientists at the top science academies in the world?

There are lots of great science sites out there and there are some really good ones nominated along with Watt's Up With That. I would like to think that this is simply a case of voter apathy. After all, these types of Web Awards always come down to who can pull the most votes.

So I'm putting this appeal out there.

Take a few minutes today - the polls close at 5pm EST today, January 13th - and cast your vote by clicking here.

Here's some others that are in the running:

The controversial crusader against Intelligent Design, PZ Myers is running a close second to Watts, so the strategic vote would obviously go to PZ.

Also check out Real Climate run by practicing scientists at NASA.

Comments

[ktpetals]

This is something.

[flytyer]

Could it possibly be that it is being voted the best because it is actually fact and science based?

[ROWSSC]

This is an open message to all the followers of the religion of AGW. We all want to protect the environment and it is imperative that we wean ourselves from fossil fuels and coal, as soon as possible, for a number of reasons. But, the environut plan to destroy the economy and our way of life, in the name of an unproven and highly disputed theory, is foolish and suicidal. From recently expanding sea ice to record cold temperatures wordwide, it does not take a scientist to determine that "Global Warming" is a hoax. The AGW crowd has been reduced to a cadre of "bitter clingers" who try to belittle anyone that strays from the herd. They have lost the argument and are now the true "deniers".

[Prole-NY]

"From recently expanding sea ice..."

The Arctic polar ice cap is not expanding in volume, the volume is decreasing.

The area now is the same as it was 12 months ago - the winter remelt has recently slowed down to below the normal rate.

The situation in the Antarctic is more complex because of the presence of the land mass, and the changing conditions. The salinity of the Ross Sea is lowering, probably because of the increased supply of freshwater from the melting continental ice cover and the increased snowfall resulting from the warmer air coming in from the sea. The lower salinity allows freezing to occur at higher temperatures.

No matter how desperate you are to be let off the hook, one winter of very low temperatures does not mean that there can't be a general warming trend.

[Prole-NY]

Oops. I wrote 'winter remelt' instead of 'winter refreeze'.

[ssn648]

Could you cite a source there prole-NY?

This one, Cryosphere today still looks like it's going up. I thought the maximum is reached later in the year, it's still pretty cold up there.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

Here is another, It shows us just a bit above the 79-2000 mean and the sea ice area still increasing.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

Ice age bad---global warming good

[NewYorkJ]

Fitting that an anti-science blog wins an unscientific poll (similar to American Idol). They do tend to have a sizable cult following of non-scientist ideologues seeking Kool-aid to support an intense desire to deny the overwhelming evidence on a topic with political implications. Their tenacity has increased to some degree due to the recent political shift.

Being a former weather reporter and not a certified meteorologist, the site's owner often confuses weather with climate (although I'm not sure why: http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin )

He compares temperature anomalies as if they were raw values and cherry-picks data and comments from fringe scientsts (the way a lawyer would) to present a grossly unobjective and unscientific case to the laypersons. My advice to his followers who are genuinely interested in the topic of climate change would be to spend ample time reading recent peer-reviewed studies on global warming from experts who objectively study the topic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/

Alternatively, get yourself an advanced degree in the hard sciences, learn about basic physics, and publish some papers on the topic. I suspect it's much easier to drink Kool-Aid and rant in the comments sections of articles.

[ssn648]

Hey NewYorkJ,

Have a look at this graph that plots the CO2 absorption spectrum against the absorption spectrum's for all of the other atmospheric gases, and the incoming and out going radiation for the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Looks to me like the CO2 band is at or very near saturation, absorbing all the available energy.

Is that what you see or is there another way to interpret that?

Of course you already know the follow up question, How can adding more CO2 make any difference if all of the energy at the bands CO2 absorbs and emits is already being absorbed?

[ssn648]

Man, NewYork J That Sciencedaily site you sent us to is great!

Check this out!:

"Physicists tracking the data have found an unexpected benefit of rising carbon dioxide levels. Dr. Denning says it's unusual. "Stuff is growing faster than it's dying, which is weird," he says."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm

And this one is great too:
""Plants become more economical with water as carbon dioxide increases.­"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905083617.htm

Of course they give it a gloom and doom headline "Higher River Levels Predicted"
But what it really means is that more plants will grow, and they will grow larger and taller with less water. And this is a bad thing how?

This one has me a little worried though "Sea Level Rise Of One Meter Within 100 Years"
Holy Cow! How we ever adapt? Do you realize that that is a whole centimeter every year? My God man, that could be near a half an inch!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108101629.htm

Nah, I'm Just kidding. I still have my CO2 generator on order. Check out the link below and you can get one too!

http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp

[Michale32086]

"There is mimicry and there is mockery and THAT was definitely mockery."
-Dr Leonard McCoy

:D

Michale...­..

[ROWSSC]

While being a site of some scientific value ScienceDaily falls very short when presenting all sides of the global warming debate. It is patently obvious where Dan and Michele Hogan stand on this issue. They basically parrot everything the half witted Al Gore preaches. Al Gore, who stands to profit immensely from the cap and trade scam, should have his Nobel prize revoked. There are now hundreds of very accredited scientists with published peer reviewed studies who challenge the prevailing wisdom of AGW. Where are they mentioned in ScienceDaily?

[ssn648]

emily00011, emily00011, emily00011,

Please cool down, the Earth has been for the past 10 years.
The arctic icepack is still frozen, Last year “The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2008/02/16/western-greenland-ice-growing-still-global-warming

If we did not encourage the Inuit to build villages on unstable coast lines they would not have to move when the inevitable happens (I hope you don't live next to a river do you? That's another bad place to build a house)

The beetles? Well with temperatures at record low temperatures all across the norther hemisphere I am not too worried that they will be a problem next year.

This should also cool you down, The glaciers in Alaska are getting biggger.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/14/alaska-glaciers-on-the-rebound/

And finally, though you didn't mention it, the Polar Bears seem to be doing fine.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html?page=1

Hey, Did know you can buy as CO2 generator for your greenhouse? It makes your tomatoes really grow! Check it out, I am going to order one today and set it up in my yard!

http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp

Global Warming good---Ice Age Bad

[ssn648]

Hey lbsaltzman, and a few others,

I went to Realclimate.org, (I have been there before) and this is what I found:

"The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

So what you believe is that some unexplained phenomenon, repeatedly caused global warming for 400 to 3000 years, (that's the real range of the CO2 rise lag), then when CO2 got to a critical point it began to take over forcing a feedback effect the made the warming continue?

Humm, "could have been, " Boy that sounds like solid proof to me, alright. no need to debate that any more.

Quick question for all of you true believers, If this is true, that CO2 stared driving the temperature up after a critical point was reached creating a feedback, Then why did the temperature also START TO GO DOWN 400 to 3000 years BEFORE the CO2 started to go down? More Unexplained phenomenon no doubt.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

[fumes]

system antics: there are those among us who think what they're supposed to think, say what they're supposed to say and do what they're supposed to do. they are easily identified by their intolerance to those among us who think freely.

[Pulemerci]

I didn't think it was proper to say "Global Warming" anymore? I thought they swithced to "Climate Change?" I can't keep up. All I know is it's -6 in Watertown NY, -37 in Grand Forks, ND, -18 in Minneapolis, MN, -12 in Detroit MI. The climate is changing. It's getting colder.

[Michale32086]

My guess is the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion finally woke up one morning and realized, "Holy carp, it's cold!!! How can we continue to yell and scream 'GLOBAL WARMING!!!!' with all the record cold temps all over the world??"

Hopefully, only a couple more years of record cold temps will be needed to put this farcical con job on the trash heap of history...

Michale...­..

[fumes]

say, anyone notice the record cold temps coming across the midwest now?

say, anyone notice the record cold temps in alaska?

say, anyone notice they're skating on the canals again in amsterdam?

water vapor to the rescue!

[mamacat]

The Faux News people got a bunch of their followers to vote for a site that they trumpeted. How does that in any way affect scientific research or observations? The Nobel Prizes, for instance, are not awarded based on how Hannity or anyone else tells people to vote, but on real accomplishments.

Don't get too excited because a few nutters vote for an anti-science web blog.

[realpolitic]

Good point!!

[ssn648]

Hey there, Unorganized denier here,

I posted these questions a while ago and got some great answers. Thanks to those who answered.

I responded to each, please go have a look and take another crack at it

1. Physics that shows that CO2 absorbs energy at specific wavelengths and that almost all of the energy available from the sun AT THOSE WAVELENGTHS is already being absorbed by the CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere so how can adding more CO2 have much of an affect?
Here's a link to a site that discusses it in detail. http://nov55.com/ntyg.html .

2) For one thing to cause another to happen the cause must preceed the effect dont'cha think?
So why do these sites all say that through out millions and millions of years increases in CO2 lagg temperature change by 400 to 3000 years?
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/icecore.html
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20051201/20051201_07.html

3. How about this little nugget It shows a CO2 level off about 4500ppm about 450 million years ago during the Ordovician Ice House World. And we are worried about a change from 300 to 400ppm? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Feel free to call me names, but please address the points I raise logically

[lbsaltzman]

Simply go to realclimate.org and read the answers. These questions are raised ad nauseum by global warming deniers, but scientists have moved on long ago. The fact that warming preceeded CO2 rise in past events is not relevent. In the past warming was forced by other natural causes like changes in the Earth's orbit. That warming released other C02 into the atmosphere. This time the artificial release of CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels is causing the warming. By the way the "lag effect" will still kick in. the warming will cause the release of massive amounts of methane from the tundra. You have fallen into a logic trap of assuming that because an effect had a certain cause in the past that the same effect must have the same cause in the present.

As I said read what the scientists have to say and stop listening to paid idiots and shills for the energy industry.

[NL207]

"In the past warming was forced by other natural causes like changes in the Earth's orbit"


According to you irrational logic, these past mechanisms have stopped dead in their tracks because man has appeared on the scene.

You also assume wrongly that tere cannot be CO2 contributions from recent natural warming.

[emily00011]

Reposting your garbage won't make it more true.

Close your eyes really tight. There are no glaciers melting. There is no temperature increase over the 20th century. The permafrost is still frozen solid. The AK coastline villages aren't flooding and needing expensive moves on the government's bill. Beetles aren't eating away at the northern pines. Tree lines are creeping upwards. Arctic ice as still thick and big as always. The ocean's pH isn't decreasing.

Phew, we all feel a lot better. Thanks. I'm sure your kids will have big hugs for you in 50 years.

[ROWSSC]

Emily, chill out...opps­, the earth already is....my bad

[fumes]

ssn648 may i add from the greenland page @ wiki:

''However, a recent study suggests a much warmer planet in relatively recent geological times:
Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago. The existence of those DNA samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter. They also indicated that during the last interglacial period, 116,000–130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[19]'­'

[FrankenPC]

An entire town in Eastern Tenn. got over 1 billion tons of TOXIC coal ash dumped on it because of non-sustainable energy production. Clean coal or not.

I ask you, shouldn't we be thinking sustainability regardless of the true outcome to the question of global warming? Isn't global warming a red herring question? We are the pigs of the Earth and we need to clean up our act. I know it's tough to admit this, but we suck at maintaining this planet. It's time to learn.

[trixtah]

I don't think anyone who is concerned about climate change would want to ignore other forms of pollution as well.

Hello, there are over 6 billion people in the world - it's entirely possible that we can manage to work on one thing at a time. As individuals, we can also manage to think about the consequences of what we do and consume for more than one item - carbon emissions, clean water, dumping toxic substances. They *all* need attention, although given the *rate* of climate change, it's not surprising that is gaining much of the focus at present.

[ROWSSC]

Absolutely, it is imperative that we find ways to produce energy from means other than fossil fuels and coal as soon as possible. What most of us "flat earthers" and "deniers" are saying here is that the science now available, not to mention record cold temps, does NOT support the theory of AGW. And frankly, it gets a bit tiresome when you are attacked personally every time you try to point out the truth on this subject.

[NL207]

"An entire town in Eastern Tenn. got over 1 billion tons of TOXIC coal ash dumped on it because of non-sustainable energy production. Clean coal or not."


Gee! And here I thought the cause was government stupidity. The TVA is a government agency. The TVA is responsible for this coal ash dump. You and your ilk think the government is going to solve all these problems. Rubbish. The government will only continue to demostrate how unimaginative and inept it is, and when the Obama crowd is finished, the government will be just as inept and stupid as it was before only it will then be far larger....

[DeSwiss]

Thanks for the heads-up.

The main problem I have with global warming deniers is that they won't be around to suffer when the worst of it hits. They'll be safely ensconced in their graves while our progeny curse their forebears for their arrogance and selfishness. It's all about ME. Right? I don't want to be inconvenienced now. Let me keep my SUV!!! They're right and they KNOW It. And so what if they can't prove it, nor suffer the consequences?

Deniers make a virtue of poisoning the air and polluting everything in sight. As if there were no consequences. But someone WILL pay, but the deniers don't give a damn because they know it won't be them. And the worst of it is, the one's who will end up paying the most, haven't even been born yet.

I'll take the conclusions of 95% of the world's scientist over a lame-brained global warming denier weatherman any day....

[NonLeftist]

You assume that 95% of the scientists in the world buy into the Global Warming Myth. http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

[KillTheMessenger]

Pravda also like to publish Russian ghost stories and visits from extraterrestrials.

[bushgirlsgone]

.

Pravda blamed UFO's for Stalin's irritable bowl syndrome.

[BlackWidowPilot]

You're quoting... *Pravda?*

ROFLMAO!!!

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[degenerate1991]

You do realize that Pravda is a tabloid, right?

[SailFree]

Really--and I can prove it--it is the manmade global warming fanatics who rely on COMPUTER MODELS, which are not even junk science, but simulations of junk science. They base the models on the hypothesis that CO2 is a driver of the climate, and the data to date indicate that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes by about 600 years. Clearly, without a time machine, causes cannot follow effects.

The various claims (disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic (the sea ice has returned with a vengeance and approximates that of 29 years ago), the "every year for the past 12 years, the temperature is warmer" statement when the data show that the temperature stopped rising in 1998 and began a decline every year for the past 6 years, that the various THEORIES concerning what affects climate have undergone remarkable shifts, some 180 degrees, in the past few years, all point to the current manmade global warming theory as a FAITH-BASED RELIGION, not a scientific belief at all. It's worse than junk science.

[SailFree]

Pardon typos. My parenthesis cup runneth over.

[Lemmy]

Brilliant post. Much better than what I tried to articulate. Global warming/climate change is total crap.

[FrozenNorthObserver]

"global warming" has turned into a belief system, hence the attack phrase "denier" which of course has it's own dark connotation. Real science does not try and silence opposing opinions. Religion does. None of the warmies predictions have proved true so far. Where is your tangible proof? A computer model fed data by "believers" is only going spit out what they want to hear. Would you like to fly in Space Shuttle built on the warmies idea of science? I'm surprised that Global Warming does not have A BushCo, product number on it.

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

"disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic "

Wrong it has not come back at all.

"Ice cover in the Arctic Ocean, long held to be an early warning of a changing climate, has shattered the all-time low record this summer, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/11/arctic.ice.cover/index.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-north-pole-is-melting

North Pole is undergoing rapid change not seen in at least 6,000 years and perhaps as much as 125,000 years, and which may spread to lower latitudes.

[NL207]

"Wrong it has not come back at all."

Not at all accurate.

Ice anomaly Artic: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
Ice anomaly Antarctic: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Two things are immediately obvious: (1) Sea ice coverage at the two poles have been headed in diametrically opposed directions for the last 30 years. (2) Sea ice in the arctic has rebounded in the last two years and is now growing again.

These facts beg several questions: (a) What mechanism is responsible for sea ice growth around Antarctica and could that mechanism be a driver or even dominant driver of Arctic sea ice decline? (b) Doesn't Antarctic sea ice growth contradict the hypothesis that AGW is dominating sea ice formation? (c) Since CO2 has continued to increase over the last two years, what other factor changed to cause the reversal of Arctic sea ice extent? (d) Why do climate alarmists like yourself uniformly fail to report sea ice growth in the southern hemisphere?

[11907281]

Why do deniers always throw their mental imbalance by trying to tie science to mythology by calling it a religion or church? Projecting much?

[SailFree]

"Cabel?" Do you mean "cabal?"