Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Voting instructions
Bloggers everywhere are driving traffic to the 2008 Weblog Awards. This blog was not nominated and I am reluctant to choose among my many friends in the blogosphere, but there is one category where you can make a statement, and that is in the voting for the best science blog. I think you know how I would like you to vote.
Now, if you surf the climate activist blogs you might see the charge that the skeptic blogs are "unscientific." Warren Meyer responds convincingly to that line of attack, to wit:
Only one side in this debate ever argues that the other should be banned from even speaking or being heard. I think you know which one that is. So which side is the one that is “anti-science” — the one that is happy to mix it up in open debate or the one that is trying to get its opposition silenced?
Of course, the climate activists are desperate. Many of them genuinely believe that if we do not take drastic action now we will have doomed the planet to cataclysm. If you believe that, then skepticism is not merely scientific inquiry but a lethal threat, at least insofar as it delays the only remedy that activists believe will work, the virtual elimination of incremental carbon dioxide.
But still vote for Watts.
2 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Jan 06, 01:20:00 PM:
Many of them genuinely believe that if we do not take drastic action now we will have doomed the planet to cataclysm
No need to rush, the recession will cut emissions more than any agreement politicians come up with.
By 
Brian, at
Tue Jan 06, 09:15:00 PM:
I agree with Anon above regarding emissions in the next two years, but beyond that we need to start taking action ASAP to avoid serious problems.
I'm not sure that Watts has a coherent opinion on anthropogenic climate change other than do nothing to stop it, but if he actually disagrees with theory, I'd love to bet him over it.
Almost everything reposted by TH here from Watts has been an embarrassment (the one exception is for documenting and improving methodology for surface weather stations, which is reasonable).
The analogy I see is to creationists demanding their voice be heard, when they have no science to back their nonsense.
A very-good, non-climate science blog in the running is Greg Laden's, so I'll suggest that as an alternative.
