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.
Deltoid
Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs
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...
Search
Profile
Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Recent Posts
- Robert Manne on Monckton's plan for the Australian media
- February 2012 Open Thread
- More fraud from Pat Michaels
- The Australian's War on Science 76: Dad Jokes
- January 2012 Open Thread
- Better late than never at The Australian
- Merry Christmas
- Keith Kloor's thinking on climate change
- Wegman one of The Scientist's top five science scandals
- The Australian's War on Science 75: Plimer vs Plimer
Recent Comments
- Watching the Deniers on February 2012 Open Thread
- Bernard J. on February 2012 Open Thread
- Richard Simons on February 2012 Open Thread
- Composer99 on February 2012 Open Thread
- Composer99 on February 2012 Open Thread
- Steve on February 2012 Open Thread
- Anthony David on February 2012 Open Thread
- Lee on February 2012 Open Thread
- mike on February 2012 Open Thread
- Sabrina Hillier on Robert Manne on Monckton's plan for the Australian media
Categories
- Ask a ScienceBlogger
- Brignell
- CFCs and ozone
- DDT
- Fumento
- Global Warming
- Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot
- Iraq
- LancetIraq
- Lott
- Milloy
- Open Thread
- Roy Spencer
- Skeptics Circle
- The War on Science
- academia
- astroturf
- bingo
- computers
- creationism
- criminology
- economics
- free speech
- funny
- guns
- maths
- meet up
- meta
- personal
- politics
- quackery
- random
- reviews
- statistics
- stupidity
- surveys
- world
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
Links
Blogroll
- Angry Bear
- Atmoz
- Backseat driving
- Barista
- Climate denial crock
- Brad Delong
- Brave New Climate
- Bug Girls' Blog
- Climate Change
- Climate Feedback
- Climate Progress
- Climate Shifts
- Climate Sight
- Club Troppo
- Crooked Timber
- David Friedman
- Deep Climate
- Eschaton
- Fafblog
- FiveThirtyEight
- Freakonomics blog
- Greenfyre's
- Gristmill
- Groklaw
- Hot Topic
- Hit and Run
- International Journal of Inactivism
- James' Empty Blog
- John Quiggin
- Jon Swift
- Kevin Drum
- Larvatus Prodeo
- Logical Science
- Making Light
- Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub
- More Grumbine Science
- Nexus 6
- Notes from the Lounge
- Oliver Willis
- Only In It For The Gold
- Open Mind
- Paul Krugman
- Political Animal
- Quark Soup
- Rabett Run
- RealClimate
- Sadly, No!
- TBogg
- The Loom
- The Panda's Thumb
- The Poor Man
- The Reality-based Community
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Think Progress
- TPM Cafe
- Unqualified Offerings
- Watching the Deniers
- AMK's Journal
- Andrew Norton
- Antony Loewenstein
- ArchPundit
- are you effin' kidding me?
- B and B
- Brian Linse
- Carnaby Fudge
- DeSmogBlog
- Detached Observer
- eRiposte
- Explananda
- Flop Eared Mule
- From a LAN Downunder
- Hoyden About Town
- Infothought
- John Fleck
- The Hard Sell
- Harry Clarke
- Known Unknowns
- Matt T
- Malaria Matters
- Mobjectivist
- Notional Slurry
- Opinion Dominion
- Penguin Unearthed
- Pro Bono Statistics
- Pro-science
- Psyche, Science, and Society
- Rants and Raves
- Say Uncle
- Section 15
- short notes: will brady's ruminations
- Skeptics' Circle
- skippy the bush kangaroo
- Some are Boojums
- Speedkill
- spiceblog
- Stephen Gloor
- stoush.net
- The Bartlett Diaries
- The Ethical Werewolf
- The Huffington Post
- The Myron Ebell Climate
- The Post-Normal Times
- The Virtual Stoa
- This Space For Rent
- Wis[s]e Words
« Leakegate | Main | Leakegate scandal grows »
Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs
Category: meta
Posted on: February 4, 2010 4:35 AM, by Tim Lambert
Comments
"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)
Posted by: David Duff | February 4, 2010 4:52 AM
Marred by the inclusion of RealClimate.
Posted by: el gordo | February 4, 2010 5:34 AM
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 that he "wouldn't know a Loess line from a fishing line!
Posted by: jakerman | February 4, 2010 5:35 AM
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.)
Posted by: P. Lewis | February 4, 2010 5:50 AM
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!
Posted by: Mark | February 4, 2010 5:59 AM
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.
Posted by: Mike | February 4, 2010 6:14 AM
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.
Posted by: JamesA | February 4, 2010 6:22 AM
David Duff thinks 1998 was 10 years ago, so why the hell would anyone listen to him?
Posted by: Alex | February 4, 2010 6:52 AM
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.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | February 4, 2010 6:52 AM
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."
Posted by: Bud | February 4, 2010 7:36 AM
Wot - no Bad Science? 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.
Posted by: Chris S. | February 4, 2010 10:51 AM
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?
Posted by: Neven | February 4, 2010 11:14 AM
“Watts Up With That” - 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
Posted by: ScaredAmoeba
| February 4, 2010 11:39 AM
The posts by Duff and el gordo are like a bad car accidents - gruesome, but impossible to look away from.
Posted by: JasonW | February 4, 2010 11:45 AM
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!
Posted by: David Duff | February 4, 2010 11:51 AM
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.
Posted by: SteveF | February 4, 2010 11:54 AM
JamesA
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.
Posted by: DavidCOG
| February 4, 2010 12:02 PM
Nice work, Tim!
In a strange way, I'm a fan of them, too. The only thing I love more than science is comedy.
Posted by: pough | February 4, 2010 12:04 PM
'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.
Posted by: el gordo | February 4, 2010 4:40 PM
So you are a Poe! I thought so!
Posted by: pough | February 4, 2010 4:48 PM
1 Duffer,
So funny. BTW did you vote for any of the ASS blogs in that other poll?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 4, 2010 7:50 PM
2 el gordo,
And yet Watts is in there, albeit last.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 4, 2010 7:52 PM
3 jakerman,
I believe the correct and original version is something like "wouldn't know his arse/ass from a hole in the ground".
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 4, 2010 7:54 PM
TS,
Alas but it is an alphbetical order.
Posted by: jakerman | February 4, 2010 7:56 PM
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.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 4, 2010 7:59 PM
24 jakerman,
Doh! It's getting late. :(
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 4, 2010 8:04 PM
That's funny because you thought the same thing.
Posted by: John | February 4, 2010 8:05 PM
What an amazing coincidence!
Posted by: el gordo | February 4, 2010 9:00 PM
Isn't it? It's almost like you're trolling for attention.
Posted by: John | February 4, 2010 9:02 PM
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?
Posted by: el gordo | February 4, 2010 9:10 PM
There's software for that problem. http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107
Posted by: Hank Roberts | February 4, 2010 9:13 PM
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 toyou think?Posted by: John | February 4, 2010 9:17 PM
John
You should get out more, it broadens the mind. I like desmog and Bishop Hill, but neither are mentioned among the 30.
Posted by: el gordo | February 5, 2010 12:26 AM
el gordo, is Bishop Hill the source that source you were reluctant to name, the source that kept embarrassing you?
Posted by: jakerman | February 5, 2010 5:12 AM
He calls Watts an "eco-friendly" blogger.
Posted by: Joseph | February 5, 2010 4:49 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike | February 5, 2010 6:29 PM
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.
Posted by: John | February 6, 2010 1:16 AM
Quiggin uses delusionist which is quite apt. I like agnotologist which describes their activity in cultural terms.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | February 6, 2010 2:17 AM