One of The Top 50 Eco Blogs

I appear in the Times The Top 50 Eco Blogs. The accolade is somewhat blunted by the heading “FROM DARYL HANNAH AND AL GORE TO THE SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS OF CLIMAGE CHANGE, THE VERY BEST OF THE WEB” but I suppose I’ll have to take what I can get, and put aside the shouting. I do rate as #2 amongst those listed as “scientists” (someone hasn’t noticed my career change :-), whereas those exiled to Japan who actually have something to say pass unnoticed.

Meanwhile, we had an earthquake nearby, but it was no plastic man toppler and I slept through it.

Nice outing on the river tonight… clear, still, not too cold, and a decent crew. All we need now is fitness, err, and a bit more technique, and a proper boat, and…

And lastly, while I remember, go look at the Old Mans Survey. There are problems with it, of course, but it should have been published.

Parents afternoons. Don’t get me started.


  1. #1 Steve Bloom

    I suppose I’ll repeat my view that it’s unpublishable on grounds of poor survey design. The principal thing that it purports to show (that there are “a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC WG1 perspective”) is not in fact shown.

    [I’d call that a non-fatal flaw -W]

  2. #2 Hank Roberts

    Is there a way to edit it so “significant” has the same meaning in the abstract as in the text, or to substitute another word either place?

    Else it needs a footnote for each use to point out the difference. And that would be silly.

  3. #3 fergus

    Hi t5o all.
    I wanted to know what scientists thought, so I asked them. The ones who answered said what I said they said.

    Even if the result only shows what you thought all along, it still confirms it, which is meaningful. If it appears to contradict what you thought, does this mean that it was wrong, not you?

    Steve; please understand that, as we pointed out clearly, this is a preliminary which needs further work. I don’t think we have made any untoward claim about the results, such as they are. I think Richard Black (BBC) has had jsut about the best angle on the whole thing so far…

  4. #4 GeneticGenesis

    Your attitude on Wikipedia is insulting and degrading. Quite frankly I feel that you abuse your position as an admin on Wikipedia. You edit wars and blatant POV posting is insulting.

    You are an insult to the scientific community.

  5. #5 J


  6. #6 cce

    If half of climate scientists agree with with the IPCC consensus, one quarter say it exaggerates, and another quarter says it doesn’t go far enough, that’s a pretty ringing endorsement of the IPCC. If they moved a notch to the conservative side, the results would be something like “5% say it exaggerates, 20% agree with it, and 50% say it doesn’t go far enough.”

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.