Cast your vote for real science

I don't visit Bad Astronomy often, but I do visit University Today so I'm often referred to it, and I do like Astronomy. Down with the denialists! Glad to help.
Oh yes, I did subscribe to your blog thanks to Google Reader's bundle, but I do often bother to click through the "Read the rest of this post..." link, when I find the topic interesting.

I've been visiting Cognitive Daily long enough to know that it's hardly devoid of political content itself. To frame this debate as one of "Science vs Anti-Science" is silly and gets us nowhere. I just spent nearly an hour reading recent posts on Climate Audit, and the blogger there is certainly trying to make arguments based on data.

I don't know enough about the debate to take a strong position. But I do know a lot of people who don't have the slightest clue about macro-geological processes nonetheless stake the strongest possible political position based on second-hand information. I can only imagine the absurdity of teaching my students to rely on such lines of evidence when hunkering down in defense of a position.

I would if I could get through. Takes minutes to load then a bunch of errors and no poll.

Cog Scientist:

Really? You really think Cognitive Daily is political in the way that Climate Audit is? That's disappointing. Climate Audit is clearly motivated by an agenda: casting doubt on Global Warming research.

I'm all in favor of balanced science and not overhyping results, but surely you can see that Climate Audit is a different bear from CogDaily.

I'd be interested to learn which research posts on CogDaily (as opposed to "news" or "opinion" posts -- click on "just the research" above) you believe to be advocating a political viewpoint. Sometimes commenters bring political arguments into play, but we make a big effort to keep politics out of the posts themselves.

To say that Climate Audit is a "science blog" is absurd. To believe that one would have to accept that the rabid anti-AGW community there is really interested in science, specifically paleoclimate and dendrochronology, and very technical statistical discussions of it at that. The reason it is popular has nothing to do with what makes other science blogs popular - content exploring and discussing scientific findings, areas of public/scientific intersection etc. - but rather the joy of finding someone who will endlessly magnify doubt about AGW for the benefit of deniers.

McIntyre is a very sophisticated actor, never going far enough to the dark side to be easily dismissed as a hack.
The the issue with McIntyre is he's a toiler, attacking a small part of the AGW field endlessly, long after everyone has moved on and accepted paleoclimate records as valid while highly uncertain. Further the idea that this endless nitpicking represents an interesting science blog is absurd. No one there is really so interested in dendrochronology or climate science. They're interested in someone who they see as denigrating climate science, and endlessly magnifying uncertainty.

If anyone wants a fair overview of the problem that he endlessly harps on see the wikipedia entry on the "hockey stick controversy".

"You really think Cognitive Daily is political in the way that Climate Audit is?"

Of course. It's well past being controversial that reality has a liberal bias.

I would have voted for Bad Astronomy, but the endorsement above wasn't peer reviewed, so I figured, according to the logic of this blog, that I couldn't trust it, and so withheld my vote.

Re: Hockey stick controversy

My background is in psychology, so I can't really make any detailed comments about the Global Warming controversy nor the truth of claims for or against it. However, as a true admire of science, and more importantly, of scientific (rather than political) thought, I do believe that it's always best to go back to some basic tenets of scientific thought in order to distinguish between the two types of thinking. I'll only suggest a few as it particularly concerns the hockey stick controversy.

(1) Every student that has taken an introductory stats course knows the principle CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. So assuming the hockey stick trend is true, and one finds a relationship between year and temperature, this won't tell you the reason for that relationship. And that really seems to be the issue. Is this relationship related to human activity, or, is the temp just a normal fluctuation? I couldn't tell you unless I actually conducted an experiment--which examines cause-effect relationships.

Thus far (of course I haven't read much into it), I have only come across one idea that seems remotely "scientific" in the sense of having both a theoretical framework and methods for testing the theory. The framework (also controversial because of the essential idea that the earth is a living organism), is the GAIA hypothesis found here: http://www.panspermia.org/gaia.htm ; and a possible quasi-experimental method (the Community Climate System Model) found here: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/permian.shtml

(2) The second basic idea, essentially, concerns the idea of being correct or incorrect as it concerns making decisions about the outcomes of experiments. Usually when conducting an experiment, scientists will have a null hypothesis (e.g., There is no global warming) and a research hypothesis (e.g., There is global warming). There are four possible outcomes as it concerns the "rightness" or "wrongness" of experimental results:

(1) If there is actually no global warming and the experimental results show this, then decisions based on this would be considered, logically, correct.

(2) If there is actually global warming and the experimental results show this, then decisions based on this would be considered, logically, correct.

(3) If there is a "false alarm", the experimental results will suggest that there is global warming when in fact it doesn't exist.

(4) If there is a "miss", the experimental results will suggest there is no global warming when in fact there is.

Given the hockey stick controversy it doesn't seem that one could declare either outcomes 1 or 2 as being correct. Therefore, it's probably better to focus attention on outcomes 3 and 4. In which case, one must ask whether it would be better to make decisions based on a false alarm or a miss. Personally, I would resort to use common sense when logic seems to fail.

In which case, common sense would suggest that it is better to be safe than sorry.

To be honest - I read Climate Audit, and I don't understand anything because the language and the words there are incomprehensible for someone who doesn't know politics. As for CogDaily, I can read and understand the article because it makes logic sense.

Excuse me for my grammar, "...I read Climate Audit..." was supposed to be in past tense. Technically, it should have been "...I looked at Climate Audit yesterday, and I didn't understand anything..."

Climate Audit is a political not a scientific blog.

Vote for Bad Astronomy and vote every day.

A psychology website has gotten into the global warming debate?

It's somehow disingenious for the conservatives to recommend that their masses vote one way, but it's OK if Munger of Cognitive recommends that their enlightened readers vote the opposite?

And the results of this silly poll will change the world how?

Good science is historically represented by the likes of Galileo or Copernicus, who risked the derision of their peers, or worse - social ostracisation, punishment, excommunication, jail time etc... for bucking the trend.

Darwin feared that his theories would cause his family shame and cause problems with his career, because he knew how the society of his day would be scandalized by his view of speciation without the direct involvement of God.

Scary it is when people want to silence others in the name of "Good Science" - are you afraid that a little public opinion poll will change reality - or that it will sway hearts?

Its a symbolic thing, really. There's something wrong when a website that basically advocates poor science is winning a science weblog award. It makes the whole thing a pathetic joke, rather than any real opinion poll.

If the whole thing is just going to be driven by bloggers telling people how to vote, it might as well be for a blog that actually DESERVES to win and is based in solid science, eh?

The absurdity of people worrying about a poll that really just demonstrates which political camp has the best PR machine IS the interesting thing here.

It doesn't tell us much about science, or global warming, but ironically, it closes the circle and brings us back to the subject of psychology.

In particular, the psychology of religion - which is perhaps the best model of how to understand the different global (or anti) global warming proponents thought processes and behaviors.

Watching the pros and antis of the global warming facet of the culture wars bicker - is a lot like watching catholics and protestants during the reformation back in Luther's day.

Anyways, I read gobs and gobs of Climate Audits site - and I think the worst thing about their science is that the opposing team simply doesn't like it.

You guys are jerks. First off, why are you voting for a website you know nothing about? You are skewing the results of the poll in order to protect good science, which is supremely ironic.
I found Climate Audit - which this blog amazingly didn't link to - to be fairly unbiased, unlike this one. However, since I am a layman, and don't read either website, I won't vote.
As an aside, correct me if I'm wrong, but does anti-AGW mean anti-anti-global-warming? Because that would be hilarious.

Robin - "Anthropogenic".

Best Science blog would boil down to:

1. General Science content and transmission to the general public (which Climate Audit fails to do, since it is written in an incomprehensible manner).

2. Science content, which, by definition can only be evaluated by peers, therefore, there is no place for general public voting. (imagine: All those in favor in favor of general relativity say I).

C.A. is written in such a poor manner that general public can´t tell if it´s true or not (because it is unbearable to read). Ideas are not clear, opinions are not referenced, and contrasting points are properly presented. Therefore, it clearly does not merit the award what ever their political agenda might be.

I visited the Bad Astronomy blog for the first time today, after seeing the link on this page. Here are the stories I found:

Prey for reign - mocking people who are praying for rain in Georgia. Nothing to do with science.

Heh.. A presidential... ha ... debate on.. heh ... science. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! - talks about science, but no actual scientific content

Vote! Best Science Blog 2007 - no science content

Shuttle lands in a few minutes! - Content-free, but I'll give them a half point for this one. By now, they need it.

First HD Moon video! - aahh, the first post with some interesting information. Full point awarded.

NASA essay contest - another great post about the NASA essay contest. Good to see someone trying to do something about the abysmal state of science education. Full point awarded.

Me Manwich! - Oh dear. Did someone call this a science blog?

So out of a potential seven posts, we have two and a half that actually contain scientific content. If this is an example of a good science blog, I'm a dancing ballerina in a pink tutu. I think someone needs to examine how one's political beliefs influence their own cognition.

Robin,

Do you think the thousands of people voting for Climate Audit have the slightest understanding of what's on that site? I don't understand it and I've spent a great deal of time there trying to figure out what it's all about.

No one is voting for Climate Audit because they think it's a good science blog, they're voting for it because they think it supports their political position.

By contrast, I've read many of the articles on Bad Astronomy and I think they are interesting and engaging -- it's real science, and it's got the best shot to win this thing. That's why you should vote for the Bad Astronomy blog.

I probably have more miles behind me than many other readers - and therefore I am much more skeptical when I read information. I came to the Climate Change discussion with an open mind. However, I have to admit that the concept of humans creating widespread climate disorder is like fleas claiming credit for the direction that a dog walks. I have seen hysterical claims over the last 50 years (Hippies, Marijuana,Global Cooling, Super Predators, Herpes, Ice) and they all had one thing in common - to influence and control people. After serious reading, I have come to the same conclusion with "Global Warming". Believe me now - someone is after your pocketbook. You will see wholesale industries, as well as government controls (taxes, anyone?)all in the name of "saving the planet".

Is the planet warming? YES, dummy. And it will eventually cool, too. And then warm up again. However, please look at the co-winner of the Nobel Prize and his comments on Global Warming. Paul Christy said "...that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is - well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it's annoying to me." If anyone needed proof of the muddle-headed thinking, they should stop and say "Wait! Politicians are embracing this! That alone should make me suspicious!"

Unfortunately, I won't live long enough to have the last laugh. Those in their 20's and 30's and younger will pay the tab that governments are getting ready to bill you for, all in the name of something that you clamored for-how can you object now? Remember when the river caught fire in Cleveland? Or smog in Denver was so bad that you couldn't see a half mile? Things are far cleaner and better today, and they are going to be better tomorrow, not because of mandates, but because that is what sells, and companies want to make money.

Think about it! Cause and Effect. When you use Global Warming, you (as a government)can mandate anything! It's like the War on Drugs. How can you be for "drugs". Or when a politician says "it's for the children" You aren't against Children, are you? So they can now mandate certain building materials (they fight Global Warming) and cars, and crops. But when the average house is $1,000,000, and the average car is $100,000, and a loaf of bread costs $15, and you are still earning $40,000 per year, you might start wondering if the genie can get back in the bottle.

Go on, the government needs more suckers to extract money from! After all, the US Government used to be able to run this country very effectively at 3% of the GNP up until the 1940's. Now they need 20%! But when you realize that the Global Warming bandwagon you have piled onto has no brakes, you might be sorry for the rash powers that you yourself asked government to use.

First, thanks for this. I really appreciate it.

Second, um, "me": Funny you only went back a few posts of mine. Had you gone farther back, say another 5 or 6, you would have seen a half-dozen science/skeptic posts in a row, including two which talk in depth about science.

Hmmmm, bad statistical sampling to draw a conclusion? That's terrible science!

Anyway, I am in the silly position of understanding this award is really just a skewed popularity contest, but being up against a site that I think is not science at all, and appears to be antiscience. Also, I will admit to using this award, should I win, to pimp my upcoming book mercilessly.

So I'm biased. But vote for me anyway. :-)

"Do you think the thousands of people voting for Climate Audit have the slightest understanding of what's on that site? I don't understand it and I've spent a great deal of time there trying to figure out what it's all about.

No one is voting for Climate Audit because they think it's a good science blog, they're voting for it because they think it supports their political position."

And you're wild supposition is just the result of your political position. Try not to be guilty of the same misdeeds you baselessly accuse others of.

Man, please do not advocate committing the same crime that these other politiblogs are committing. People, do not vote for Bad Astronomy, or any other blog, just to win a contest. Vote for these blogs if and only if you've read them and approve of them.

It will, I admit, be a shame if this idiot denial blog wins this award, and yes it will marginally undermine legitimate science. You know what will undermine it even more? If a worthwhile science blog wins due to the same underhanded tactics. If 'those people' (the sorts trying to salt a pseudo-science blog with voters) see that a blog like Bad Astronomy won because of a call for non-readers to support it, then they will be able to whine and snivel that the contest was all politics and no science, and they will be right.

On an ethical level, it's always better to lose fairly than win cheaply, but in this instance, it's also pragmatic.

In relationship to the last poster's notions on what humanity can or cannot do to a climate, wake up for christ's sake. Microogranisms altered the earth's atmosphere to the oxygen heavy one we can enjoy today, and yet you're under the impression that a macro species six billion altering literally tons of chemicals a day, from burning to synthetics, that go directly into our environmennt, our air, our oceans, can't? This isn't just blindness, it's self delusion. worse, it's not based on any actual applied scale, as in you have no concrete reason to believe that humans lack the umph to achieve this end. You just declare it arbtirarily based on your own skewed imagination. Learn how to distinguish your own uninformed opinions from actual facts or reasoning for the love of god.

And appealing to a knee jerk paraonoia of government is about as straw man as it gets. Why can't humanity threaten the environment? Because the government could be exploiting you! So what you're saying, quite literally, is that people should pay more attention to your rhetoric than facts because otherwise they're suckers of the evil government. Isn't that always the way kooks gloos over their lack of real ideas? "You don't agree with me? Well, you're just a brainwashed stooge!" I swear, I hear this defnese once a day from people with nothing coherent to say.

Bad Astronomy is an excellent and deserving science blog. Lets put these pseudo science denialists at the bottom of the barrel, as that seems to be where they get most of their content from!

(BTW, as the comment section reflects, the politico denialists have found us.)

I'm wondering whether there's not a certain contradiction here: I'm all for differentiating between political "truth" (= "more people like the idea") and scientific truth (= "it's been empirically demonstrated"). But you seem to be asking people to engage in a political process ("Cast your vote in favor of the site you believe to be more scientifically true") in order to win a popularity contest that decides what it science and what is not. Is this what you intended?

Bad Astronomy no longer has the lead... C.A. is quite a bit ahead.

The politico pseudo science denialists are really hammering the voting now, apparently making quite a deal out of getting on top. It is a shame as Bad Astronomy, the blog right behind the junk science C.A., really, really deserves the win.

I suddenly feel uneasy about my position. I'm not participating in this endless babble about the verity of global warming, because this'll just bring more and more refuting arguments. I'll just stay aside to watch more and more people coming here to debate about it. Differentiating between truth and lies is so hard these days... Wait, what's a truth again? Oh yes, it doesn't exist, at least to me.

"C.A. is written in such a poor manner that general public can´t tell if it´s true or not (because it is unbearable to read)... Therefore, it clearly does not merit the award what ever their political agenda might be."

Ding Ding Ding.

Look at it this way...with all the Bush Administration and talking head/ media silencing and skewing of the facts about climate change and science in general, it should probably been seen as encouraging that C.A., if it does win, only won by so small a margin. Plus, let's be honest about the meaning of this poll, as it will likely have under 45,000 votes cast total. But I do understand the concern.

Our statement at ScienceProgress.org: While the scientific process demands critical peer review of research data, that process should not detract from the overwhelming consensus of scientists all over the planet who say that human activity is a cause of climate change and that now is the time to act to slow its detrimental effects. We have to keep our eye on the globe.

Thanks for the opportunity to vote for CA here.

I find several of the comments above fascinating. In particular, the "correlation does not imply causation" post is really odd. Global warming due to CO2 buildup was predicted over a century ago on the basis of simple physical arguments. Reality is much more complicated than that simple argument, but an enormous amount of detailed work has gone into refining the argument and producing predictions of global temperature trends that have since come true. It's a triumph of physical reasoning and detailed modeling. In response, the commenter suggests that "Gaia" is the only scientific hypothesis that has been advanced?!?!

There seems to be a problem with basic communication here, or something.

I love the arguments that science isn't being done at CA because:

1) You, personally, can't understand it
2) Other people that have nothing to do with CA are telling people to vote for it
3) [Grab-bag of ad-hominem arguments]

Take the time to read his latest thread (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322#comments), which was an attempt at a summary of issues dealing with the hockey stick temperature reconstructions. Note that Steve has done primary research here (past year) and has published two papers that show incorrect methodology used by the self-styled "Hockey Team" researchers. If you have any knowledge of statistics, read the thread for yourself and identify the errors. Post them in the thread, ignore the peanut gallery, and conduct an honest debate... there always is one.

Steve isn't just auditing the hockey stick, either. He looked at how adjustments to surface stations were done, found an error in the U.S. climate record (raised temps in the US since 2000), looks at other historical proxies (O-18, boreholes, G bulloides), and has just started on many other topics. He programs code, contacts researchers, is published, was a reviewer for the IPCC, has discovered two errors in the climate record, one significant (the hockey stick) and one that was used for political purposes (the US temps, erasing the headlines of "hottest US temperatures on record"). This is science: finding errors, reproducing results, and coming up with testable hypotheses and then acting on them (steve cored his own bristlecone pine trees).

The politically motivated hounds from C.A. have been released, beware!

The politically motivated hounds of C.A. have been released, beware!

The actual problem here, Carl, is that you clearly understand neither science nor even basic reasoning. Let's review what you 'love', shall we?

I'm going to start with number 2, since it's most relevant to this post and thread. You claim that people are arguing that CA isn't science because, and I'm quoting, "other people that have nothing to do with CA are telling people to vote for it". What's actually happening here, as any idiot who isn't overeager to soapbox could see, is that the topic itself is actually about these other people and their votes. CA's scientific credibility (or lack of) is merely being mentioned as an aside. You see? Simple observation and reasoning. Whether or not CA is real science was never the issue. So you've put the horse before the cart and acted like a peabrain in the process. Do you see your error here?

Point #3 is also hilarious, since plenty of people well prior to you actually posted links to sound arguments contesting claims made on CA. I guess a reasoned response constitutes an 'ad hom' to you? Of course, since whether or not CA was real science wasn't actually a point of debate, there can't be an ad hom against it. So here we also learn that you can't recognize the difference between a statement and an argument, and don't know what the term ad hom actually means. (For your edification, an ad hom is a personal claim meant to sway an opinion or misrepresent an argument without any actual relevance to that argument. Since there was no debate about whether or not CA is real science taking place here, comments about it can only be opinions, or at worst insults. Not ad homs.)

All of this blundering makes it less than surprising that you mistake CA for hard science. Yes, Steve does a very good job collecting data and he is very long winded in his analysis of it. However, what Steve doesn't do is a: ensure that these lengthy diatribes actually mean anything, b: ensure that his testing methods bear merit or c: bother to make his various claims reconcile with one another.

One of my favorite posts, the first one I ever read on CA, was this beauty.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859#more-859

Now, I think you'll be hard pressed to claim that isn't some well-rounded, deep rooted science, right? I mean look, he takes that scientific graph, he uses CAD, he applies that exquisite personal 'usual technique', that's science, right? Well, no, it's not. Let me tell you about an amusing 'debate' I had with a friend recently about whether or not red caviar (salmon roe) was red or orange. We argued at length, brought in the dictionary, took pictures from google image of salmon roe, sampled them in photoshop, compared color codes, applied techniques for adjusting to light and shadow and so forth. Very detailed, very scientific, right? Well, no, it was actually very silly and frivolous. Pictures off of google aren't facts or data of a hard sort. All we ended up doing was showing what colors photoshop found on certain photos. The truth is that red caviar can be either orange or red, depending on when and where you get it. Steve's doing the same thing here.

Of course, if you need harder stuff than my simple little example, then you need only turn to any of dozens of actual national and international surveys which states overtly that no, there has been no detected acceleration in water level rise in the last century. As they explain, have to go back farther to note a comparative acceleration 'in' this century. Explanations are also postulated to explain this in relationship to what has been recognized in an acceleration of mean ocean temperature. So all Steve is doing is 'discovering' something already well known, while leaving out important facts in relationship to it. This is, hilariously enough, something he takes others to task for doing regarding finding no MWP in bristle cone pine core test. (I mention this as a tribute to your mention that Steve has done his OWN bristle cone tests, which he admits did, in fact, find the hockey stick!)

(Links!! (not ad homs!)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1035489.stm

So anyway, just a heads up, learn some grade school reading comprehension so you won't go mistaking the point of an article for a supporting point to some non-existent argument, learn what 'ad hom' means and how it's applied. Learn to read other peoples' links so you'll know when and if actual arguments or points are being made, and learn to figure out the difference between science and just being long winded! And have a scienterrific weekend! (ya lousy bum.)

Climate "control" is a political idea evolving religious overtones. I think people WANT to blame humanity, whether the evidence conclusively supports that or not, because if it really is our fault then maybe we can do something to stop it too. I'm not that optimistic. Our fault or not, start getting ready for a not-business-as-usual future.

www.keyhoereport.com/

.1% !!!!

Awesome...

I think this is not a good post. You ask one of your the guys who puts a comment if there is something that is political? this post definitely is.

I really like your site, and many more here on science blogs, and I love Bad Astronomy. Nonetheless it is another blog (not climate audit) that I will cast my vote for. In part because we want to reflect real statistics of the fans of those blogs and the number of people who love different subjects. I think we should keep it clean for the rest of the blogs, even if there is a huge PR or political campaign behind the climate audit (which i doubt, i always doubt conspiracy theories they are bad science).

If it wins, well it might be even good, since more people with strong background in science will visit the place and will post comments on his blogs, correcting whatever bad science is posted there. (some things look descent, but just skimmed through it)

We cannot risk doing things like this in the name of good science, good science in the end stands for it self, that is how science works, not by urging people to vote for someone to mess with other´s people science, kinda reminds me of those who burn the "others" books that disagreed with their theories, instead of letting the theories by itself stand the test of time. If you mix science and politics "for the greater good of the lay man" you will end up with messy stuff.

Now if you like Bad astronomy, then you should vote for it, its a great science blog, and I have nothing against people voting for it, just do it for the right reason please, and of course do not vote neither for climate audit nor bad astronomy if you do not thinks is the best science blog just to help one side or the other of the debate win, thats wrong in so many ways.

Of course that it just my opinion, I could be wrong.

"If it wins, well it might be even good, since more people with strong background in science will visit the place and will post comments on his blogs, correcting whatever bad science is posted there."

Right ... What's much more likely, is that he'll continue tricking people into believing his pseudo scientific opinions and try to use the apparent credibility of the award to fool others.

Besides, Cog Daily is not at all political, IMHO. It's one of the best blogs I've come across which talks about peer-reviewed research.

Anyway, why was RealClimate not nominated instead of a junk climate blog?

Oh, the rightwing wanker club who run the Weblog Awards aren't happy...

RESULTS ARE NOT FINAL FOR THIS POLL! This poll is still being checked for excessive voting from individual machines. If excess voting is found it will be noted and the votes will be removed. The winner should be announced Monday.

Boo hoo. Sore losers, anyone?

The comments in this thread clearly show that this is primarily a political debate, not a scientific one.

I love how people transform "ideas that I don't agree with" into bad science. It used to be that "science" and "skepticism" were synonymous. Funny how that gets transformed, even from people like Dave Munger who should know better, when politics gets involved.

Anyway, why was RealClimate not nominated instead of a junk climate blog?Because for the most part, it's an advocacy site, not a science one. I don't think they make any bones about that. Nor is there even anything wrong with it, but there's a huge distinction between science (which must allow critical commentary) and realclimate, which has an unstated policy of suppressing viewpoints in the comments that are critical of their own viewpoint.

To borrow somebody else's turn of phrase, "If you think that RealClimate plays it down the middle, you've been reading it with your eyes closed".