|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 10:15:23 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 11:09:32 GMT 1
Reaction from ClimatAudit, Steve McIntyre’s blog. climateaudit.org/2010/09/27/new-statesman-50/#commentskuhnkat Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 3:16 PM It is nice to have your efforts recognized, but, they do have you below Angelina Jolie. Johan C Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 3:21 PM There are worse places to be. |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 4, 2010 13:40:40 GMT 1
Here's the full list of 50 awarded this accolade:
"The New Statesman 50 People Who Matter 2010 are:
1. (2) Rupert Murdoch
2. (1) Barack Obama
3. (-) Mahmoud Ahmedinijad
4. (10) Xi Jinping
5. (-) Steve Jobs
6. (26) Pope Benedict XVI
7. (24) Ashfaq Kayani
8. (12) Angela Merkel
9. (4) Eric Schmidt, Larry Page & Sergey Brin
10. (44) Hugo Chavez
11. (-) Binyamin Netanyahu
12. (12) David Petraeus
13. (-) Sarah Palin
14. (-) Craig Venter
15. (-) David Cameron
16. (13) Bill Gates
17. (-) Felipe Calderon
18. (-) Khaled Meshal
19. (25) Warren Buffett
20. (7) Vladimir Putin
21. (8) Osama bin Laden
22. (-) Angelina Jolie
23. (-) Julian Assange
24. (-) Lloyd Blankfein
25. (-) Hillary Clinton
26. (-) Mark Zuckerberg
27. (-) Ratan Tata
28. (-) Stephanie Meyer
29. (31) Sonia Gandhi
30. (-) James Cameron
31. (28) Ingvar Kamprad
32. (-) Stephen McIntyre
33. (-) Moqtada al-Sadr
34. (-) Aung San Suu Kyi
35. (-) Margaret Chan
36. (-) Jacob Zuma
37. (-) Bob Diamond
38. (35) Oprah Winfrey
39. (-) Paul Krugman
40. (36) Mohammed Yunus
41. (34) Simon Cowell
42. (-) Zaha Hadid
43. (22) Amartya Sen
44. (-) Lady Gaga
45. (6) Malalai Joya
46. (-) John Lasseter
47. (-) Julia Gillard
48. (-) Han Han
49. (14) Paul Kagame
50. (-) Caster Semenya
Good to see we have a media tycoon at the top - and what's that, president of Iran at 3rd. Wow, to be in such exhalted company.
Well, at least he made it higher than Simon Cowell :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 4, 2010 16:10:13 GMT 1
Just read the accolades from more than 500 New Statesman readers in the comments section! Wow! You mean like this one: "Actually, I used to read and follow C[limate] A[udit] quite a bit. But, with time, it became clear to me that McIntyre and co. had an agenda, and that advancing science was not on their radar. They seemed more interested in scoring points against climate scientists and then blowing it all out of proportion. " or this one: "SM has just one sole publication in a credible journal. It’s loved by SM’s fans for attacking the hockey stick on the issue on an error. The problem for McIntyre's approach (and the for all his fans) was he failed to quantify how significant the error was. The fact that the error turned out to have negligible influence on the overall temperature reconstruction was important and relevant to the critique, yet MM avoided making this known. Such practice leaves McIntyre well and truly open to the perception that MM is more about PR than science" Plenty more where those come from (as well as others from the more adoring acolytes). Point is - Marchesarosa's post was misleading in that it implied all 500+ posts were accolades. Is this yet another example of the cherry picking we have come to expect from those who lack any scientific basis to their arguments? |
|
|
|
Post by rockyjock on Oct 4, 2010 19:21:35 GMT 1
Come off it enquirer. When did you ever find a 500 comments on anything that were all positive.
Still from a quick trawl there were very few that weren't - which is quite extraordinary given the amount of vested interest that is being threatened by Steve's persistent analysis and questioning.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 19:47:27 GMT 1
Enquirer probably picked up the negative comments from his favourite sceptic-bashing websites. You don't really think he read through the more than 500 accolades to find the detractors, do you? It would choke him!
Incidentally how many of the other "50 who matter" got any comments at all? Who had even heard of them?
Well done New Statesman!
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 5, 2010 19:44:12 GMT 1
Obviously the list doesn't make any distinction whether they matter in a positive or negative way.
I'm highly delighted Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Milliband or Milliband Lite don't feature at all.
Excellent.
|
|
