Before anyone bothers to cast a vote in the 2008 Weblog Awards, please read what P.Z. "Pharyngula" Myers, easily one of the most popular science bloggers on the planet, has to say. Know that of the top three contenders (so far) in the science category are two blogs that exhibit only disdain for the scientific process. The other eight nominees include genuine science powerhouses like Real Climate and Bad Astronomy and, of course, Pharyngula, who is currently in second place. yet, the top vote-getter as of Monday morning at 9 a.m. ET is the non-evidence-based Watt's Up With That.
Something is very wrong when pseudoscience trumps genuine science, as it did with last year's awards. So I suggest not casting a vote, as a low turnout will send the best message.
If you insist upon voting, however, you'll have to consider whether you want to jump on the Pharyngula bandwagon, as it now looks like the best bet among the eight real science blogs to topping Watt's, or simply choose your favorite.
Real Climate is by far and away the best climate-oriented blog, of course. But again, I think the best thing we can do with this poll is ignore it.
- Log in to post comments
LOL. ROFL "Something is very wrong" indeed.. . . Obviously you are living in your own seperate reality here. That would make YOU the one in denial, sir.
This is perhaps your most petty post to date.
Right now, over at Climate Audit, there are three or four current threads with more actual scientific data, computer code and rigorous discussion than I have seen at your blog in it's entire existence.
While I like to visit and comment at Pharyngula it is more a venting site for atheists, like me, than a real "science" blog. Except for fisking creationists and ID proponents (an exceedingly easy and boring pursuit) and the occasional cephalopod bio the site contains very little science discussion.
RealClimate was created solely for the purpose of answering the scientifically published and peer reviewed challenges to Mann's work over at ClimateAudit of which it does an exceedingly poor job. It is a moribund echo-chamber hosted by supercilious louts that censor any discussion or facts that conflict with their narrow and provincial opinions.
To call "Climate Audit" and "Watt's Up With That?"
pseudo-science just shows that you have no idea what science is about and are just a cheerleader for your own politically motivated views.
This problem seems to be afflicting a number of similar projects as well. If you're going to include "Climate Audit", you might as well put the Discovery Institute on there - both contain about as much valid science. The daft thing is that they all work in pretty much the same way - spout a load of sciencey-sounding stuff, and most people can't tell the difference - as we see in the comments above.
Martin,
How many peer reviewed papers have the Discovery Institutue published? You are every bit the faith based "believer" as Kent Hovind you just worship at a different alter.
While WUWT can sometimes veer into anecdote, there is nothing anecdotal about the recent work he's published on sunspots and solar insolation. There's also nothing anecdotal about the work he's done on publishing the placement of temperature/weather measurement stations.
By any objective perspective, your claim that WUWT is "evidence free" is false. Not to mention CA, which is exceptionally rigorous. We've already seen examples of how CA has identified strange anomalies in the data, which have turned out to be errors in the source formulas, Y2K problems, transposed numbers, etc. However minor those issues might be, they are still errors, and CA has found them when others have not.
It is certainly possible that they are both *wrong* about the facts about GW. But claiming that they are evidence-free says more about your agenda and lack of objectivity than it does about them.
UPDATE: All polls closed at 5pm EST on January 13 2009.
The WINNER, with 37.6% of the total votes, was: Watt's Up with That. Over 14,000 votes.
The LOSER, with only 3.8% of the total votes cast, was Real Climate. Receiving only about 10% as many votes as were cast for the winning site, WUWT, a total of only 1,446 votes.
James I will have to say that your problem here is similar to the poll you cite. You are blogging for the WE "US" crowd of about 10% of the world's population that is stupid and blind enough to be part of the religious following at first pass - and against the 90% of the educated masses. The odds are NOT in your favor. Have fun though. Wish I could afford to waste time chasing windmills like you do every day.
Oh-my-god you called "Real Climate" a science site! I very nearly fell off the chair laughing at that one. Real Climate is an astroturfing warmist site that never saw any weather that couldn't be chalked up to (scary music cued) GLOBAL WARMING!!!
You warmists are looking more the fools every day, you know. Watt's site contains more real science in a day than you can spout in a year, if you ever actually got near any real science. Warming dogma doesn't count, nor does Hansen's jiggered numbers.
RED & mikey: a famous person once said it this way:
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
- Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Reality is the thermometer. NOt a hysterical bullying "blogger".
Rather late to all this, but Philip Sott just recommended the site on BBC Radio's 'Home Planet' - emailing them right now..