Comments on: Weblog Awards

By: Bill P

Bill P — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:55:10 +0000

What has the “Best” site done to steady confidence that they’ve fixed the problem of cyber-vote-fudging last year? It seemed especially ugly with regard to readerships at CA and pharyngulee (pharyngula?).

My nomination:

CA = best science
WUWT = best web

Regards, Anthony.

By: Darren Rickard

Darren Rickard — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:18:52 +0000

This one is the best. Sensible, easy-ish to understand and commonsense most of the time.

A good counter to the nutcase Gores of this world.

By: papertiger

papertiger — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:11:10 +0000

We have quite a team fighting the false climate change political movement.
This year the weblog awards field looks to be shaping up as a contest pitting skeptic against skeptic. Talk of who noticed what act of perfidy first could build rifts which might cause some of us to lose track of the goal.
I pray that doesn’t happen.

Let’s remember, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”

By: Lucy Skywalker

Lucy Skywalker — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:55:32 +0000

nominated Bernstein and Woodward :D

By: Smokey

Smokey — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:01:09 +0000

Mrs Smokey just got home. I’ll remind her to vote, too. And I’m emailing some other folks I know who visit this site. Can’t hurt. Might help!

By: Ellie in Belfast

Ellie in Belfast — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:47:28 +0000

Oh! make that just on ‘Best Blog’. Lots of nomiations and lots of + on ‘Best Science Blog’

By: Ellie in Belfast

Ellie in Belfast — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:43:59 +0000

I’m in. You are +9 and counting.

By: Mikey

Mikey — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:45:08 +0000

“Great. The deniers are already spamming the nominations. That’s just lovely.”

But why would that bother the warming lobby? One keeps hearing they have a consensus.

Unless of course they’d like us to believe they’re not doing the same thing. In order to do that I’d have to widen my parameters as to what I find believable. So they’d have to answer this question for me. “If Santa is so fat, how does he get down the chimney?”

By: Tom in Texas

Tom in Texas — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:57:11 +0000

“Great. The deniers are already spamming the nominations. That’s just lovely.”
Peter

By: Jim B Canada

Jim B Canada — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:27:27 +0000

# The number of nominations a blog receives is irrelevant. One nomination is enough…
# Rather than add a “me too” nomination for a site you’re encouraged to use the “+” icon to indicate your preference for nominees. The “+” ratings are one extra piece of information the finalist selection panel can use to help generate the finalist slates in each category.

We may not be the best at reading instructions but we make up for it with clicking enthusiasm!

By: Russ S.

Russ S. — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:24:33 +0000

I am in!

By: kim

kim — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:16:43 +0000

Last year during this contest I wandered over to Pharyngula and stumbled over the epic Stan Palmer thread. I ended up missing three days of my life and was finally asked to leave by the host. That’s a very tolerant host, folks, and an alert and perceptive commentariat, but it wasn’t I who was the problem in the conversation. That board has the completely unnecessary habit of confounding skepticism about the CO2=AGW paradigm with religious faith. He, and they, have it totally backwards.
=====================================

By: cbullitt

cbullitt — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:39:01 +0000

Put you in there–although I’m conflicted about not nominating JunkScience too. Didn’t see any other sites with as many entries. Good luck Anthony.

By: Dan Lee

Dan Lee — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:21:01 +0000

Did you catch this?

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/C/COAL_PLANTS?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

“Coal Plants Jeopardized over Climate”

By: cbone

cbone — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:09:06 +0000

Don’t forget to go back and vote for the other nominations. There is a little + mark at the end of each post. You can go back and show your support for nominations that way.