Vote for the best ‘political climate’ website:

From the “what you sow, so shall you reap” department:

I was advised in comments, that Treehugger is sponsoring a new “best of” awards poll.

WUWT is not in it of course, because, well it’s “Treehugger” what did you expect? However, my choice for one “best of” category might surprise some people. Read on.

In the category of Best Political Blog, which you can visit here:

http://www.treehugger.com/best-of-green/business-politics/

My choice is for Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog.

Why? Well even though I may disagree with many things Mr. Revkin prints, unlike some blog operators, Mr. Revkin remains civil and courteous in the face of disagreement.

I never have to worry about being purposely insulted by Mr. Revkin, he always responds to my emails, and he provides space for rebuttal of his views and has done so for me. He’s fair.

In short, he’s a professional and operates his blog accordingly.

That’s why I think every WUWT reader should vote for him here:

http://www.treehugger.com/best-of-green/business-politics/

Like with the Weblog awards, you can vote daily according to this at the bottom of the voting page:

Clicking the vote button will submit your choices and bring you to the next topic page. Votes may be submitted in every category of each topic once per day per user.

We need more level headed fairness in the climate debate, and like I say, while I disagree with much of Mr. Revkin’s views, the fact that he affords people he disagrees with a level of respect, is worthy of me giving him an endorsement.

About these ads

53 thoughts on “Vote for the best ‘political climate’ website:

  1. I voted for Revkin. It seems climateprogress is desparate and needs both votes and clicks on their site.
    Reading what Revkin shares, it seems before he changed jobs and climate gate events transpired, he had pressure to lean a certain way by his company.

  2. Actually I have been surprised and impressed with the balance in many of the articles I have read on Tree Hugger. I look at it every once in a while. It pops up in searches fairly often. They have good articles at times particularly on new technologies.

  3. How can eco-consumption of any product or service ever be Green, or tree-huggish? Check out most of that stuff is not necessary for life and is instead luxury stuff for the idle rich.

    Eco consumption is an oxymoron.

    Actually paying for an eco-consumption product or service is Physical Realization of an Oxymoron.

    I especially like the Downhill ‘The Original Clear Cutters’ Skiing offers.

  4. Dan Hughes (14:41:33) : “How can eco-consumption of any product or service ever be Green, or tree-huggish? Check out most of that stuff is not necessary for life and is instead luxury stuff for the idle rich.”

    I suppose “green” is relative, e.g. using fossil-fueled electricity to light your home, but lighting with LEDs or fluorescents instead of incandescents…not exactly “green”, but certainly less “un-green”.

  5. Hey, I’m a “tree hugger”…I hug a pile of tree each time I carry some fire wood to the wood stove. I love the warm “tree hugging” feeling of the “green” renewable resource of my truly “green” fuel. Here in the rain forests of Maine this stuff just grows on trees.

    So…hug a tree…they grow faster and big trees burn longer!!

    Ben D, burning my way to a greener me

  6. I’m waiting to see if Revkin has the cojones to present his views on the issue of climate here or at Climate Audit. I know that both you and Steve are willing to provide a forum for such people. I place a high value on people who engage in public discourse in good faith, and thus far I see encouraging signs with Revkin, but I’m still waiting for a definitive sign. He’s drunk pretty deep of the alarmist koolaid…if he’s willing to test his assumptions somewhere other than the echo chambers he’s frequented in the past, then perhaps he’s worth my endorsement.

  7. If you vote only for DotEarth and skip all the other topics, this might raise a flag.

  8. I look at this as any other opportunity to vote, even if I don’t like the candidates I can still push things in the right direction.

    So while I don’t agree with Revkin, I do agree with civil discourse and if voting for him here helps promote that, even in a small way, then it’s worth the 10 seconds.

  9. I agree. Revkin, although misguided, is a good egg. I’m just glad he hasn’t banned me over the years. I like to get into barfights there, as DotEarth features some of the most annoying, arrogant True Believers the blogosphere ever sees.

    I strongly encourage the more *ahem* passionate of you to join the fray sometime.

  10. Well said, Anthony, and I agree with your assessment! The vote has been cast.

    Too bad there isn’t more variety in the organizations listed, I’ve been impressed with Trout Unlimited and a few other sportsman-oriented groups.

    We do need more dialogue, and HONEST presentation of strong data! I think we are starting to see some of this starting to happen, in no small part to blogs like WUWT and Climate Audit.

  11. Fair assessment of Dot Earth. Everything is relative. True believer but polite and respectful.

    Perhaps at some point it would be fun for WUWT to do something similar to award the worst site… even though there are so many choices for that it would be more difficult.

    Maybe it would be simpler just to tally the number of times the word “denier” or “catastrophic” appears than to make any subjective call.

  12. Andy Revkin’s starting place is that population growth is the central problem facing humanity, which is to say that he is a disciple of Paul Ehrlich.

    As for climate science, he made a trip a few years ago to the Arctic, was told that the ice melt he witnessed was extraordinary/meaningful, and bit down hard. If I had a time machine that could let him visit the many other similar melts during just the past two centuries, I would book him a seat.

    The conceit that because we are witnessing it with our very own eyes means that something is unusual or significant is anti-science at its purest. Throwing the gasoline which is ignorance onto the fire of climate fears, likewise.

  13. While I agree that Revkin is civil, I can’t vote for anyone who is 180 degrees wrong in the majority of what he says.

  14. Revkin I can vote for – while he might not have always been even handed (TBH I never paid him much attention until a few months/weeks back) he does seem to be making an honest effort of it now – and catching hell for it.

    Now Best Non-US Eco Fashion Brand… I couldn’t really offer an opinion on that one. Having had a client in the apparel/fashion industry for a number of years I’ve seen how that sausage is made. As distrubing as it is if you really want earth friendly apparel go to Wal Mart – it all comes from the same manufacturing facilities overseas anyway… at least they’re efficient about it. I don’t follow that advice mind you, it’s a cultural thing – I have to dress somewhat nice ; )

  15. I didn’t realize that Treehugger was an Official Site of the Discovery Channel and its affiliates. Hmmmm… that takes my opinion of them down a few (more) notches. It’s ironic as hell considering that the Discovery Channel now seems to be the Used Car Auction channel – making all of their money off the most polluting of automobiles :-)

    That and at first I read their “Take Action” menu item as “Toke Action.” I think that makes more sense.

  16. Perhaps the other sites are even worse, but Revkin is simply a bridge too far. If there was a “none of the above” or a write in category, the popularity contest might be worth considering.

  17. When Revkin dares to speak out about the corruption in his own profession, I might vote for him.

  18. Here I grew up believing that “Treehugger” was a derogatory term much akin to “teabagger” and “mudslider”.

  19. They forgot the American hunters and outdoorsmen for their best conservation group.

    Every year hunters contribute tens of millions of dollars to habitat management, wetlands preservation and expansion, wildlife research, and a host of other things. All funded through a voluntary excise tax on firearms, ammunition, bows and other sports equipment.

    That’s a heck of a lot more than greenpeas (not a typo) ever did.

    Source:

    http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html

    http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6579&type=0

  20. I voted,then read this
    Clicking the vote button will submit your choices and bring you to the next topic page. Votes may be submitted in every category of each topic once per day per user.
    Waste of time
    I like Revkin because he allows posters to criticise him.I do think he is a bit extreme though.

  21. I can’t vote for Revkin (or any of them). I find his “civility” and any suggestion of his being more “fair” or “balanced” to be a result of his being able to cleverly make it appear so while he is slicing skeptics with sly, subtle stabs. He’s smarter than most alarmists in that way but he’s no better. At least with Romm, all his cards are on the table.

  22. Nope – no votes from me. Why not have a vote for “best dictatorship”, “best terrorist organization” or “best communist regime”?

    They desperately need a “none of the above” option for each category.

  23. denis (17:41:14) :
    My deepest respect for Anthony aside, I can’t vote for anything on that poll.

    Ditto here. I will not vote for Revkin based simply on his despicable treatment of Dr. Alan Carlin, whistle blower from the EPA on the EPA over the bogus Endangerment Findings on CO2. Sorry, but character assassination is nothing I can support. If the Green’s want Romm to represent them it’ll simply turn more folks agin’em than for’em. At a crucial time Dr. Carlin was one of the very few who put his livelihood directly on the line.

  24. If Romm loses, will he finally pull out the last of that “hair” that shades his chrome dome? The man is a sick progressive that deserves all of the hate we have for him. But I do wish that he will find a love in his life. Maybe then he won’t be so hateful towards those that don’t agree with his agenda.

    For him to degrade meteorologist as not knowing climate science, and then praise himself as a climate scientist because he had a degree in physics is actually pathological.

  25. Sorry, no vote for him. Only because he is fair? He is still wrong in most of his articles and I dont want to endorse his arguments into the public.

  26. I have vast respect for Andy Revkin’s curiosity and intellectual integrity. He is gradually seeing the light about the overemphasis on ‘global warming’. See Atmoz in the sidebar for a cute little discussion among some prominent alarmists and him. It’s the second post down.
    ===================

  27. This is hilarious. Revkin is going to win this thing by a long shot, because the Reverend Watts riled up his army of screeching monkeys. Even if only 10% of Anthony’s readers can hold their nose and vote for Revkin, he’ll still beat the crap out of everyone else. Treehugger doesn’t even want our kind voting in that poll, and now they’ll probably take the whole thing down. But I hope they don’t. I bet the hits on this poll page go up 1000 percent, just because Anthony mentioned it. Hope their server can handle it.

    Best part? Winning this poll will NOT be good for Revkin at all, when the archenemy AW endorsed him and most of his votes came from “climate change deniers”. This will definitely lower his standing in the treehugger community. He might even lose his job.

    (Anthony: your middle initial isn’t G by any chance, is it? If it isn’t, you should seriously consider having your middle name legally changed to George, or Glen, or anything that begins with a G. That would be too cool!)

    Regards,
    Trevor

  28. Thats why I hate reading his blog! It is much easier to tear apart the hysterical loudmouths. (99.999% of those on the warmista side) I concur with Anthony. Sure, Revkin’s civil, but still wrong!

  29. I’m going to take a pass on voting for Revkin. Voting for who is the least bad doesn’t fill me with inspiration or admiration.

    Now if they want to put Climate Depot on the list I will be happy to give Morano my vote. He has done a great job demonstrating the link between far left politics and the “science” of AGW and he does it with a smile.

  30. MikeN 7:34:59

    See Atmoz, third post down re ‘the Big Cutoff’. I think Atmoz is the one who took Keith Briffa’s bio out of Wikipedia. Quite a little disinformation specialist there.
    =================

    REPLY: Yeah, he’s a real piece of work. He’s a grad student at Arizona State. Nathan Johnson. He’s done some shoddy things to me too. Off the blogroll he goes since he doesn’t play nice. – Anthony

  31. No, I’m not going to vote at treehugger. No, I’m not going to vote for Revkin. The poll is just another step for consensus science; the democratisation of science by blog affiliation; a tribe defining vote for those suffering from confirmation bias overload. Abstain and escape that deep green lobotomy.

  32. While I got a chuckle over the warmists’ threat to give Revkin the “big cutoff” when he strayed from the AGW orthodoxy, I’m still unsure if he deserves the award.

    The Climategate emails give us a hint at a journalist who was a little too chummy and accommodating with his sources, and a little too eager to spin stories in a way that ingratiated him with scientists he was supposed to be covering. And his actual coverage of the Climategate story was embarrassing. No reporter whose emails were included in the release can reasonably be considered unbiased enough to actually cover the story.

    A final though on “Dot Earth”… where did Revkin’s “Nine Billion People. One Planet” tagline come from? The best population estimates I’ve seen are more like 6.81 billion. Somebody get him a fact-checker!

  33. From the Treehugger site, on the right side:
    Climate Culture Calculator
    See how much carbon you can save:
    Option: Use less alcohol

    Look, you if you want me to stop using so much alcohol, stop adding it to my gasoline. That is by far my biggest consumption of alcohol, gallons of very hard liquor (200 proof) consumed every week. Nothing else comes anywhere close.

    Click on the link… What the heck are “organic brands” of booze? Does anyone even officially certify booze as “organic” or is that just a marketing boondoggle good for squeezing some more bucks out of gullible greens?

    The calculations are based on the Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA model. The GHG emissions over the lifecyle of beer are 744 metric tons of CO2e, of wine – 667 metric tons of CO2, of hard liquor – 349 metric tons of CO2, per 1 million 1997 dollars, according to the model. We assume that the CO2 emissions are pretty uniform across the brands and types of beer, type and hard liquor.

    Anyone here who can translate this gibberish? Beer says “CO2e,” is that “CO2 equivalent” to figure in the methane production (beware frat boy farts that will kill the planet)?

    The calculator’s programming is not robust, it pegs at “13,482 bs/yr CO2″ quickly, which is $448 of hard liquor. Obviously this is not intended for large purchasers like green event planners. How do they calculate savings for IPCC conferences?

    Considering prices, volume consumed… Obviously the best thing to do is to stop buying light beer and switch over to straight vodka. This will greatly reduce the CO2e emissions, make a serious dent in global warming…

    Hey, I think I just found the reason for that large cold anomaly above Russia.

  34. kadaka (10:23:02):

    What the heck are “organic brands” of booze?

    Yesterday I heard a radio commentary titled:
    “Is You Love Life Green?”

    Not kidding.

  35. Treehugger Forums have a lot more debate than their front area. They have a special forum set up just for Global Warming. But there’s only two or three skeptics the rest of them there just pile on them. So please, if you are a committed skeptic, join treehugger and participate in the ongoing global warming discussions. Any help is appreciated. Also note that Treehugger was equal to the largest node on the network diagram recently posted – so they are an extremely important target for information wars.

Comments are closed.