Unprecedented: Climate takes an entire category in the 2013 Bloggies Awards – time to place your votes

WUWT nominated in two categories. The competition this year is more skeptical than ever!

2013_bloggies_science

This year, the choices are tougher, since there are so many favorites. Last year I thought it was tough because they threw big names in websites into the category (like Mashable, Gizmodo, Engadget, and Tech Crunch) while at the same time combined the separate Science and Technology categories into one new single category.

This year the category strategy seems to be “divide and conquer”.

You may recall that last year there was a clean sweep of the awards by truly skeptical blogs, and the big names were shut out. WUWT also won the Lifetime Achievement Award.

I know this is a tough choice, but if WUWT wins the science category this year, it will make three, and we won’t be eligible to win the award ever again. Success has its drawbacks I suppose. Of course WUWT can only win with your help, here’s how:

1. Visit http://2013.bloggi.es/ for the main voting page,

2. Locate the category thumbnails for the categories you want to vote on (you need to vote at least three categories to submit a vote). Here’s what the Sci-Tech Category looks like:

click_wuwt_2013

3. If you want to vote for WUWT (or any of the blog categories), click on the little grey circle in the lower right of the icon, and it turns into a checkbox and greys out the other thumbnails. Note the contest rotates the thumbnails for fairness in placement, so it may not look like the image order above.

Likewise WUWT is also in the Category for Weblog of the Year:

2013_WUWT_bloggies_weblog_of_year

If we win that category, there is a monetary prize involved, as they say: “Weblog of the Year receives a prize of 2,013 US cents (US$20.13)”. Wow. That is like 2013 times more money than I get from “big oil”!

4. Scroll up/down. Vote for any other blogs you like in any other categories the same way. You don’t have to vote for all other blog categories, as the system doesn’t require it, but please check out other categories. These other bloggers work very hard to deliver a quality product. Reward them if you feel they deserve it.

Here are some notable categories where climate related blogs have also made an appearance this year: For Australian category, Australian Climate Madness is a hands down no-brainer for me.

The investigative work Simon has done has been outstanding.

2013_bloggies_australian

For Best Canadian Blog, Small Dead Animals is an easy choice. Kate makes me (and thousands of other people) laugh with her one line demolitions:

2013_bloggies_canadian

The politics category is tougher, I’ll admit to liking all of them (Occupy Wall Street excepted, which is more of a manifesto than a blog). American Thinker goes in-depth on political issues, and sometimes covers climate, The GWPF goes even more in-depth, and is specific to climate, and James Delingpole is a fantastically entertaining vivisectionist of all things political, green, climatic and stupid.  I’ll admit to having Delingpole as a personal favorite, but YMMV.

2013_bloggies_politics

In the Humorous category XKCD, hands down, though again for the second year too bad Josh isn’t there.

Make your choices by clicking on the little grey circles.

5. Scroll all the way to the bottom of the page: (note – don’t use cursor keys, it will change your vote!)

6. Complete the captcha by typing the words displayed in your browser (not the ones above), put in a VALID email address. Press the yellow SUBMIT button. Note- you won’t get spammed by doing so. See the fine print under the email box.

7. Wait for an email in your inbox. That email contains a link to verify your vote. If you don’t get it within a half hour, check your spam filter. Mine went straight to spam, so you should check if you don’t see it.

8. Click on the link in your email to verify your vote. It will take you to the verification page on the website and you’ll get a success message.

9. Spread the word! Twitter, Facebook, mailing lists, friends, comments on other blogs, and most importantly, if you run a blog, I’d welcome a posting on this topic.

You know that some others who dislike what we do here will try to create anti-vote campaigns as they have done in the past. Success depends on whether there are more people who view WUWT as a science resource versus some that simply want to haul out the hate, and slap on the “denier” label, and edit user comments post facto so they can win the argument with nobody looking (they think).

10. Remember, while winning is fun, the way you play the game is just as important. Don’t cheat. Don’t encourage cheating, and simply let the chips fall where they may. May the best weblogs win.

About these ads

83 thoughts on “Unprecedented: Climate takes an entire category in the 2013 Bloggies Awards – time to place your votes

  1. I cannot believe Skeptical Science is one of the SciTech finalists. If they were to somehow win (not a chance though), that would be the first sign of the coming apocalypse.

  2. Makes it very difficult to choose, very tough because I like Jo Nova’s site too. It’s a pity Jo didn’t get up in the Australian category so I could vote for both – But I have decided, and my votes in the ballot box now !

  3. GWPF and Delingpole both nominated in the Politics category?! Bob Ward and Keith Kloor will have their respective knickers in knots when they read about this! I love it!

    Congrats to all skeptic bloggers who’ve made it to the finals. And may the best blogs win!

  4. Surely there couldn’t be an attempt to divide the vote by putting the flatulent SkS up against four excellent and genuinely skeptical blogs?

    Delingpole is effective in a rather crass way but I prefer American Thinker or The GWPF.

  5. I took great delight in voting. I wait for Heartland to return to DC to meet you again & listen to your talks at their conference… or maybe I’ll make it to Chicago this year. Anticipatory congrats! LOL

  6. I presume when WUWT wins its 3rd Best Science Blog award, WUWT will still be eligible for the Lifetime Achievement Award in the future, so don’t feel too bad.

    BTW, I’d suggest buying 1/2oz of silver with your winnings. At least in couple of years or so, you’ll have doubled your money…

    Congratulations, Anthony!

  7. My mail admin runs a pretty tight anti-spam set up. I have lost stuff several times due to the ferocity of it’s checks.

    The verification E-mail came through with out a hitch. :D

  8. Well yes voted, all very efficient:email came back almost instantly. So all done and dusted.

    But as usual I do not know what it is about their captcha but it gets me every year. I know it is meant to stop bots but it catches out mere humans too, Took me three attempts this time, about par the course.

    I think I need some training in how to read them.

    Kindest Regards

  9. Both myself and Mrs TN voted the slate. Alas, with the exception of Mr Delingpole… Whilst he is indeed a fine vivisectionist, our preferences tend toward those thoughtful Americans at American Thinker(s).
    Good Luck Anthony!

  10. I made my selections. It hurts me not to choose Climate Audit, but I don’t want to dilute the vote, and maybe we can get behind it next year. I hope Steve and his family are doing well.

  11. I saw a link in a post yesterday and it was done immediately. It was interesting that climate interests was a top catagory. SS is likely hoping that they can win on a division of the skeptical vote. Not likely.

  12. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    I went through the list and categories.I voted for several, and had to research a few to make an informed vote, and skipped a few categories. I don’t suppose anyone has time to keep up with ALL the latest and greatest blogs. So, review, and vote. Of course, WUWT deserves your consideration. Xkcd is always worth a look.

  13. I voted for WUWT and I followed Anthony’s suggestions. You deserve the wins, Anthony, and you deserve much more than web awards. Thanks for your work in behalf of science.

  14. ““Weblog of the Year receives a prize of 2,013 US cents (US$20.13)”. Wow. That is like 2013 times more money than I get from “big oil”!”

    Doesn’t this mean you received 1 cent from BIG OIL? You know what the watermelons will do ths this admission, don’t you?

    j/k

  15. If WUWT readers would like to add a voice to boot out the Australian carbon tax, Julia Gillard, Greg Combet, Tim Flannery, windmills and all the scammers presently ripping off the Aussie taxpayer in the guise of Global Warming they could put a tick on the Michael Smith News on the “Best-Kept Secret Weblog” – (four up from bottom).

    Michael Smith was the journalist who tried to discuss on his radio show the involvement of Julia Gillard with her then con-man boyfriend who defrauded the trade union he purported to represent to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars when Gillard was an industrial lawyer before becoming a politician.

    Julia Gillard stopped the program going to air and was instrumental in Mike’s sacking from the radio station. Mike has since created his very successful blog which relies purely on reader subscriptions and is well and truly getting his own back. He is also quite vocal in the criticism of those that exploit climate change. I am sure that Mike would be humbly grateful – as of this morning he was not even aware that he had been nominated.

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/

  16. 2013 x 0 = 0
    2013 x 1 = 2013

    So which “Big Oil” gave you the cent Anthony :-)? You had better watch out one of them warmistas will use it against you if they find out! /humour

    I voted for the blog I go back to nearly every day.

    Keep up the great work!

  17. Old Grey Badger says: “I cannot believe Skeptical Science is one of the SciTech finalists. If they were to somehow win (not a chance though), that would be the first sign of the coming apocalypse.”

    Apolcalypse? They have the impact of some old codger who has lost their marbles but still goes on about the war and stringing up criminals. You hear the same old nonsense … and you know you are going to hear the same old nonsense each and every time you listen to them.

    But still some bright spark thinks it will be good for the old dears to let them re-experience their old triumphs by brining them out on their zimmer frames to stand on the line-up before the real race.

  18. My votes have been cast and I’m proud to have put my support behind both this place and Jo Nova’s excellent site. Good luck!

  19. skeptical science is on the list….. HOW ? Rolf harris has a blog yet he is not on the list !! ;-)

  20. P Gosselin says:
    February 26, 2013 at 1:44 am
    Only one warmist site. That means the skeptic vote will be divided – rigged!

    Being a suspicious sod, that was my first thought too.

  21. I voted for WUWT as best science blog in previous years, but I’m sorry to say that the recent conversion to the Willis-Memoirs blog has meant I cannot do the same this year.

    As I’ve said before, I don’t object to Willis’s posts, but think they are simply on the wrong blog. Why does he not run his own?

    I sincerely hope that WUWT will return to it’s former focus.

  22. Has my recent post regarding the conversion from science-blog to Willis-memoirs-blog really been “disappeared”?

    I’ve read elsewhere on warmist sites that posts on WUWT can silently disappear, but I didn’t believe it. I guess I’ll soon know if it’s true.

  23. Done the deed. A winning by WUWT is just one of the few ways to express our skepticism from CAGW’s 21st century temperature projections.

  24. steveta_uk says:
    February 26, 2013 at 4:03 am

    I’ve read elsewhere on warmist sites that posts on WUWT can silently disappear, but I didn’t believe it. I guess I’ll soon know if it’s true.

    There’s sufficient evidence that WordPress manages to lose some comments that would offend no one, not even the WP filter.

    When you submitted that comment, did you see it immediately, marked with something like “waiting for moderation” or was it gone at that point? I think that means it’s been shunted off to the word-starting-with-S holding pen.

  25. OK, I’m re-assured. My original post was “waiting for moderation” for a while, then disappeared completely. That’s when I wrote the follow up. Shortly after, it re-appeared, still “waiting for moderation”, although my later post was not tagged as waiting, so it overtook it somehow.

    Now both appear in the original order. So that’s all good. Thanks Ric.

  26. Votes cast, votes verified. You’re right to comment on it being a tough choice, I hated having to vote against three excellent science blogs to vote for a fourth. OTOH, it was nice to be able to give a vote to xkcd, one of the few places on t’net which has reduced me on numerous occasions to helpless tears of laughter. And this year I discovered the Norse Mythology blog!

    I also note that the page refused to give me a captcha (or a vote!) on my usual browser, even with all the blockers seemingly turned off. Had to fire up the Tor Browser and scrub down with disinfectant after voting – thank Heaven for “ccleaner”!

  27. Done. I wish Climate Audit and WUWT were in different categories as I would have liked to have voted for both.

  28. Done and dusted.

    SAMURAI says (February 25, 2013 at 5:28 pm)
    BTW, I’d suggest buying 1/2oz of silver with your winnings. At least in couple of years or so, you’ll have doubled your money…

    I took that advice two years ago. Er, didn’t quite work out.
    Perhaps Anthony should invest the $20.13 in carbon credits? They’re bound to go up. Lol.

  29. steveta_uk says:
    February 26, 2013 at 4:03 am

    Ric Werme says:
    February 26, 2013 at 5:18 am

    When you submitted that comment, did you see it immediately, marked with something like “waiting for moderation, or was it gone”. . .

    Such things happen and are baffling. It is best to project one’s feeling of paranoia on a deus ex machina and not an innocent and honorable moderator or site host. Anyone that has done even a small bit of software programming knows that everyone else’s code is flakey.

  30. Done. Good Luck to WUWT. It was my great pleasure to be the one who informed Charles of the WUWT win in the lifetime acheivement award last year. May I have the chance to inform him of more success. I probably visit WUWT more then any other blog.

  31. Didn’t get a confirmation email from Monday afternoon’s vote.
    What is the name of the email and/or the group? Did a search for Weblog and Bloggies and didn’t find anything yet.

    It says contact them if you don’t get an email. What email address should be used?
    Thank you.

  32. KevinM says:
    February 26, 2013 at 6:03 am

    Stacked deck. Three actually sceptical sites to split the vote vs one misnamed non-sceptical site.

    Why would tha tbe, though? Perhaops it could have something to do with the fact that Anthony encouraged us all to go and nominate all our favourite skeptic blogs back in January (or was it December?). Surprised that SS was in the science category, though … I nominated them for religion (or was it humour) – as I am sure did many others.

  33. I voted my conscious. ;-D

    Unfortunate about Jo Nova. Glad to see Cake Wrecks and Oatmeal get recognition too! And Dellers the man.

  34. James Delingpole writes at his blog:

    “Blimey, I’m up for a prize – my first ever Bloggie award nomination. I’d be so pleased if I won because, unlike most journalistic awards, the Bloggies aren’t decided by a cabal of pinkos and unimaginative, career-safe lametards from the decaying, dead-tree establishment but by the only people who really matter – you the readers.
    See that subtle, sucking-up thing I did there? But I also happen to mean it. Without your vote I don’t win a prize. Without your readership and support I’d just be another of those desperate saddoes like the trolls who haunt this blog in order to try to leech off some traffic for their own pitifully dull, billy-no-mates online musings.
    So that’s something else to consider: when you vote for me, you’re not merely voting for the cause of all that is righteous and true – but you’re also doing the equivalent of taking away a troll’s online donkey porn account: and you know how miserable and bereft that would make them feel, right?”

    I know Dellers is a polemicist but I love his language, his attitudes, and his willingness to shine a light on the madness of climate policy among other things. British English in common use retains many words and phrases that American English has lost. Dellers does a great job of witnessing to the outrages perpetrated on the common man by the ruling class and the EU.

  35. Oh, Anthony, so Big Oil pays you 1 cent? Shame on you! For receiving such extravagant funding, and / or for forgetting that x times 0 is 0!

  36. Leo Hickman has a blog posting in the Guardian today about the ‘climate sceptics’ (whatever that is) ‘capturing’ the science and technology category. It reads like sour grapes.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/01/climate-sceptics-capture-bloggies-science?CMP=twt_fd

    There is this tidbit at the end of the article-

    “Reflecting such concern, I have learned that Skeptical Science, who have never lobbied to be nominated and are the only non-climate sceptic blog on the Science shortlist, has now asked to be withdrawn from the shortlist due to its concerns about the legitimacy of the voting process.”

    I must agree that SS has nothing to do with climate. :-)

  37. I voted two days ago, no confirmation e-mail, tried again yesterday, same non-result, sent a message this morning, still no response.
    Not that it matters, WUWT will be a runaway winner with or without my input.

  38. My humble blog is in the list of “best science or technology weblog” (Science is Beauty), but not marked as “skeptics”. Actually I (almost) never post something about climate there, but when I do, it goes on the skeptical way ;) and thousand of readers unfollow the blog automatically… For example after this post:

    http://scienceisbeauty.tumblr.com/post/4295214309/the-four-legged-of-the-anthropogenic-global

    hordes of environmentalists complained in a rush:

    http://scienceisbeauty.tumblr.com/day/2011/04/03

    (Well, what can I tell to you that you don’t know already?)

    It’s funny I’m finalist for the “Best Educational Blog”, so they have another one “denialist” in the list anyway ;)

    As usual, my vote went to WUWT, by the way.

    Regards

    [Unfollow” ? Mod]

  39. Yep, they stopped following the blog very angry for my “denialism” LOL. Samples:

    “WTH, is this an April Fool’s joke, using anything from Anthony Watt’s site here? I thought this was about, you know, SCIENCE.”

    “I’m unfollowing you because in your last post you showed yourself to be a climate cynic in science lover’s clothing!”

    … and so on, or worse.

    (By the way, in the previous comment I forgot to mention I was talking about the The Guardian article, linked above by chris y)

  40. I voted on March 1st, reply just appeared in my incoming e-mail today (March 6). Reply was dated March 1, can anyone explain what’s going on?

  41. Skeptical Science has officially been removed from the voting (by their own request). I would have preferred they lose with a modicum of grace, rather than pretending to lose on “principle.”

Comments are closed.