VOTING OPEN: WUWT Nominated for Best Science Blog

Voting is now open, for anyone who wants to vote for any of the blogs below. A note about voting. Since you can vote once every 24 hours, this is a horse race. So to pick a winner, voting must be repeated until the poll closes next Tuesday at 5PM EST

VOTING LINK

I was surprised to be nominated for this. In fact I found out about it from gary Boden in an email by way of Lucia. The contest organizers didn’t notify me directly.

But still, it is rather fun.

Voting will open on Monday.

Last Year Climate Audit and Bad Astronomy tied…but is was only due to some “automated” voting that went on past poll closing time which made determining a winner nearly impossible. You can vote more than once, daily if I recall correctly, but word has it they’ve made the poll more secure this year.

Don’t get too wrapped up in this, which is really just a popularity contest. I’m just happy to be nominated. For me it’s about how to play the game, not being the winner, so in that spirit, here is the list of ALL finalists. Choose your favorite. If we (and I say we because WUWT is a community of people, it is not just about me) win, I promise I won’t get up on stage and promise to “work for world peace”. 😉

Best Science Blog

Vote for your choice for Best Science Blog.

Finalists:

Add to any feed reader Pharyngula (PZ Myers)

Add to any feed reader Improbable Research

Add to any feed reader Climate Audit

Add to any feed reader Bad Astronomy

Add to any feed reader Real Climate

Add to any feed reader NASA Watch

Add to any feed reader Watt’s Up with That

Add to any feed reader NeuroLogica Blog

Add to any feed reader 60-Second Science

Add to any feed reader Greg Laden

130 thoughts on “VOTING OPEN: WUWT Nominated for Best Science Blog

  1. Most excellent!
    Here’s a scenario we can sink our teeth into:
    After appearing before Congress to testify about the Surface Stations project, WUWT and surfacestations.org end up in a tie for the 2009 Best Science Blog category.

  2. Still no link for voting, but here is a page for updates on the weblog awards contest.
    And Lucia’s link in the article quoting Joe Romm complaining about his failure to qualify was priceless:

    “It is absurd to call Watts Up With That a science blog. You might just as well call the Drudge Report a science blog. Or John Tierney a science writer. Oops.
    “The Weblog Awards should not be legitimizing anti-scientific denialism.
    “One more thing: Yes some people have e-mailed me to express their dismay that I didn’t make the finalist list. I confessed to being a tad pissed…”

    Heh.
    Sorry, Joe, it’s the consensus.

  3. “…anti-scientific denialism.”??? ROFL
    Ok Joe. You need some “quiet time”.
    I’m beginning to think that some of these people must come here, and read mid-way through the comments on one article or some such, rather than spending time for 2 or 3 articles and comments.
    No other explanation, other than denailis…..errrrrrrrrrr….wait! ;>)
    InDenialofBeingJimB

  4. Anthony
    Your wonderful contribution to the climate debate is appreciated and recognized world wide . All the best, Anthony

  5. Real Climate a nominee?? I thought they were a political blog.
    WUWT is even money going in, Climate Audit 2nd.

  6. Congrats, sir! You deserve it!
    I’ll be splitting my votes between CA and WUWT – of course – and hoping you two take First and Second (in any order).
    …Unless an interloper gets between ya’ll in the rankings. Then I’ll root for the underdog.
    As Signorney Weaver said in Alien II, “It’s the only way to be sure.”
    Meanwhile NASA will get no vote from me until they clean up their climate act. As a taxpayer, I am really getting @#$% off at them. Their recent behavior is obscene.

  7. I will have to vote for ‘Watts Up With That’ and for ‘Climate Audit.’ The thing about these two is that the exposition is reasoned and the verbal abuse is limited or not allowed at all. This makes the discussion readable and the characters likable, unlike some of the other blogs in this genre. So thank you, Anthony et al, and Steve et al. We all appreciate what you are doing and the reasonable way you are doing it. Now I need to send both of you more money, damn.
    John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee

  8. The thing about these two is that the exposition is reasoned and the verbal abuse is limited or not allowed at all. – John Andrews (18:27:18)
    Absolutely. These two sites are gusts of exceedingly fresh air – and are a stunning and effective foil against the global BS from the AGW/Climate Change Alarmists. They are beginning to run scared now. Their cover-ups are getting sloppier.
    -and since I have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, I will now bow out and go hit the paypal jar. It’s called putting my money where my mouth is.

  9. I think you have provide an impotant service with this blog…..the fun stuff is here, so Steve M over at Climate Audit is now free to concentrate on what he is good at, auditing the math in climate science.
    You have done a great job of providing an informal site where the fascination of science can mix with common sense, in sorting out the science of climate and weather.

  10. Anthony says:
    ” If we (and I say we because WUWT is a community of people, it is not just about me) win, I promise I won’t get up on stage and promise to “work for world peace”. ;-)”
    If you’re not working for world peace, I’m not voting for you!!!
    8>)

  11. Smokey: Joe who???
    Anthony: You must have some English blood. It’s not the winning, it’s the taking part!
    Good luck, you deserve the recognition

  12. Well, there’s a saying “it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…
    Ps. “Hacking Democracy” – a must see documentary @ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4762159260759486531
    And BTW – it’s sunny (for the first time in weeks) and -25 C over here right now. The weather is so nice I’d go out for a skiing trip if I didn’t have the worst flu in a looong time…

  13. I don’t know why that fellow Joe Romm is complaining that WUWT is not a science blog.
    It seems to me that the posters to this blog are a very well informed and behaved bunch where some real scientists linger (as well as more literate lurkers) and where well argued contributions are put forward.
    On some other “alleged scientific blogs” all I see are trolls and uninformed argument which are unrewarding to read or visit .

  14. Lubos Motl,
    I particularly enjoy your blog. I don’t often leave comments like I do here, but I’m a regular visitor of your blog. I particularly like your show-no-mercy, take-no-prisoners style when addressing climate charlatans. Keep it up!
    What criteria should one apply to decide:
    1. Which site does a person learn a lot about climate science?
    Where the material is presented in an easy to grasp way.
    (I vote for Watts in that respect)
    2. A site with breaking new stories that challenge and rattle
    the AGW alarmists? (Climate Audit)
    3. Or a site that is truly open to a spectrum of scientific views?
    Like RealClimate (…haha – just kidding!)
    My list of favourites are:
    IceCap
    Motl,
    Watts
    McIntyre
    Skeptics
    Russ Steele
    Marohasy
    WCR
    Klimakatastrophe (German)
    EIKE (German)

  15. My preference not necessarilly in the above order.
    If other folks here have other recommendations, please tell me!
    I’m looking for some British and french sites.

  16. I checked the other 8 nominations and was appalled at their inferior quality compared with WUWT and CA. Though having said “8” I want to concede RC a grudging recognition… but to give that recognition a name would get me deleted *********** hehehe.
    For instance, Bad Astronomy had this:
    It’s bad news because Jenny McCarthy is a walking antiscience disaster of the first order. She claims vaccines cause autism and that her son was cured of autism by changing his diet.
    Now I know this is cruel, harmful rubbish – because my own Asperger (edge of autistic spectrum) condition has been healed through diet. I know the research that went into this, the evidence, the story, the scientific understanding, the untold help this has been to me and could be to others. Aspies are natural scientists BTW, Einstein was one and Newton probably another. And as to vaccines, it’s not the MMR in itself, it was the thiomersal (thimerosal to the US) preservative that was the culprit, a mercury compound that should never have been used (remember Mad Hatters syndrome) that was very very quietly phased out. Ugh!
    GOOD LUCK US FOLKS!

  17. I would like to thank myself and others who nominated WUWT as best science blog (dislocates shoulder from pating self on back). 🙂
    Unfortunately, the former excellent science blog ‘Bad Astronomy’ sadly morphed into a Bush Derangement Syndrome polemic. I like WUWT because the mods work to keep left-right politics out unless directly relevant.

  18. philw1776 (09:21:55) :Unfortunately, the former excellent science blog ‘Bad Astronomy’ sadly morphed into a Bush Derangement Syndrome polemic.
    Yes, it is sad. It’s become a place with very little science and lots more opinion — a This-is-the Truth site. Instead of getting the why, you get Science-as-Religion. It’s quite a ways from Phil’s original site, which actually tried to demonstrate. I asked Phil about the change and got an effective “so what?” in response. I think he’s been lured by popularity. He’s far more interested in emulating PZ and doesn’t seem to realize his blog content and approach differs from those he complains about only in polarity. Hopefully, someday he’ll return to his original path.
    The original BadAstonomy:
    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/index.html
    I guess every blog runs the danger of self-centered hubris. Unlike BA and PZ, WUWT runs actual science discussions and eschews rants. Makes it one of the best Science blogs around — at least on par with CA.
    Keep up the good work, Anthony!

  19. Last year I took the opportunity to check out the other science blogs. I was shocked at the random obscenity sprinkled through many of them, and the out-and-out vitriol for those they didn’t like. So, imagine my surprise when I randomly chose one, saw the f-bomb, and much of the same thing. I have always been impressed by how this site keeps decorum and respect, even for those that we oppose. Keep up the good work Anthony, and good luck.

  20. Another thought: I think the mom rule applies… if you wouldn’t want your mom or kids to see it, don’t say it online.

  21. TCOisbanned:

    If you go by number of Ph.D. contributors, RC has you all beat by a mile.

    How could you possibly know that? Tell us how many PhD’s post on BogusClimate, and how many PhD’s post here. Give us your raw data and methodology, sport.

  22. Newby: I believe you’re allowed to vote once a day. At their site they have a count-down clock, showing how long till voting starts. Their rules specify a 1 week voting period, 7 votes. 4 for WUWT + 3 for CA?

  23. Compare the comments of this blog to that of Richard Black of the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
    Despite being well placed on one of the most popular news web sites on the internet and despite having the backing of a huge organisation and UK tax payers money, he only manages to get a fraction of the comments this web site gets and about half of those comments on climate are arguing directly with what he says.

  24. 7,000,845 hits!! Seven million plus. Another milestone!
    If Anthony’s Army gives WUWT a voting click for best science blog, we’ve got a good shot at the title. Even coming in at #2 or #3 would be very impressive for a site that had less than a million hits only a year ago.
    No matter what happens, WUWT really fills a need for polite, respectful and reasonable discourse over the wide-ranging facets of climate science, from solar activity to ocean currents to bristlecone pines.
    Many of us have learned a lot about an obscure science that was below the radar only a few years ago. We owe Anthony a debt of gratitude for providing such an interesting forum for discussion, and for allowing contrary points of view — a quality that is sorely lacking in most pro-AGW sites.
    A major reason for the popularity of WUWT is the tolerance of different points of view. It’s the truth that is important here, not the agenda. A vote for WUWT is a vote for sifting the truth from the incessant, self-serving propaganda over the “climate”.

  25. This being a finalist must be having an imapct on your numbers. On 3 Jan, WUWT’s reach & rank hit an all-time high according to Alexa :
    Your numbers at Alexa should be very, very good for at least a week.
    REPLY: I think it is more due to the content and the holidays…more leisure time for people to scan the Internet. – Anthony

  26. In my days as a Monty Python fan, I did not know what I was getting into,- times passed and I became older!! – then along came Big Al’ – and I thought that I was back in the Loony Bin!! You are a breathe of fresh air (and cold at that) and I know that the science is good but (folk will always doubt!). I do know one thing though,…. er….. that …….Brian…. might have a true friend!!!
    Keep (ya) the goals high and the science better!!
    Tom.
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire.

  27. voting is open now – WUWT is in number two spot with less than fifty votes – time to get moving, folks!

  28. Well, not counting the hanging chads or including the military vote, WUWT only has 53 votes at the moment…
    I hope “we” can do better!

  29. as they say out here in Australia – vote early and vote often!
    I checked out Pharyngula and it looked pretty average to me. CA and WUWT leave it for dead, but are in danger of splitting the vote.

  30. “TCOisbanned:
    If you go by number of Ph.D. contributors, RC has you all beat by a mile.”
    Who cares?

  31. This guy D.A. who stays away from here says
    “The IPCC is completely transparent. It gives press conferences when each of their ARs are released. Every one of their reports lists all of the authors of every chapter. All of them have Web sites where they publish their phone numbers and email addresses and publications, and anyone may contact them at any time to ask questions. He has never once had an IPCC scientist decline an interview when asked.”
    I wondered what some here would think of that take.

  32. Good luck, Anthony. Looking forward to more good stuff in ’09. Fortunately, no Al Franken vids like the current Pharyngula fare… Egads! Still scratching my head how that one even made the cut.

  33. Vote Early — Vote Often . {like they do in Chicago}
    WUWT is still in second place – by just 7 votes.
    Momentum’s building.

  34. Dear Anthony,
    I am not surprised at all that you were nominated. You have an outstanding blog and deserve recognition. Popularity contests count too.
    (My apologies if the above has the ring of an ingratiating suck up. It is sincere and, of course, correct.)

  35. Sorry, but I had to vote for Climate Audit, since there’s more stuff I don’t understand going on there than here 😉

  36. Lordy.
    I went to Pharyngula out of curiosity.
    It’s depressing.
    Didn’t stay long.
    Edgy and blatantly political.
    I hope this contest counts votes more efficiently than MN officials.

  37. Voted twice today once from work once from home.
    Voted for RealClimate…
    Not!
    For an avg Joe who is not a scientist, I really cannot stand the attitude of posters over there.
    [Reply – Then I expect you not to vote tomorrow. Cheating is intolerable. ~ Evan]

  38. On the one hand Climate Audit is a truly excellent science blog.
    On the other hand WUWT is a truly excellent science blog.
    How to choose…. Hm… Hmm… Hmmmm… Hmmmmmm….

  39. Anthony gets a lot of overseas traffic from Europe and Australia (and Canadaland as well). This will help with off hours voting.

  40. Just looked at Pharyngula and found this as the self description:
    “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal”
    Didn’t even bother to read any further.

  41. Climate Audit is beating RealClimate by 2 to 1… this blog and Climate Audit are my favorite US science blogs… Lubos Motl’s The Reference Frame is my favorite European science blog.

  42. I wonder… if the RC guys had been nicer to the many people that they ridiculed, ignored and banned over the last year, might they have fared better?
    OK I’m not saying that it’s over so keep voting every day… I’m asking my friends, neighbors and relatives to vote too. In fact I’m even helping them to do it. It’s too early for congratulations, but good job so far folks!
    Mike Bryant

  43. The anonymity of the net allows people to say and act in ways they would never do face to face. The greatest thing about this site is the civility. There are as many opinions as there are people in the world. Swearing and name calling can debase any issue. It does not exist on WUWT. I like CA as well, but I believe it is extremely important for EVERYBODY to understand as much about the science as possible. Then they can form their own opinion. The reason the pro-AGW movement is successful, is they have gone after the masses, and used a lot of really good PR people (read propaganda people). Anthony ( and I include all whose efforts go into making this blog what it is, moderators, contributors, etc.) have done more than any I am aware of , to help people understand what is really going on with regards to our planet. My wife and I both voted for your blog, Anthony. A little quote from “Gladiator” to those at RealClimate ( and their like) ” The time for honoring yourselves will soon be at an end”. I believe that the MSM will come to realize that real story worthy of print will be the deception perpetrated on the public regarding “climate change”. WUWT, kickin’ a** and takin’ down names, ……..

  44. Whoa Anthony! WUWT has taken a big lead over second place Pharyngula, 657 to 449 as of 12:01 AM EST 1/6/2009.

  45. WUWT and CA are taking almost half the vote between them. It seems that sanity actually might prevail. Let’s fight the urge to get complacent and keep voting early and often. Wherever you see a computer, stop and vote again.

  46. Kudos and thanks from a long time reader and first time poster. I never completely abandoned my aptitude for science but my life had other plans. This blog has re-energized my inquisitive mind and provided some great weather related material for a confirmed weather-nut. Keep up the good work!
    ed

  47. L Nettles: The science here is the same. CA is more interested in paleontologic signs of temps (tree ring ect) so it is a tad different and more complex if you have difficulty understanding complex statistics and programming. I think most meteoroligst who are really the only “climate scientists” (apart from atmospheric physicists) would agree. That is three days accurate forecasting max LOL

  48. RE Solar 24 BTW it seems that apart from David Archibald to date everyone else was way off the mark. RE mechanisms: It seems Landsheit may have been spot on

  49. “You may vote once every 24 hours…” it says there and which for some reason reminded me of A. Huxley:
    “The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work’ with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”
    So, vote [Snip. And bite your tongue. ~ Evan] – and make a “difference” every (!) day – enjoy the (more or less scientific) “circus” – experience “miracles” – and who knows, maybe the “mysteries” of GW gets to be solved too!
    Ps. I don’t need to add “sarc off” there, do I ?

  50. I find all this vote for me vote for me stuff embarrassing for the people who promote it.
    I honestly find myself questioning the motive behind some of these sites now.
    I have a free website on a totally different subject that has traffic in one day equal to a month here yet I’m not screaming for awards. Neither should I.

  51. janama:
    I encourage people to vote for WUWT so that others will see WUWT on the “awards” and come here to learn something. I highly doubt that Anthony is interested in “winning” a popularity contest, and I hope you were referring to “others”.
    That said, at this writing WUWT is far and away in the lead… and I also was appalled when I took a look at some of the other “contenders”. Shameful behavior all around, both from the bloggers and their myriad commenters.
    I weep for what Science has become.

  52. There are two ‘skeptic’ blogs and two ‘alarmist’ blogs as well. So things are evened! But it’s interesting to see how popular de ‘skeptics’ are already, even though it’s just the beginning of the voting. Maybe because they’re not ‘skeptics’, but have scientifically more accurate arguments, and that’s what serious people want over alarmism. 😉 And I think it is very good for this voting to happen during winter, so that people are still aware how warm the weather should be according to alarmists , but is not! Summer would usually trigger the global warming alarmist inside people. Good luck for the voting! 😉

  53. janama:
    It’s about bragging rights, dude! So let’s have some fun, and kick a** on the pathetic Gorebots!
    It’s the least we can do…

  54. I find all this vote for me vote for me stuff embarrassing for the people who promote it.

    Janama, take a chill pill, it’s a bit of fun. It gives commenters and bloggers a chance to interact a bit. It also gives a chance for people to go visit a few new blogs.
    What is sad is if people get snarky / upset about not getting nominated or not winning. A bit like this example.

  55. Another vote for WUWT.
    Well done Anthony and all contributors in creating the most accessible and polite climate forum online!

  56. I voted WUWT because of the weather focus. I am old school when it comes to climate. Climate is geographically based and changes when geography changes (such as when the tilt of the Earth changes or landforms move), which is VERY slowly and measured in 100’s of thousands and millions of years. Weather changes relatively quickly both in the short and long term, and can change back again. This is when the Earth’s atmosphere (a highly variable combination of ocean, ozone, jet stream, cloud cover, pollution, local geography, etc interactions) interacts with the Sun (a fairly constant source compared to Earth’s atmosphere) to make us wet, sticky, dry, cold, warm, or hot. I have to laugh every time I hear someone say the climate is changing. I want to ask which continent suddenly moved? Or this, did a mountain range pop up somewhere last night?

  57. Congratulations – A daily WUWT reader from Hungary
    RealClimate.org has only 207 votes at the moment, a truly inconvenient truth for the AGW crowd.

  58. As the Earth spins, so do the AGW scientists. Global freezing is masking-out global warming, again.
    ————————————————————-
    Study questions climate change
    http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news2/Study-questions-climate-change.4844428.jp
    “This suggests that large natural variability could be masking out any global warming-related trend in storminess.”
    “This new analysis will aid further work to more reliably predict the future consequences of global warming.”

  59. A note about voting. Since you can vote once every 24 hours, this is a horse race. So to pick a winner, voting must be repeated until the poll closes next Tuesday at 5PM EST – Anthony

  60. Anthony (above)
    Just to add, you can vote once per computer. If you have access to five computers you can vote 5 times every 24 hours..

  61. Tuukka Simonen (07:02:51) :
    How come a blog which is heavily anti-science like this ended up in the “science” category?
    Ridiculous.

    LOL
    Thanks for the laugh 🙂
    Of course, the real question is how RC, which is anti-anything-someone-doesn’t-agree-with ended up in “science”…

  62. For the posters who have commented about the scientific credentials of this site perhaps I can give my story.
    I am not a scientist.
    I was concerned by the Global Warming Issue and commentary about it but had some doubts that CO2 could be the cause – so I decided to try and find out more about it.
    The one really great thing that I was taught in my early life was always keep an open mind. Accept nothing at face value and challenge everything. I still believe passionately in this approach in everything in life.
    I started visiting RC but found I had more questions than answers and the attitude of the moderators/experts began to leave me cold.
    I would then search the wider web when I had some time in order to extend my knowledge, but I only came across WUWT when I read an article in the Sunday Telegraph (UK) which began to question the ‘consensus view’.
    In the time since I have visited this site I have learned more than I could possibly imagine. Posters are convivial and some outstanding scientists visit and help us all develop our knowledge.
    I am still on the very steep part of the learning curve of this enormously complex area that even the best minds struggle to understand – (how anyone can say the science is settled is beyond me) – and I enjoy reading all that is said (BTW I still visit RC to check validity on things I think I have learned).
    In summary this is a site where ordinary folk can learn a great deal about science, climate and interesting and unusual weather phenomenon in a pleasant way. It is a great example of what internet blogs can do for us all and for that reason I think the blog deserves credit and recognition. Most importantly the people who put the effort in to make it happen deserve to know that their work is acknowledged.

  63. Another example of RealClimate being so scientific. On their thread that is about this same topic we have regular poster Ray Ladbury saying “McFraudit and Watts-up-my-A** provide a very useful service of giving the tin-hat crowd the illusion of doing science.”
    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=636#comment-108468
    I replied quotong the above and saying “This is why you lose first time readers and until you realize this your community will remain small.”
    Guess what? It got censored. I guess there was too many “atta boys” to be concerned with.

  64. PaulHClark,
    Well said; that is one of the best posts describing this site of Anthony’s. I heartily agree with your sentiments.

  65. Well… I know it has been said a few times, but don’t forget to vote every 24 hours. Also you can get friends and family to vote. If you have access to lots of computers, of course, you can vote on all of them. WUWT was above 37% but has now fallen to about 34%. The bragging rights are a plus, but the real satisfaction, for me at least, will be reading all the wailing and moaning on the AGW sites. I can hardly wait. 🙂
    Mike Bryant

  66. I voted just now for WUWT. I echo the above positive sentiments as a non-science guy (chemical engineer and attorney). Great site! Learning a lot about interesting things. Am also buying stock in insulation manufacturers. (Hint hint)
    WUWT was in first place at around 36 percent, next best was 25.
    Btw, even Los Angeles is colder than normal for January — our year-to-date heating degree days are greater than average by 40 percent. There. I just wrote a very misleading, yet accurate, statement. (chose a very short period, where normal is 35, we have had 49). Sympathies to those who are having it really cold! “When your feet are cold, put on a hat!”
    Roger E. Sowell
    Marina del Rey, California

  67. I just got in. Maybe it is not an intentional DOS, just the result of massive loads on the server(s).
    I’ve already voted today for WUWT. I was wanting to get in and vote for Lubos Motl for best European blog. I’m happy to see that he’s currently leading in his category, as is Anthony in his.

  68. Mike C (14:15:57) :
    Mike Bryant… yep, I voted about 15 times at the computer lab at school today
    I’m not sure I’d publicize this. And I think they are trying to prevent this kind of effort to game the system.
    REPLY: I frown on such things, especially scripting exploits. But I was dismayed to find that Realclimate published a link to script exploit in their own coverage of the contest. Quite disappointing. – Anthony

  69. Remember: voting is allowed once every 24 hours, not once a day. A full 24 hours must elapse between votes.
    Because of all the voting their server is slow. But once you get in, it takes only a click to vote. Here’s the voting page: click
    Everyone who votes for WUWT gets 100,000 free carbon offsets. Per vote! So vote, and then go here to get your free offsets: click

  70. Fantastic! I am the proud owner of 200K carbon offsets, which offsets (excuses) 200K metric tons of carbon I produce. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling. Certificate is suitable for framing, too. Get them while they last.

  71. Got my vote in for today.
    I see WUWT has backed off a bit from this morning’s high of 38% {most recent number is 34.1%}. Still holding at about 500+ votes ahead of nearest competitor. Looks like Bad Astronomy got out the gate late and is making some gains.
    And as for multi-voting — come on people – get a life already.

  72. Nope, rules say you can vote once per day per computer… if you have more computers than the next guy then phoey

  73. Jeff Alberts, EXACTLY!!!
    And on that note, it’s been 24 hours so here’s one for the desktop… the laptop… the phone…. and a tissue for those who can’t cope

  74. It’s really neat that Anthony has so many friends all around the world who are voting for this website. The votes keep pouring in from around the globe.

  75. Anthony, it’s nice to see you doing so well. Best of luck. Some of the mean-spiritedness elsewhere is disappointing, but at least we can be cheerful. Cheers, Steve
    REPLY: Thank you Steve. Being of good cheer is the best motivation for success and happiness. I wish you well. – Anthony

  76. Get a loada this! She’s shaping up for a landslide! In a field of ten, the Good Guy has over a third of the vote!

  77. While they have been primping their hair (or whatever it is they primp), you have cut them off at the knees.
    Hear them flail and roar and howl! Howl! Children of the night. What a beautiful music they make!
    There is a boarding-house four miles away.
    Where they serve rotten eggs four times a day.
    Oh, how those boarders yell
    When they hear that dinner bell
    Four times a day!

  78. If you go by number of Ph.D. contributors, RC has you all beat by a mile.
    Yes, RC does pull in the educated incapacity crowd, doesn’t it?

  79. Can someone do something like the Alexa comparison “thing” between the two current leaders please.
    As our competition (my view solely based on the poll as there seems to be little science there and much belittling) is a sub-domain I cannot do a direct comparison – the top level domain scienceblogs.com is what is being compared there and I can smell fish. Lots.

  80. I think one of the hallmarks of a worthwhile science blog is (or should be) a certain respect for differing opinions. I used to visit Pharyngula often, but found that there is a scathing lack of respect from PZ Myers for the positions of those who would differ from him- he is right, end of story. (i.e. he dismissed Climate Audit as pseudo-science, or anti-science, or some such). I am disappointed that his site is doing so well in the race – he gets a lot of traffic, but clearly mostly from those who agree with his view of reality (conventional medicine, conventional climate science).

  81. Bruce Cobb (17:10:42) :
    Fantastic! I am the proud owner of 200K carbon offsets, which offsets (excuses) 200K metric tons of carbon I produce. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling. Certificate is suitable for framing, too. Get them while they last.

    While doing part time forestry work a few years ago I planted around 100,000 carbon offsets. Now I feel fully justified when I fill the V8 with petrol and go for a blast for fun.

  82. Current standing:
    RC: 686 votes
    WUWT: 5730 votes, or 8.3134 times more.

    Remember – there’s really no dispute over the evidence that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (or global waming) is underway. All the models predict it, the science is settled, the consensus amongst the scientific community is broad and unshakable.

    ….or could be the other way around?

Comments are closed.