Voting closed TODAY Jan 13 at 5PM Eastern, 2PM Pacific time.
Preliminary ending numbers are available here
Thanks to everyone who participated. The results won’t be final until reviewed by the judges/operators. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. – Anthony
I’m very disappointed with the result. I really did think the blog would do better than it did. But never mind maybe next year it can poll 10 times the number of votes than RC instead of just a measly 9.78 times. I guess some RC bloggers actually voted for RC instead of Pharyngula just to avoid the embarrassment.
Congratulations Anthony, thanks for WUWT, its always a pleasure to read and, occasionally, comment.
You’re mistaking what I meant. Anyway, we’ve been told not to go there, so I’m not going to respond in detail.
Congratulations Anthony. Now that this is over maybe PZ Meyer’s trolls can go back to their caves and leave us to the science.
In that case, Ice Age conditions are normal, and not the temperature of the 1970s.
Congratulations, and thank you Anthony!
I voted WUWT every day.
Congratulations!!! We beat the [snip] at phar-blog-that-must-not-be-named!
lol **********BIG NEWS FLASH********
“Chaitén Volcano a Tambora-sized event?”
Uh oh… could mother nature could be joining us for the celebrations!!!!??
http://www.iceagenow.com/Chaitén_Volcano_a_Tambora-sized_Event.htm
Must give my congratulations from Sweden to you for this award and thank all participants at this blog for a good and informative site with a correct and scientific atmosphere.
I did my best to help you out with my votes.
I don’t think you should underestimate the significance of this victory.
It shows clearly that the hesitance regarding AGW has grown considerably among “normal” as well as “educated” (with regards to climate science) people and it will surely be nice to tell all the AGW fearmongers that WUWT has been voted the “Best Scientific Blog” of the year.
Well done!
I am encouraged to see that the problem of post poll closure voting has been solved this year. We have no advancing numbers.
Last year, the numbers on both sides continued to climb for CA and for Bad Astronomy for a couple of hours afterwards. They couldn’t shut the voting engine down for some reason. This year, no such trouble.
It is nice to see that the contest organizers learned from last year and improved the voting system.
A sincere thank you to everyone who participated, on all sides of the voting. We’ll wait for the final word from the contest judges.
nichole:
Similar scientific communities derided Robert Goddard on space flight, Semilweiss on disinfection, Wegman on continental drift, and Fujita on microbursts. Guess who was right in those cases?
There are a number of climate scientists who don’t buy catastrophic AGW and the list is growing, and the key word is catastrophic.
Nothing so grandiose, I’m sure. It’s just to annoy people. The anonymity of the Web is great for that sort of thing.
Well done!
Congrats to Anthony and WUWT.
I only started reading this site a few weeks ago but have found it very interesting and looked at some of the numbers a bit more for myself.
I do have a technical background in engineering (Ph.D.) but not in climatology, so definitely an amateur in that field. My observation so far is the same as the NASA Administrator, (paraphrased) we don’t know what is causing warming. I think the effects of warming out weigh those of cooling by a large amount so I am not worried about more warmth, plus I do not feel the positive feedback in the models is realistic, so there is no issue with a runaway scenario to me. This means to me we keep looking at the issue but do not waste mega bucks and manpower on solving the problem. There are many good reasons to making energy production more efficient and less reliant on oil, but global warming is not one of them.
Let’s hear it for RealClimate! Yeah baby!!
What?
3.8% of the total vote?
Oh.
Umm…
Splunge!
Well, only after they’ve been fooled once or twice. Then they tend to forget after a few generations have passed.
3 years in a row… RC cant accumulate more than a pickens of science voters at all, assuming they even get nominated… Proof that RC is just like AGW… a puff of hot air
Congratulations Anthony and WUWT!
We didn’t learn that lesson in the late 70s during the “oil crisis”.
I think this sentiment is only valid if it’s not being forced upon us for no good reason. For something to replace oil it has to be at least as good as oil, preferably better. We’re not there yet. Wind and Solar are too unreliable. I live north of Seattle, and I can’t even buy solar walkway lighting, because they just don’t get enough charge for half the year (fall and winter) to last more than an hour or so each day.
I think in another 20 years battery technology will be leaps and bounds better, and perhaps we’ll have some fusion plants coming online, that is, if the envirowhackos don’t continually try to sabotage every reasonable advancement. I’m all for making OPEC go pound sand (well, more than they do already), but if we try to force it, things will only get worse, not better.
Congratulations and well done! From the only AGW sceptic in Berkeley!
Congratulation Anthony. Even if you have to wait for a while for the result to be confirmed by the proper “authority” , and hence made public, I am shure that your facial expression right now is completely dominated by a big fat smile of joy. That´s fair enough, and you sincerely deserves it. I myself have voted for you everyday since the poll started running. The reason for my favouring your site this year is the huge undertaking of your´s in tracking down and checking the weatherstations. The poll might be meant for an adults play for joy only, but the result nevertheless proves that people wants to show their appreciation of what you are doing and that you have the attention of a lot of good people who wants to support you and your enterprise. Carry on with the good work. Have joy.
Congratulations Anthony! You certainly deserve it. Keep up the great work!
Ecotretas
Looks like the final results may be in. I finally pulled up the totals after 5:00 p.m. CST. Weblogawards shows Greg Laden with 323, 60 Second Science with 367, NASA Watch – 619, Improbable Research – 637, Neurologica – 1192, Real Climate – 1446, Bad Astronomy – 2545, Climate Audit – 4096, Pharyngula – 12,238, and the winner is… (Drumroll, Please!) Watts Up With That? – 14,150! Congratulations, Anthony!
mondo:
Surely a better answer is to use the International Justice system to bring him [Saddam Hussein] to account?
“is”? Well, mondo, application of the “International Justice system” via the U.N. and its post Gulf War 1 surrender-based Resolutions really just didn’t work out too well, that is, prior to the actual delivery of the “serious consequences” promised to Iraq/Saddam by the U.N.’s Res: 1441, should Iraq/Saddam not comply with 1441, as was finally provided by the U.S. and its allies. No?
Furthermore, the U.N. not only did not object to the U.S., enc.’s, actions against Iraq/Saddam – just as it didn’t object to the Clinton Adm.’s unilateral “Desert Fox” assault on Iraq, aided by the British, following the ejection of the U.N. Weapon Inspectors from Iraq in late 1998 which was also against the surrender agreements – the U.N. also has in effect supported the regime change, etc., taking place in Iraq ever since its invasion in 2003.
Anthony – Joe Romm at Climate Progress was trying to drive his readers to Pharyngula too. Just to check out the competition I went to that site. There Myers had posted some particularly vile cartoons mocking the Catholic faith.
He really doesn’t like you.
Well done WUWT and all of its supporters.
A win here as well as Australian Senator Joyce calling the anthropogenic global warming ideology “eco totalitarianism” and drawing parallels between environmentalism and Nazism http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24911122-12377,00.html – spot on.
I voted and, like all votes, mine’s a secret.
Some time ago I became interested in global warming and the discussions which flowed back and forth regarding the merits of this postulation. I did what anyone who has any interest in the scientific process does and that was to seek as much data as possible to enable me to make up my own mind. From what I found I discarded dogma and politically inspired rhetoric and concentrated solely on that which purported to be fact. I drew inspiration from those who challenged statements which were not and could not be supported with verifiable data. I relished seeing falsified data being exposed.
I have now made up my mind. AGW does not exist in any verifiable form. It does not pose any form of threat to the planet in general, nor to mankind in particular. The so-called “green” agenda is politically motivated and recommends nothing but the banning of previously acceptable items and behaviours whilst imposing outrageous levels of taxation on an innocent population.
I am a “denialist” through choice and through my own research.
And I voted three times for the same site!