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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The “Real” story is the number of multiples more popular this site is than RC. 10X and counting. Could be because it is 10X more pleasant to hang here. Could be because its 10X more honest.
realclimate has less than 10% of WUWT’s total. Lol.
Good luck Anthony.
I used to subscribe to Pharyngula, but unsubscribed from it due to the excessive frequency of posts and excessive percentage of political and anti-religious posts.
Best of luck on this!
Okay, okay maybe I was being abit harsh.. likely they are not cheating,,
But still like JimB I was disturbed by the hate speech and the utter defamation of character of other blogs, including this one.
It angers me how such disdain for research from other sides of the debate is being supported by people such as those at phar.
Instead of looking critically at the research and trying to understand where there could be weaknesses or truths, there is an attitude of total hostility and claims of mere “denialist nonsense”. The future of science is quite worrying.
RE: Ian (10:33:11) :
‘Atta boy, charles!
This is a SCIENCE blog, doods, and (today) a cheerleading team for WUWT!
Yay.
…
You never count your money,
When you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ –
When the dealin’s done.
Can I put in a plug for “Junkfood Science”?
Sandy does as good a job at debunking the non-scientific research scams as anyone around. She needs a few votes!
Ian, the point is, it’s not science, and that was the point I was trying to get at.
I apologize if I implied any bias to any group or organization in the middle east, I was simply quoting someone else, and was not my personal opinion. Here, I have absolutely no opinion on those matters.
Reply: Let’s let this one die quietly please ~ charles the moderator
The winner is Mr WUWT
and…Ms WUWT: What Should She Wear? (WSSW).
http://www.wwd.com/fashion-news/dressing-the-first-lady-1875632?module=featured_1875632
OK: outstanding in January 2009 the contributions go to $ 20.00 (minimum).
The Rev…. you are my champion. ( the best)
Sorry for the bad english (SBE…. one more)
May I please share something TOTALLY off topic? JunkScience reports that PETA wants us to rename fish “Sea Kittens”…on the theory that no one will eat sea kitten sticks…is it only me, or do others see the headline: “PETA wants us to eat Cats!”
Sorry…sanity is slowly returning………
cdl
What odd bedfellows an atheist site and AGW followers make.
Richard Dawkins is supposed to have defined faith as “blind trust in the absence of evidence”. Surely there’s enough evidence against AGW to open a chink of scepticism in most hearts? Ahhh, but I’m forgetting, the Church of Global Warming does not brook any deviations from the righteous path or surely you will burn on Earth everlasting.
Reply: It’s been very very loosely enforced (as in none), but posters might want to avoid characterizing believe in AGW or MMGW with religious fervor. Let’s try and rise a bit above it shall we? This applies strongly when one is talking to or about a poster on our site, probably less for describing a blog master such as PZ~ charles the moderator
Phils dad: I have tried to point that out, at RC, that they have less than 10% of WUWT’s votes. So far, they have declined to publish this.
As a proxy to confirm the accuracy of said vote, I also suggested that they Google:
Climate Change is
or
Global warming is
…and look at the given suggestions by Google. Google ranks the suggestions by the number of hits for each suggestion.
Note: put a space after “is”, to show its not part another word.
(my apologies to the original poster of this Google search. I have forget who by, and where, this was posted.)
Exactly right. I have no problem with WUWT “losing” to Pharyngula, since they cover vastly different topics. As PD says, it’s about RC getting so little support. Phenomenally hilarious!
I think the extent to which most people compare AGW to “religion” has nothing to do with any opinion about anyone’s own religion. I think it has more to do with the notion that in matters of faith, arguments of logic fail, as they must if one is to remain faithful to their religion. Only a very few would think that is “wrong”, it just is, I think people mean to say that the people with “faith” in global warming might tend to be unswayed by a logical counter argument. The fact that no physical proof has ever materialized to support the claim that warming is due to CO2 does not diminish their “faith” that the models are correct despite their never agreeing with the direct observations.
I don’t think people use the term to be against religious people, but maybe some people who are against religion have now keyed in on that. Having faith is not a bad thing in a cultural sense. What the warmers need to recognize is that at this point with no direct observations to back up their hypotheses and models, their continued clinging to those notions makes them seem more like matters of faith than science and I think that is where the “religious” angle comes from. I don’t think it is meant to knock religion because a person of religious faith would willingly accept that one can not prove certain things with science and would be fine with that.
Reply: We know the background. And AGW proponents can make similar arguments for the term denier. Both concepts are primarily pejorative and that is what we want to avoid, or to use the term currently in vogue, ad hominem. My earlier comment was not meant to open a discussion on the subject. This site exists to promote respectful debate. The use of the religious comparison is not respectful and has nothing to do with challenging religion. It is an accusation of blind faith. Unless Anthony overrules me this is not open for discussion ~ charles the moderator.
REPLY2: You’ve got it, let’s leave this one alone. – Anthony
It’s seems the fair weather supporters of AGW from last year have woken up to real climate in the cold light of (a winter’s) day. 🙂
tried to vote numerous times today for WUWT but all I get is timed out message
REPLY: try close to 5PM EST today…lots of people leaving work
The surge has leveled off… No chance of overtaking WUWT at current voting levels (last 3 hours). But I never say never… I’m getting lots of timeouts too. I’m keeping track of the voting just for fun in case anything absurd happens.
I am also unable to vote, tried twice now and can’t get to the voting site at all. Now that the “recounts” are over in Minnesota maybe a bunch of people had nothing to do and they are busy “correcting” the vote here as well.
I just got in to vote for WUWT. They are at 37.1%, vs. 28.6% for the site who shall not be named. Together, WUWT and CA are polling just over 50% of the total.
So, as I was saying about sunspot 1010.
I didn’t realize junkfood science was in the running… I’ll have to find that. I wish Junkscience.com had a blog feature. Steven Milloy also does a good job debunking all-too prevalant junk science there as well. (and often links to WUWT) Thanks for the notice…
I just voted for WUTH!
I just voted as well without any problems.
I only found out WUWT is loosing ground and now leads only by approx. 2.500 votes.
wattsupwiththat?
In this poll, I have not voted for anyone.
After all, the result is meaningless.
Cream rises, and detritus sinks.
This haiku deviates from the norm in many ways.
It does not matter, since in Japanese,
It could be made to fit.
Who is WUTH?
The lonely meteorologist wends his weary way, …
WUWT – 10,838; XXXla – 8,432 as of 20:15 EST
An open letter to G. Schmidt, M. Mann and W. Connelley:
I tried, several times today, to post on Real Climate, regarding the Weblog Awards, and on the Weblog thread. It was as follows:
Each time, I received a message saying the above was awaiting moderation.
None was published.
What do you think are the reasons that you are trailing WUWT by 10 to 1, and are behind Climate Audit by 3.5 to 1?
Perhaps it’s related to the fact that when a post is; polite; accurate; objective; on topic; with references; and a suggestion to review the data to draw your own conclusion; but then this post is not published? And this is not the first time that this has happened to my posts, on your blog.
Is that how you define “open science”? Is that how you “communicate science”? Through censorship?