2009 Weblog awards – nominations open

Well, it is that time of year again. Blog awards. Time to honor your favorites in many categories.

2009_weblog_awards

The way it works is that we start with nominations. The blogs that get the most nominations wins a spot in the voting contest. From then on it’s a horse race to see how many blog readers can vote once each day to determine the winner.

Last year, WUWT won “Best Science Blog”. I certainly didn’t expect it. Neither did many others. It made a few people angry. It was funny to watch.

This year, I’m feeling that Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit is more deserving of that award than WUWT for two reasons.

1. He got a bum deal in 2007, CA would have won had it not been for a security hole in the voting system

2. He’s made some tremendous strides this year, particularly in the area of Yamal and getting some headway in data access through FOI and dogged persistence.

If you don’t like those choices, some other worthy up and coming climate science blogs are:

The Air Vent – Jeff Id

The Blackboard – Lucia

Some other favorites of mine in other categories are:

Small Dead Animals – Kate  (Best Canadian Blog)

The Reference Frame – Lubos Motls (Best European Blog)

While I can offer a couple of my own favorites, you folks nominate whomever you want.  Here’s the page to nominate for Best Science Blog:

http://2009.weblogawards.org/nominations/best-science-blog/

And here is the page for categories for general nominations:

http://2009.weblogawards.org/nominations/

Note that you must submit both the blog URL as well as the blogg RSS feed URL this year, not sure why.

They say:

To nominate a blog you need to leave a comment on this entry. Your comment should contain the name of the blog, the main URL for the blog, and (if possible) the URL for a RSS/Atom feed. For example:

Wizbang

http://wizbangblog.com/

http://feeds.wizbangblog.com/Wizbang

Or…you can just skip all that and use their little plus sign icon for nominations already in place:

To submit other nominations:

For Climate Audit the URL is:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://www.climateaudit.org/?feed=rss2

For WUWT the URL is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/feed/

To find the RSS feed location on other blogs, just look for something that says “RSS” or RSS Feed” or something like that and copy the link URL into your nomination form.

Whomever you nominate, thanks for participating.

77 thoughts on “2009 Weblog awards – nominations open

  1. Anthony
    I am a big fan of CA, but it has a narrower appeal than WUWT. I don’t think CA can win any longer because of its more technical slant. I actually learned of your work because I was on CA every day a few years ago, but I can’t keep up with the details any longer.
    If you recommend CA, it will split the vote and neither you nor Steve will win. I suggest that you not push for CA. I am going to vote for WUWT. You cover a lot of ground here and it is a terrific site.

  2. Somewhat reluctantly, I agree with JohnH.
    Steve McIntyre’s blog has stopped being a blog. It is now a fully-fledged establishment science site. It kept the flame of true science alive alone during the dark days when no one would listen to the truth, and now we can just start to see other scientists begin to take up the torch as well. It has been a long, hard fight, and it is not over yet.
    I also second Toto’s point – in fact I have said it several times before. Rarely has a Nobel winner done more for science than Steve’s contribution.

  3. The votes are pouring in for WUWT on the nomination page, however, the nominations that are filling up are technically incomplete because they do note have the RSS feed on them. It would be a shame to lose because of this hanging chad business.

  4. There is not even a fair contest…
    From Bad Astronomy (Second Science Blob) today:
    Pray this doesn’t get passed
    ..I was going to write about how Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Kerry (D-MA) were trying to somewhat slimily slip a provision into the health care bill about paying for prayer-based health services, but then wouldn’tyouknowit, Steve Novella (who apparently does not need to sleep or eat or breathe) beat me to it. Besides his take-down of the odd and wholly unrealistic beliefs of Christian Scientists, I’ll note that is has been pretty definitively proven that prayer doesn’t work in healing. So not only is this provision unconstitutional, it’s just an all-around bad idea.
    November 6th, 2009 12:00 PM Tags: John Kerry, Orrin Hatch, prayer
    by Phil Plait in Alt-Med, Antiscience, Piece of mind, Politics | 15 Comments »

  5. I second what Dodgy Geezer said:
    “Steve McIntyre’s blog has stopped being a blog. It is now a fully-fledged establishment science site.”

  6. I agree about Steve’s blog. It is great, but impenetrably dense in technical details that are out of reach for the average layperson. That said, he has made some great contributions. But I prefer WUWT because of the accessibility of the writing style, the wide range of subject areas, and the frequency of postings. Those are what keep me coming back.
    Keep up the great work Anthony. Whether you “win” or not, we are all winners for having had access to your work here.

  7. I am in agreement with most here. I think CA and the others you mention are very valuable, and I wish not to detract from this value and would like to proclaim my immense appreciation for what they do and their outstanding contributions. Thank you all!!!
    With that said, I still believe that WUWT simply brings it all together into perhaps the most valuable climate and science blog available on the Internet today. WUWT and its participants should shout out to CA, Jeff Id, Luca, Kate, Lubos, Marc Morano, and the rest (many I haven’t mentioned) for their tremendous contributions as well! They are all great!!!
    Go WUWT!!!

  8. Thanks for the mention Anthony. It’s a tough call between CA and WUWT. I love the constant high quality content here and spend hours digging into the nuances of CA stuff.
    It’s fantastic to see the continued growth of WUWT. My guess is your readership is so large even if you demand nobody vote for WUWT you still might win. Skeptics think for themselves after all.

  9. Well i have to agree as well, Steve’s blog is great but difficult for the most of us, and what’s it without a spokesman, an anchor to bring the news, to translate the breakthroughs that Steve and his companions have made in the past 12 months?
    As for Phill Plaith, he should stick to Astronomy and Space travel, he is good at that. Being sceptical does not require to denounce prayer and paredolia because it focuses on things that should not be even near to science en technology.

  10. Prayer works in some types of healing — it is called the placebo effect — or mind over matter — whatever you call it; it does work.

  11. lol, whoever nominated Charley Johnson cracked me up! To those who don’t recognize the name of that nutbag, don’t worry about it. Those who do will get the joke.
    I voted for the strong horse, WUWT!

  12. You do a service by translating Climate Audit’s findings so they are more easily understood. Wading through the technical detail is often difficult.

  13. Thanks for the advice Anthony. And thanks for fellow Canadian skeptic Stephen McIntyre leading the cause of real science. I am glad Stephen is doing his work but I do go to your blog everyday, if not several times a day as a springboard to everything else. You will have my vote.

  14. I’m voting for this site – its so full of the science that actually matters that I could burst. In fact, I have burst. Sorry!

  15. It would be good if there were two categories for science blogs: one that makes science accessible (WUWT) and another that does ground-breaking science (CA). I am not sure who to vote for because it’s apples and oranges, and both are important.

  16. Besides the great content, I like the list of links. So I always come here first. I read what’s new on this site and then use the links to check out my other favorites, such as AMSR-E, Solar Cycle 24, ICECAP, CA and Lucia’s site.

  17. I was a bit impatient and got your nomination in a couple days ago ~ it’s the third nomination on the science blog listing. Be careful if using the + sign; the one for my nomination is below my name. The nomination comments don’t line up cleanly.
    Why WUWT? It covers so much in varying levels of depth; more of a broad based appeal.

  18. This was the final result from last year’s “Best Science” vote: click
    If we don’t all pull together in the same direction, Phayngula — a truly vile blog run by a truly vile individual — could win.
    I read Climate Audit daily. But look at the results. It’s very specialized, so it’s not followed by nearly as many readers as WUWT.

  19. May I dare to disagree?
    Climate Audit can be difficult since a lot of the discussions are continuations of earlier posts discussing still earlier posts.
    It can also be difficult for non-statistically minded people when Steve delves into questions of data validity, data homogeneity and linear regression.
    But for the audience that Steve is really writing to – the climate science and statistical communities – it’s unmissable. We know that Gavin Schmidt and some of the rest of the Hockey Team are avid readers, both from the IP addresses connected and from the fact that RealClimate tries its very hardest to beat Steve to the punch or make statements about Steve’s work that he didn’t make.
    I’ve learned a lot about statistical analysis by being on the sidelines of CA for such a long time, enough to know that I missed a lot by not studying statistics when I was younger.
    When Anthony first mentioned CA as a key scientific historical resource I was taken aback, because being so close to the beast I hadn’t really comprehended its impact in that manner. To my way of thinking CA was the method of instant publishing and instant rebuttal to a very well funded and organized propaganda machine that was then blocking or attempting to block Steve and Ross’ work through the scientific journals.
    But maybe CA had become something more and I didn’t see it.
    The comments of CA usually help comprehension of what Steve is trying to communicate which is the serendipitous result of the comments policy. I remember in the beginning that Steve was concerned about trolls and other low-lifes dominating the comments and turning the comments into a running battle. We did have and continue to have a few seagulls (like Steve Bloom) but in the main, the commenters were good enough on their own to not require too much battling by Steve (or by me).
    WUWT has deserved its traffic by its appeal to non-technical readers (the majority of us). CA is a blog that reflects Steve’s character – I don’t think he has a populist bone in his body.
    Climate Audit is tough to read for newbies and occasional readers, but if you follow it consistently you learn a lot. Nobody would have cared about the core counts of Briffa’s Yamal series were it not for Steve’s persistence over time to get to the scientific truth – a truth that even Keith Briffa acknowledges.

  20. WUWT should be nominated because it doesn’t kow tow to any ‘authority’.
    I applaud Anthony for his balance, plurality and openess to free debate.

  21. I must agree with the majority of the comments on this thread. As a mathematician who works for an Oceanographic Research Organization, I read CA & WUWT every day: and like many others, I came across CA a while before surfacestations.org which then lead me here.
    Whilst I enjoy Steve’s blog, and fully appreciate his work, here is now a much broader church whereas CA has moved into exactly “what it says on the tin” – an audit of climate change papers and the statistics therein.
    Thus for two reasons, I shall be voting for WUWT:
    1 The range of subjects covered here is greater
    2 Most new people who are attracted because of the Awards would find this site more accessible.
    KJ

  22. “But for the audience that Steve is really writing to – the climate science and statistical communities – it’s unmissable. … Climate Audit is tough to read for newbies and occasional readers, but if you follow it consistently you learn a lot…”
    JohnA
    Don’t get me wrong when I recommend WUWT over CA as a Blog. If I had to choose only one of those two to exist I’d chose CA – no contest. Anthony is doing a great job, no doubt about that, but Steve has soared above blogging, and has been doing some of the best science in the world over the last ten or more years.
    A blog is really a stream of news and comment. And Steve’s site is more than that – it’s raw knowledge being created using the scientific method. And that’s why a blog award is really not appropriate for him.
    The comments about Nobel prizes are not a joke – that’s the prize that he should be in the running for, and, for my part, the prize he should get, if it wasn’t for the fact that prophets are never appreciated in their own field. Put him up there with the likes of Alfred Wegener or Roger Bacon…

  23. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “WUWT should not be nominated because of the large amount of pseudo-science peddled”
    Are there any climate science blogs that you think are worthy of nomination?

  24. Raven (15:28:08) :
    “WUWT should not be nominated because of the large amount of pseudo-science peddled”
    Are there any climate science blogs that you think are worthy of nomination?

    Jack Eddy once remarked that this subject seems to lure all kinds of critters out of the woodwork, so perhaps it is a difficult question. would it make any difference to your what I recommended?

  25. Leif Svalgaard (14:31:35) :
    Leif,
    Maybe WUWT should be voted for because of the equal amount of pseudo-science shot down?

  26. Looking at that nomination page, if you plan to use the + sign, please note that the name block with the + sign is UNDER the relevant text, unlike here where the name comes (sensibly) above the text.

  27. Leif Svalgaard (14:31:35) :
    “WUWT should not be nominated because of the large amount of pseudo-science peddled.”
    I can tell the difference, thanks.
    As an engineer, I have learned much from you on this site.
    My vote is for WUWT.

  28. Leif Svalgaard (14:31:35) :
    WUWT should not be nominated because of the large amount of pseudo-science peddled.

    WUWT should INDEED be nominated because it allows a full range of discussion on a subject from a broad range of people and backgrounds… from the common amateur science enthusiast…to the most brilliant solar scientists in the world…irrespective of the narcissistic “I-am-always-right”, bullying, “shut-down-the-conversation” techniques of either! 😉
    Thanks for keeping the dialogue on here open, Anthony. It is always an educational read when I sign on.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  29. I also applaud Anthony and his work. It pleases me that WUWT is seeing such great success, and that WUWT won the award last year. Well deserved indeed Anthony, and please keep it up!
    But I feel it would be only fair if the scientist Stephen McIntyre won this year’s best science blog award. Why? He has shown how modern science can be done “in real time” in the open. He has provided some remarkable results (Yamal++) that is no doubt making a big difference in the climate debate. Someone mentioned the Nobel Prize here, we don’t normally get to follow the work of Nobel Laureates, but we can all watch what Stephen McIntyre is contributing.

  30. Leif Svalgaard (14:31:35) :
    WUWT should not be nominated because of the large amount of pseudo-science peddled.

    What’s your game here? You’ve been here long enough to know that for whatever the faults of the place, there is a sincere effort to discern the truth from falsehood, and a genuine commitment to the scientific method. If actually doing for free what the government should have done and paid for, namely the exhausting work of checking that the data sources are reliable, isn’t an essential part of real science, then I’d like to know just what is.
    There’s a certain type of argument I think is fundamentally dishonest and unfair: writing summary dismissals and giving no backup. I see that all the time in the alarmist blogs. I see very little of it here (except by alarmists). And that reminds me, the fact that sideswipes at Anthony, even insulting ones, remain uncensored in the comments for the rest of us to read should tell you something, if you have the wisdom to reflect upon it.

  31. Thanks to your work, Anthony, many other sites were empowered, and untold millions now have the ability to sort it out for themselves.
    People are not stupid.
    What was key? Giving sites like Steve McIntyre’s a voice outside of thier own, and thereby undoing the grip of isolation that the Warmists had sought to ridicule & strangle them with. A lot of shackles were broken.
    That’s why you are # uno.

  32. Ron House (16:58:52) :
    “WUWT should not be nominated because of the large amount of pseudo-science peddled.”
    What’s your game here? You’ve been here long enough to know that for whatever the faults of the place, there is a sincere effort to discern the truth from falsehood, and a genuine commitment to the scientific method.

    I’ll have to disagree with you on that. There is enough pseudo-science being pushed here in flagrant violation of the scientific method that the casual visitor is easily discouraged and disgusted. Now, this is especially true in the solar department [which is where I have myself participated most]. Patient attempts to get the science right are labeled ‘bullying’, so I see little of “sincere effort to discern the truth from falsehood”. This problem is perhaps a result of lax moderation, e.g. compared with CA. Dissent is good, but must be scientifically correct [to the poster’s ability] and if corrected should not unleash a torrent of abuse. I make no apology for expressing my view on this.

  33. I Think CA and WUWT complement each other they should be both number 1!. Re Leif: BTW CA also has an unthreaded posting where you can post all pseudo science you want… Maybe you should start your own solar site

  34. I think WUWT as blog is excellent and that many people get a chance to push their private agendas and pet theories that they would not otherwise have a forum for [‘plurality and ‘openess to free debate’ were terms used upthread]. But that does not make WUWT a science blog. Far from it. Good ‘discussion club’ perhaps. A place to get a warm feeling and all that, yes. Like at Oprah’s.

  35. Leif Svalgaard (17:37:21) :
    I’ll have to disagree with you on that. There is enough pseudo-science being pushed here in flagrant violation of the scientific method that the casual visitor is easily discouraged and disgusted. Now, this is especially true in the solar department [which is where I have myself participated most]. Patient attempts to get the science right are labeled ‘bullying’, so I see little of “sincere effort to discern the truth from falsehood”. This problem is perhaps a result of lax moderation, e.g. compared with CA. Dissent is good, but must be scientifically correct [to the poster’s ability] and if corrected should not unleash a torrent of abuse. I make no apology for expressing my view on this.

    So your problem is that the site is so popular it attracts lots of people who are not as good at science as you? Frankly, certain people who, I assume, you are referring to when you say “attempts to get the science right” routinely use put-downs instead of simply attempting to get the science right. You might look above in this very list of comments and you’ll find someone asked a perfectly respectful question “Are there any climate science blogs that you think are worthy of nomination?” and received for his interest a sideswipe and no substantive answer.
    So two things: (1) certain people’s rudeness is its own explanation of why they might imagine they are being bullied when others react as expected, and (2) the fact that a blog allows even idiots to post their misunderstandings and allows the normal to-and-fro of discussion to hopefully clear it up, is, IMHO, a great strength, not a weakness. People learn science by seeing the openness of the search for truth, not by being subjected to sanitised discussions in which only the elite get to contribute.

  36. Ron House (18:00:12) :
    So your problem is that the site is so popular it attracts lots of people who are not as good at science as you?
    No, that is not my problem, and I don’t think there is ANYBODY on this blog that has spent as much time explaining the science as I have.
    “Are there any climate science blogs that you think are worthy of nomination?” and received for his interest a sideswipe and no substantive answer.
    I might have misinterpreted [I added emphasis] the question, but it sounded to me like a rather negative swipe in itself. But, to answer it, yes there are many good science blogs, but they are narrow, technical, and the good ones too strictly moderated for the average reader.
    the fact that a blog allows even idiots to post their misunderstandings and allows the normal to-and-fro of discussion to hopefully clear it up, is, IMHO, a great strength, not a weakness.
    They are not idiots, but zealots, and zealots are not prone to have their misunderstandings cleared up. On the contrary, the more resistance they meet, the more convinced they are that ‘there must be something there’ or they are ‘on to something’.

  37. Leif Svalgaard (18:56:24) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
    Ron House (18:00:12) :
    So your problem is that the site is so popular it attracts lots of people who are not as good at science as you?
    No, that is not my problem, and I don’t think there is ANYBODY on this blog that has spent as much time explaining the science as I have. Perhaps that is my mistake.

  38. Leif Svalgaard (17:59:43) :
    Leif, I’ve never seen anything but criticism come from you. And I don’t see you stepping up with anything else. It comes off as envy. I’ve lost respect for you. I don’t see you at all as I did when I started visiting this blog, and I don’t think I’m alone.
    Anthony, something Leif apparently doesn’t comprehend: You bring this issue into a forum that anyone can understand. Your blog is important because of its reach, and (I think) your experience with the MSM. I accept the imperfections. You’ve posted as many as 5 issues in a day for as long as I’ve visited this site. The burden of managing this alone is very great for someone who isn’t compensated. BRAVO! Fantastic Job!

  39. Leif Svalgaard (17:59:43) :
    I think WUWT as blog is excellent and that many people get a chance to push their private agendas and pet theories that they would not otherwise have a forum for [‘plurality and ‘openess to free debate’ were terms used upthread]. But that does not make WUWT a science blog. Far from it. Good ‘discussion club’ perhaps. A place to get a warm feeling and all that, yes. Like at Oprah’s.

    PSHAW! It is TOO a science blog. Lighten up, Leif.
    Your emotional approach to everyone who disagrees with you is just as unscientific as can be.
    Swallow your pride. Stop your “I am always right” tirades.
    And give Anthony some credit.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  40. Leif, thank you for your presence here and the depth of knowledge you bring to the site. Your patience with intellectual midges is awe-inspiring, and while I respect it, I still prefer to call a prat a prat.

  41. savethesharks (19:20:18) :
    Stop your “I am always right” tirades.
    Perhaps, I’ll just do that.
    REPLY: Being right isn’t always popular, but there is no substitute for truth. -Anthony

  42. There seems to be a positive feedback loop happening here, and the conversation is definitely getting warmer…
    Great job Anthony. While this is not a strict scientific blog, it is certainly a blog about science issues. As many have said, it has brought the science down to the non-specialist and therein lies its success. Much as I would like to delve into CA, it is a tad too terse for the most part, and I, like most people, do not have the time to dedicate to a critical, in depth understanding of the CA blog. But WUWT periodically brings us the CA summary for policymakers. That is what I prize.
    To Leif – I pick up a lot from your replies, and appreciate the effort you and several other hardcore science contributors make here. Often the science is quite contrary to what the lay person would expect. As Ant said, there is no truth for the substitute.
    PS> Has Caleb got a logblog? Couldn’t resist 😀

  43. oops substitute for the truth… I promise that wasn’t some weird Freudian slip. I blame my mild childhood dyslexia.

  44. If Anthony wants to defer to Climate Audit, I think we should respect his desires. McIntyre deserves a lot more than just a Weblog award. It would advance the cause of science to give him the overdue attention he so richly deserves.
    I fully expect that history will treat him well but I hope it is as one who led the way in preventing a disaster rather than as one who was proved right in retrospect and should have been listened to.
    Winning a Weblog award will only help marginally towards that end but we’ll take any help we can get.

  45. Leif, just relax. So many of us deeply appreciate your tireless efforts to clarify all the varieties of solar science and the scientific method. You help make WUWT the excellent science blog that it is. From your relatively unique vantage point — and I imagine you have experienced this difference most of your life — I imagine it can be difficult and painful to be willing to be in the company of mere mortals, like myself. Individuals from all walks of life are drawn to this excellent, engaging science blog. When people go after you — mostly men, I think, maybe it is the testosterone element — take a deep breath. You more than hold your own in every interchange I have read, and I think I have read most of them. I am immensely grateful for your contributions and I have been changed because of them. I suggest you leave Anthony and WUWT “out of it” — think of the effects of envy. You have a wonderful mind and an unusual ability to articulate the core of each issue and that stimulates envy.
    Anthony can nominate anyone he chooses, but I will vote for WUWT for best science blog because of its breadth and depth and dignity and generosity. Steve McIntyre deserves this year’s Nobel prize for absolutely cutting-edge science, for blowing the whole make-believe edifice out of the water. All this research, all these models, all this effort to change (take over) the world based on ONE TREE?!? Of course, I am exaggerating, but everyone knows how close this charge is to the truth. All scientists worthy of the name should stand up and shout that AGW is a religion and a pretty poor one at that. What kind of a deity is at the head of this religion? Fraud, pure fraud.
    I think all those who like myself choose to vote WUWT as the best science blog should get together and create a separate “prize”, “award”, “honor” for that person who advances science the most — this year it is Steve McIntyre.

  46. As my first post here (lurked perhaps 2 years), I have to say that I’ve learned a lot from this site. Even though I do not have a background in physical sciences, I check back here almost daily to follow the news and discussions. I’ve never ventured to CA, but I have gone to Leif’s site and have checked out the paper on disappearing sunspots among other things. It may not sound like a compliment, but perhaps this blog is like the example of curb cuts in universal design-though some might like you to ramp it up a bit more. Thank you for your hard work.

  47. “I think all those who like myself choose to vote WUWT as the best science blog should get together and create a separate “prize”, “award”, “honor” for that person who advances science the most — this year it is Steve McIntyre.”
    Agreed on those sentiments. His razor-sharp statistician’s knife can not be avoided.
    And then, to switch from the sublime to the ridiculous: Also an award for the one with the most pretense and the most agenda. I vote RC.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  48. Leif Svalgaard (19:49:15) :
    Hi Leif. I have posited a few questions to you as a reader of this blog, and I must say that your answers were always very impersonal and scientific. That is a compliment.
    One thing I believe important to understand is that people come here to discover the incorrect science displayed in the media. You have made it your life’s work to study science, and I imagine it has carried you through. We do not all have the opportunity to do so.
    It is critical that we understand when truth is displayed, and when it is stretched. For instance, the issue about Kilimanjaro. Or the Wilkins ice shelf. Pick your poison, but the fact is that the science is not a settled issue, there are many possibilities floating around. People ask questions, and most of the time are shot down in an extremely rude and condescending manner by those who have made it their life’s work to know these things. A dog/cat/human should not be beaten for curiosity.
    That said, it can test the patience of a man to repeatedly answer the same questions. I have a two year old child, so I know this firsthand and it is vivid in my memory. It may be that you are trying too hard with certain people who grasp one thing, but not another. I have read many of your back and forths with certain posters here, and I must say that your patience is admirable.

  49. Best Australia or New Zealand Blog
    Andrew Bolt blog
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/xml/rss_2.0
    Andrew is one of the few real journalist’s who cuts through the political BS.
    He probably will win.
    My second choice is.
    Australian Climate Madness
    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/
    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?feed=rss2
    I’ll probably split my voting in the hope they both get a good result.

  50. And, since I have asked you a question already, if I may posit one more.
    Since the variation in the Earth’s elliptical orbit is .017AU, and this amounts to about 6.8% of total TSI, what is the effect of distance on TSI? It seems that Earth could lose quite a bit of TSI as the eccentricity of the orbit increases, if one subscribes to Milankovitch. I am just curious.

  51. Leif Svalgaard (17:37:21) :
    There is enough pseudo-science being pushed here in flagrant violation of the scientific method that the casual visitor is easily discouraged and disgusted. Now, this is especially true in the solar department [which is where I have myself participated most]. Patient attempts to get the science right are labeled ‘bullying’, so I see little of “sincere effort to discern the truth from falsehood”. This problem is perhaps a result of lax moderation, e.g. compared with CA. Dissent is good, but must be scientifically correct [to the poster’s ability] and if corrected should not unleash a torrent of abuse. I make no apology for expressing my view on this.

    Why did you leave CA then? Or more to the point, why not go back there, since you clearly believe Steve McIntyre’s comment snipping policy is superior to Anthony’s more open and permissive style? Or did you find it was getting too quiet there because those snipped or told to shut up on certain subjects by Steve left and came here. You have followed them across to here and now whine because you can’t get the same censorship backup from Anthony??
    The torrent of abuse is usually unleashed by you, and then responded to in kind by others who don’t regard themselves as ‘dissenters’ or ‘peddlars of pseudoscience’, but inquirers and skeptics. Those you accuse of being ‘peddlars of pseudoscience’ are fully aware of what you said two days ago.
    “Science is never ’settled’. At any point in time there is one or a few ideas that we accept because they seem to work with the data we have at the moment.”
    And when they don’t ‘seem to work’ as well as they might, it’s fine for people to make and discuss educated speculations as to possible new explanatory concepts. That’s the scientific method in barnstorming mode.
    Get over it, get equality, and enjoy the fun.

  52. I’d like to vote for Steve because he has cut the harder, lonelier, and more thankless path. I disagree profoundly that CA is a “fully-fledged establishment science” blog – when you see what most of the establishment still say. But it is difficult for non-statisticians and newcomers to follow.
    I think Steve has gradually narrowed his sights to conserve his energy to force a breach in the AGW bad-science fortress with its serial evasions and crucial data unavailable for auditing. It feels more like Steve is heading the Special Operations Executive crack team, blowing up the heavy water installation in Rjukan, stopping Hitler making an A-bomb. This is the future of Science at stake.
    Both blogs deserve the award.
    Leif – dear Leif – I’m still mulling over your homework. I’m profoundly aware that we need a “citizens’ science” to provide a “commonsense” intelligent balance to vested professional interests – and to bring a fullness of humanity and warmth, which makes Science bearable and accessible. Most learning requires repetition, seasoned ideas can be mistaken, and “every heresy is the revenge of a suppressed truth”. God forbid that the climate science “tower of Babel” should continue, where an incomprehensible and uncheckable speciality can hold all the others to ransom.
    I would find it a lot easier to follow solar issues if all OT, OTT, and tendencies to ad hom were snipped very hard very early on – and if all posters on all sides counted to ten before even posting, kept as short and fact-filled as possible, and literally didn’t post at all unless vital. And primers (on all sides, regularly re-referenced, perhaps under the poster’s name) would also be helpful. I don’t want to lose the dialogue with those who disagree with Leif, but I’d like these provisos to sharpen the science. Steve’s snips at CA have IMO improved the flow and development of the science. But it’s tiresome to do.

  53. I suggest we have have poll of CA against WUWT here. Then as voting is political we should agree to support the winner, accept the consensus.
    Science is the destroying of ‘beautiful theories wth ugly facts’ and WUWT does that. I think of Leif and the planet cyclomania.
    Anyone who can benefit from CA goes there already.

  54. Re: Leif Svalgaard (14:31:35) :
    “WUWT should not be nominated because of the large amount of pseudo-science peddled.”
    _____________
    We’ve learned much from you, but you seem to have learned little from us — or so you imply:-) Me thinks thee protest too much. Einstein found an answer he was searching for on a walk one day. Keep walking Leif, you may not learn anything at WUWT but perhaps you’ll find something.

  55. I agree that this blog isn’t really much about science, my evidence is the number of people who have voted as seperate entries rather than using the (+) buttons.

  56. Is it possible to have the best scientific website and not have profound differences over how to interpret the data?
    Unless I am mistaken, science is not merely a body of truth which is past down from one generation to the next. With the new instrumentation, the new discoveries, and the wonderful technology, there are bound to be questions raised about theories which are many decades old. There is nothing dysfunctional or abnormal about it. In fact, when differences arise, each side should be delighted at the oportunity to make a better case. And it does enormous credit to WUWT that the policy has not been to do the thinking for the readers by snipping interesting discussions, but that the conversation is facilitated and lively! Many of us have enjoyed watching a good row, besides–all science aside 🙂
    What a terrific website. I am glad to see Cap and Trade delayed and Copenhagen cancelled with all of you.


  57. savethesharks (19:20:18) :
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    Chris, do you each time responding forget to close your italics with the close italics tag < /i > (with no spaces of course) ?
    It makes it difficult to discern quoted text from your response, makes it difficult to parse mentally … it is too time consuming sometimes to go back and attempt to separate the two, and, I do like reading your responses but sometimes for the difficulty entailed therein.
    .
    .
    .

  58. Sean Houlihane (08:37:06) :
    I agree that this blog isn’t really much about science, my evidence is the number of people who have voted as seperate entries rather than using the (+) buttons.

    Exactly. And on top of that there are the people who can’t spell “separate”.

  59. Sean Houlihane (08:37:06) :
    I agree that this blog isn’t really much about science, my evidence is the number of people who have voted as seperate entries rather than using the (+) buttons.
    Perhaps they where just replicating and therefore confirming the validity of the previous data signals.

  60. Back to topic (sorry!)
    I’ll vote in the blog wars, I’ll do.
    I’ll vote Climate Audit. Like you?
    For Anthony Watts
    Helps us fill in the dots,
    But McIntyre tells us what’s true.

  61. Well I have a problem with CA at least this year .
    I used to read there almost since the very beginning .
    It used to be more interesting and opening to important fields that were not ONLY the normalised core count of a couple of trees in Siberia .
    Models , mathematics , fluid mechanics (f.ex the excellent “Exponential divergence” thread by G.Browning) made the field a bit more diversified than your favourite dendro site .
    It seems to me that this diversification has largely disappeared at least this year and even if the dehockeystickization is important , it is not the only thing in science .
    .
    WUWT ?
    This is a very popular blog ABOUT science . Word stressed : popular . It did science in the beginning with the surfacestation programm too . It seems to me that it is no more the purpose (or Anthony communicates less about it) .
    .
    Leif is right : WUWT does a HUGE job at exposing pseudo-science like “the ice in artic is decreasing” when it increases , “cherry picking is legitimated when it produces an interesting shape” , “it is worse than what we expected” etc .
    In this role WUWT cannot be replaced and is extremely important to maintain mental sanity in a world where some raving lunatics are making a bid for power .
    .
    So I will probably vote WUWT .

  62. TomVonk (04:00:11) : WUWT does a HUGE job at exposing pseudo-science ha, I have to agree with you there – and that “long tail” of exposure definitely matches Steve’s razor-sharp point.
    Another year and the Air Vent might manage to combine both razor-sharp and broad sweep – especially with the possibility of real dialogue with warmist scientists who sincerely believe in their work and results. But I don’t think tAV is quite there yet.

  63. Dr. Svalgaard, with no intent to offend I must join Raven in asking what climate science blog you would recommend. I hope you realize that it is because of my respect for you, that I ask.

  64. Oh, bother. Moderator, I would like to know of responses to my comment. Thank you for your help and for your hard work.

  65. Oh, bother (17:23:50) :
    Dr. Svalgaard, with no intent to offend I must join Raven in asking what climate science blog you would recommend. I hope you realize that it is because of my respect for you, that I ask.
    WUWT?
    Leif likes to throw a wobbler every now and then because some people come out with junk that doesn’t fit the science.
    Other than that he’s seems happy with his research work.

Comments are closed.