Well, it is that time of year again. Blog awards. Time to honor your favorites in many categories.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
“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…
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?
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?
Leif Svalgaard (14:31:35) :
Leif,
Maybe WUWT should be voted for because of the equal amount of pseudo-science shot down?
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.
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.
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
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.
Crap. This is a hard decision.
I’ll vote “present” on this one!
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.
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.
St. Mac is all very well. And to be highly commended.
BUT Nobody Beats the Rev!
WUWT in ’09!
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.
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
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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!
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
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.
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