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.
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 😀
oops substitute for the truth… I promise that wasn’t some weird Freudian slip. I blame my mild childhood dyslexia.
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.
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.
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.
No, there can be Only “One.”
WUWT gets my vote.
“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
I’m thinking of nominating The Blackboard – Lucia for “Best Online Community”.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
Any feed back?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
.
.
Exactly. And on top of that there are the people who can’t spell “separate”.
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.
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.
Wasn’t all science pseudo-science at one time?
DaveE.
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 .
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.
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.