Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Weblog Awards duped by deniers — again!
The finalist list is out for the 2008 Weblog awards “Best Science Blog,” and two of the ten finalists are anti-scientific websites primarily devoted to spreading disinformation (and noninformation) on global warming– just like 2007.
The 2007 “competition” ended up being yet another classic exercise in the right wing perverting an otherwise reasonable web idea — online voting for the best science blog. As Desmogblog explained in a post titled, The “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” beating “Vast Left Wing” Voting for Best Science Weblog, the right wing voted en masse for Climate Audit and the rational people all voted for Discover magazine’s excellent Bad Astronomy Blog. In the end, the process was so controverisal that the Awards folk simply called it a tie — saying each blog ended up with exactly 20,000 votes.
...
The Weblog Awards should not be legitimizing anti-scientific denialism.
One more thing: Yes some people have e-mailed me to express their dismay that I didn’t make the finalist list. I confessed to being a tad pissed off for about an hour. But how annoyed can one really be not being on the same list as Climate Audit and Watts Up With That? I am more annoyed that I wasted your time voting to nominate me. It is odd and unexpected (at least by me) that Weblog Awards would use popular vote to select the winner but an undemocratic process to select a nominee.
I had thought I might be a finalist and beat the deniers. But it is more likely a general interest web science site can garner the votes to beat back the right wing.
Posts
2 comments:
Can you provide examples hat demonstrate that Climate Audit is a "denialist" and "anti-science" blog?
Science is comparing theoretical predictions to real world observations. Science is also the critical examination of theory for validity and soundness, the process of attempted falsification.
That is what Climate Audit and Watts Up With That? do. They employ this long lost idea of "critical thinking" to climate change.
The unscientific advocates are the ones who deny the scientific method and prefer truth by authority, that is the infallibility of government science commitees.
After the authoritative body has voted, alarmists see no need for further examination, as the voice of Authority is Ex Cathedra in this non scientific method "science".
I can just see a man like you in Catholic robes in centuries past screaming for Galileo to be burned at the stake for denialism. After all, he had the guts to say that the scientific establishment was wrong because their theory did not match observation.
You would have no patience for such a man and would scream burn that denier!
Post a Comment