JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Bloggies 2014 nominations — science category gone due to political correctness, pick a different category

Last year the Best Science or Technology Weblog category was dominated entirely by climate science blogs, and 4 of the 5 were skeptics. Not surprisingly Watts Up won for the third time (congrats to Anthony). Tellingly, Skeptical Science withdrew even though the skeptics vote would have been split. (I guess they know their traffic stats.)

This year, the bloggies has quietly announced  “Best Science or Technology Weblog has been discontinued”. Ho hum? Have the organizers succumbed to political correctness for fear of letting skeptics win the award again? Seems so.

Now we could lodge a protest, or we could just nominate our favourite blogs for other categories couldn’t we? So here are the categories (below). You might think the blogs in your usual science circle are not Education, Topical, Group, Secret, or Business blogs, but when you look at the past finalists (eg for Education: Science is beauty, or AMS Graduate Student)  you will see that science blogs easily fit. In terms of science education, skeptical bloggers are doing more for the history and philosophy of science, the scientific method, statistics, rhetoric, and paleohistory than any national curriculum. Is global warming topical? Do I even have to ask? Are skeptics blogs well known and promoted by the media, or are they all a best-kept secret? Which skeptic blogs started in 2013 and are new?

Do these dumb awards matter?  They bring in new traffic, and help bloggers tick credibility boxes with the media and with donors. So yes. If you bother (I know it’s a chore) it is a way to say thanks and to put your favourite sites further up the rankings lists. Think of it as a way to alert more people to the sites you feel deserve more attention. It’s free advertising for them. You might have a bit more sway if you also tick the box “I’d like to be on the panel of voters who choose the finalists”.

Nominations close on Sunday evening. To nominate click here, fill in at least three different URLs. But you can nominate any blog for several categories as long as they suit the category.

Categories in 2014

Weblog of the Year

Let’s see if we can get them to put Science and Technology back in 2015?

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (69 votes cast)
Bloggies 2014 nominations -- science category gone due to political correctness, pick a different category, 9.3 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ln25hv9

65 comments to Bloggies 2014 nominations — science category gone due to political correctness, pick a different category

  • #
    Tim

    I can’t imagine that the removal of the “Best Science or Technology Web Blog’ was initiated by the Bloggies Nominations organisers, any more than the ‘Pattern Recognition’ journal discontinuation was initiated by the publishers.

    Call me conspiratorial and paranoid, but I think bigger powers are at work.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Maybe another dummy spit by the PC tragics Jo?, as you suggested winning might get you a mention in the MSM somewhere but remember the die hards will fight to the bitter end and scream the loudest so it’s inevitable tantrums will ensue.
    Now if any subject comes up about science I automatically suggest Joannenova.com regardless of the persons beliefs, I simply don’t care about hurting someone’s feelings as for years warmists have had no regard for anyone’s POV so I fight fire with fire.
    Jo In my opinion I don’t think you need any internet award as you and your husband have proven yourselves to have integrity far beyond any such recognition and will receive an appropriate kudos when all is done.


    Report this

    240

    • #

      Yonnie, I doubt a win would get a mention itself, but look beyond that. There are editors out there who are borderline undecideds on the climate issue. You can bet it makes it easier for bloggers to get their attention when their blogs are high traffic, popular, and award winning. Obviously awards won’t convert editors of a religious-climate persuasion, but since they got there by “following the herd” we can make it obvious the herd is shifting. Does that make them less confident and less likely to publish the more extreme “tattoo the deniers” type junk? Oh yessity.


      It’s true awards don’t mean a lot to skeptics, who are unimpressed with “opinions” but they do matter to the rest of the world. This is a free kick for us, and it would be naive not to use it.

      The more traffic skeptic blogs get, and the more links, the more a particular point of view spreads to compete in the mainstream. And extra financial help for independent unfunded writers will only make them stronger. (Special thanks to Andrew and Phillip this morning :- ))


      Report this

      200

      • #
        Yonniestone

        True Jo, it would be naïve not to use it and this is the has been skeptic’s way of fighting fire with fire, I mean why would anyone create a blog to draw attention to an issue they feel strongly about and not take advantage of free publicity to convey their POV?.
        My personal opinion is just that, and an obvious reason why I’m not running a blog and dealing with certain types of people in a gracious manner :) , seriously how do you do it?.


        Report this

        80

  • #
    Lance

    Most Humorous – can we put in Skeptical Science :)


    Report this

    120

    • #

      Parenting, might be more in line for SkS, or lack of for the last few years …


      Report this

      80

    • #
      bobl

      I was going to nominate Skeptical Science under the Religion category


      Report this

      110

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Once again “skeptics” who never show the slightest skepticism toward their own views and routinely and attack science, scientists peer review or those genuine skeptics who like myself over time became persuaded on the basis of the accumulating evidence that AGW accuse others of indulging in “religion”.

      Most of these immovable “skeptics” routinely substitute abuse for scientific argument. I was informed by a moderator on this blog that such ad hominem attacks are allowed her because of the “entertainment’ value. Well, fine. It’s Jo’s blog and she presumably knows her target audience.
      [Sounds like a misquote. I have removed ad homs from both sides. Sometimes I allow fans of CAGW to do ad homs, because there would be hardly any defence of the theory without them... Perhaps you mean here, where the mods went to great trouble to explain things and you thanked them?- Jo]

      I understand that many blogs are concerned about their “traffic” ratings, and that sledging others is what attracts so many, particularly those who lack the ability to argue the science to those blogs. If these people were not allowed to engage in this style of “discussion” they would lose interest.

      SkS is a different kind of blog. It is not interested in lifting its “traffic” by conducting a public brawl for entertainment purposes.

      Comments are accepted on SkS if they make a real contribution to the topic. SkS deals with scientific arguments backed by many cited sources, and unlike most skeptic blogs, acts as a reference source with a search function which locates sections on various particular topics regarding climate change. “Skeptics” often complain that SkS changes sections, as if that is illegitimate. Updating a reference with new information, often arising from real comments is what a reference source should do.

      “Skeptics” frequently complain that SkS does not post their comments. SkS has a strict and rigorously enforced policy against personal attacks and going off topic. On occasions, habituated as I have been by the style of discussion on skeptic blogs, I have had my own comment removed from SkS on these grounds. I am not surprised that many who appear incapable of abuse free discussion find they their comments are omitted at SkS. Try arguing the on topic facts without it and you may have more luck.

      The fact is skeptic blog operators and moderators (not to mention commentators) while demanding debate and condemning “groupthink” are often extremely unwelcoming to those who put a counterargument to their own religious groupthink. As I posted on another occasion to a serial abuser:

      [SNIP - repeat of unsubstantiated opinion about Anthony Watts that was posted here. Philip, twice tonight I've had to snip repeats. Here, where there is little censorship, a common tactic of some is to bore us with repeats until regulars get fed up. Then call their responses "abuse". It's baiting. Make sure your comments are new and on topic, and you can keep posting. - Jo]


      Report this

      130

      • #

        I hate to break this to you Phillip. Sks has been caught censoring comments and rewriting posts:

        The rewriting that John Cook undertook is now recounted at Bishop Hill. In the first step Cook changed the entire article, taking off from the criticisms. Next, he deleted his original ‘responses’, and added new ones that made it appear as though these commenters did not know what they were talking about.

        Read here how I took down Cooks answer to the Skeptics Handbook. Then kid yourself that it is a science blog. — Debunking Sks on this site.


        Report this

        140

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Jo. Yes I did thank them sincerely for the time and effort they put in. And I repeat my appreciation and understanding. That does not mean I agree with all of their interventions.

        I am simply reporting what one moderator wrote and it is definitely not a misquote. I refer you to the moderator’s comments at 6.2.3.1.1.13 on the link you provide:

        You must also understand that to some degree blogs need and bloggers have a desire for entertainment. For that reason we may allow more flamboyant exchanges especially if we know the track record of the regular writer.

        [Thanks for the direct quote Philip - obviously you did misquote. No mention of ad hom here - Jo]

        Fair enough. I do understand the reasoning for allowing such comments to stand. Although used to more formal and polite modes of discussion I understand that the rules are different on blogs and that those unused to formal scientific discussion should not be excluded from public forums because of a lack of knowledge of professional etiquette.

        But my comments were in the context of your remark about the amount of “traffic” on blogs and I stand by my assessment that not allowing abuse would lead to many head kickers dropping off.

        I draw attention to their style of argument because substitution of abuse for genuine scientific analysis is a sign of abject surrender on the science (and I quote no less an authority than Anthony Watts on that point).

        [I would prefer less abuse, I snip both sides but miss some, perhaps if you fund me, I could pay a team of moderators to watch 24/7? - Jo]

        I specifically asked that one particularly virulent attack on me be left as an example of the genre, which made my point perfectly. And I note that it is indeed still there (6.2.3.1.9) and again request that it remain.

        The author of that missive misunderstands why I draw attention to personal attacks when he wrote:

        It was a well-deserved personal attack on YOU for having the arrogance to think you were entitled to come here where you are not wanted, start acting like the know-it-all prick that you are, insist that you are right and everyone else is an idiot, and then turn into a dribbling cry-baby because somebody threw a handful of mud at you.

        No. I read such over the top remarks with a smile, regarding them as a sign that they have thrown in the towel on the science and chalk it up as a win.

        [People who come for an honest conversation are not pleased when the conversation degenerates to abuse. Those who bait for abuse, are of course delighted when it happens.- Jo]

        With regard to your snip. I can understand why you stick up for Mr Watts. You probably have a very good professional and personal relationship with him, regarding him as a friend and ally. I would probably do the same. However, I will sign a stat dec and wager any amount of money you care to name that Watt’s remarks I put in quotes are verbatim. Furthermore the context of his remarks is as I describe. Forgive me if at this point I do not go on a search of the link.

        [I included the link above to make it easy for you. The stat dec is a tad over the top. You did not "quote" more than two words of Mr Watts, the rest was unsubstantiated claims. Boring the first time. Snipped the second. - Jo]

        But given the torrent of “unsubstantiated opinion” that flows here about “warmists” – I am sorry but you really are demonstrating the double standards that operate on skeptic blogs.

        [I encourage contrary opinions, tolerate personal criticism, and defend those I disagree with when necessary. I note you did not respond to my points about SkS's comments and moderation? Is that the double standard you mean? - Jo]

        The topic of this thread is about blogs. You mention Anthony Watts blog. My comments about his blog are entirely on topic. I repeat an earlier comment because I do not assume that everyone reading has read or remembers every comment on this blog.

        As far as the boring repeats go. If I make the same arguments over and over again, it is because I am responding to the same skeptics making the same arguments over and over again. As a moderator wrote to me, my posts here are largely “reactive”, responding to the “proactive” comments of others. I do not respond to this “baiting” with abuse.


        Report this

        02

        • #
          bobl

          I have to say that I support Phil’s view of responding to points offered by others even if it involves some repetition, provided that he is genuine about it. If he is just using the political spin technique of repeating the same message over and over in complete disconnect to the question that was asked (think Julia Gillard) then such spin offers no educational value to other readers. By all means Phil, answer your detractors, but please make it relevant.

          Phil, I note however that you do NOT in fact respond to comments that are not going to show you in a favourable light, and that you ignore outcomes which have been previously proved to you by others, reverting to your already discredited arguments.

          I would urge you that if you ignore the posts that go against you, in fact are abrogating your the chance to learn something. I for one am happy to accept an argument that is properly proven by yourself.

          For example I accept your calculation of maximum 2 degree warming ( 1 degree CO2 related) per doubling at face value, however I wonder where your figure of 0.9 degrees since 1900 comes from given the generally accepted figure is 0.8 from pre industrial times (1850) to 1999. I also object to your choice of 1900 as a baseline, since that doesn’t include the entire period of CO2 adjustment, I do not however believe your calculation to be wrong, unjustified yes, wrong no.

          Either way, you have implicitly accepted that warming is well below the IPCC central estimate of 3.3 and therefore I welcome you to the open eyed world of sceptics, for you are one.

          Phil, however, you don’t universally adress your detractors arguments in a sound way, you don’t often answer the criticism they offer, frequently resorting to hand waving… This doesn’t add to the discussion, prove us wrong, that’s what we are waiting for…. simple undisputed proof

          For example Jo has asked many times for empirical ( measurement based) proof that CO2 warming is
          Significant,
          Manmade,
          and
          Harmful

          Noone has met that challenge, and I doubt you will either.


          Report this

          20

        • #

          Philip,

          I have responded inline above. Obviously I’m grateful that your comments have needed little moderation or snipping and you have contributed 478. I do want other points of view, and I appreciate that it takes a certain dedication to stick around when so many around you disagree.

          I do also very much appreciate that you use a real name — I wish more would do that. Though do be aware that I know many of the real names of the other regular skeptic pseudonyms.

          Lastly, it is a common truism that those who have lost an argument resort to abuse, but abuse does not therefore tell us what is true. Sometimes the honest, correct player can still lose-their-cool to a person who is repetitive, evasive, missing the point, posts strawmen, or raises irrelevancies. This is not to say you do those, just to point out that eliciting abuse itself is not always an achievement to smile about.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            bobl

            Jo, is of course aware that using ones real name on a sceptical blog can be “Career limiting” for some people, thus we protect our identity… Jo when I finally retire we’ll change that.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Backslider

        those genuine skeptics who like myself

        What can one say? You need to talk with a psychologist psychiatrist. Seriously.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      StuartMcL

      I did that before reading your suggestion – it was obvious.

      Come on people – let’s try to get them in as finalists


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Jo Nova – Definitely the ‘Education’ category, but also ‘Australian’ and ‘Politics’. I’ll put SKS in at ‘Religion’


    Report this

    121

    • #
      Jaymez

      Actually I see we can still vote for Jo Nova in the ‘Hall of Fame’ category in Australia too.


      Report this

      130

      • #
        Jaymez

        I should have completed the whole process before commenting. We can also nominate Jo and this wonderful site for ‘Lifetime Achievement’ award, and ‘Weblog of the Year’ award. So I reckon if you are going to the trouble to vote and you want to support Jo’s nomination then the categories Jo Nova can be nominated include:

        Best Australian Weblog
        Best Education Weblog
        Best Topical Weblog
        Best Political Weblog
        Lifetime Achievement Award (applies for weblogs going since 2009)
        Weblog of the Year Award

        Go JO!


        Report this

        190

  • #
    john robertson

    Sure the awards are stupid, but the way the righteous nitwits heads explode, as when you or WUWT win a category is priceless.
    These wins may do more good than most of us imagine, where we look for evidence, some look for consensus, the movement of the herd.
    Those herd beasts who see, Jo Nova best Australian Blog, may give you a look.
    Its not how I operate, but I recognize my own POV is contrary at best.
    Those who respond to inquiries with the stock wisdom of;”Everybody knows that”, operate on a different logic to those who want to know why.

    So what category shall we bomb this year?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    RoHa

    I nominated WUWT, you, and Real Science for Weblog of the Year.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    Thanks to everyone getting into the spirit…


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Truthseeker

    People, if you missed a category the first time you can go back and nominate for that category.

    You get to nominate up to 3 web sites per category and you can do that once per email address. So nominate early, nominate often.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Joe V.

    Don’t you just love how there are still Religion, Politics, LGBT and thankfully still Business & Education but no Economics , Medical , Mudical or Science or Technology any more. What is the world coming to ?

    Are some things just too unfashionable to be allowed out of the peer reviewed literature or the censervatoire ?


    Report this

    40

    • #
      bobl

      Actually since LGBTs represent less than 1 % of the community, that category alone betrays the leanings of the Bloggies, and I agree wholheartedly, there are more financial and investing blogs out there than anything else yet not even a category – nothing for what makes the world tick, Science, Business, Finance or Engineering/Tech. I’d wager there are more Scientists, engineers and techs on the planet than LGBTs

      Political Correctness ugggh!


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Speedy

        Bobl

        “Political Correctness”. An interesting concept. “Correctness” or “truth” seem to lose some of their shine when they are qualified by such adjectives as “Political”.

        Personally, I would rather “Actual Truth” compared to “Political Correctness”

        Cheers

        Speedy


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Eliza Doodle

          Actually isn’t that the whole point of Political Correctness ?
          To be the very antithesis of correctness in any true sense of the word.
          Trying to redefine truth to be a construct of social engineering.


          Report this

          50

      • #
        Anthony

        Actually since LGBTs represent less than 1 % of the community

        That’s not the world I live in.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          bobl

          Then, come live in the real world where we are, statistically LGBTs represent 0.8 % of the population – you can have your own opinions but not your own facts. LGBTs are a tiny minority, for example they are massively over represented in our commonwealth parliament


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Bulldust

        I have to call BS on the 1% are LGBT stat. Sorry but you simply don’t get to chose your facts. The number is probably closer to 4%*… stlll a minority of the population, but your entire argument looks quite ridiculous when you make up stats. Perhaps you are confusing with the number of same sex couples identified by the ABS, which is obviously an entirely different stat. I imagine that stat will increase if the marriage discrimination is removed. Personally I don’t play for the LGBT team, so to speak, but I can’t get my head around why some people seem so threatened by the whole idea.

        That being said, it is ridiculous that there is no science category…

        * basing that on US stats… no reason to assume the LGBT population is much more or less represented in Oz.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          bobl

          Yes, my numbers come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, where do yours come from? The ABS is probably right as the Australian population is overwhelmingly heterosexual. LGBTs are a tiny, tiny but very loud 0.8% minority trying to impose their views on a 99.2% majority. Let’s double the ABS number 1.6%, vs a 98.4% majority.. yep, still tiny, do we see a heterosexual website category for the 99.2%, nope! – Dog lovers outweight them 20:1 but we don’t see a “Dog lovers category” Political correctness that’s all it is.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Bulldust

            bobl – there’s a big difference between people identifying as same sex couples (ABS stat) and the total LGBT population. For example, a transgender (male–>female, but still biologically male) coupled with a female is not a same sex couple. All singles are excluded from the ABS stats, so unless you are making the sweeping asusmption that singles are exactly the same breakdown as people identifying as same sex couples … I could go on.

            Easy enough to find more comprehensive stats, for example:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

            or

            http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/

            I am sure there are lots more stats sites. Also note that in the Wikipedia stats the percentage of same sex couple households is very low even in states like California. Lets assume the average household is 4, then dividing the population by 4 gives a household guesstimate, and the same sex couple identified comes in under 1%, not dissimilar to the Aussie stat. I’ve been very generous here because i just looked up average household size for the US and it’s 2.6:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households

            Anyway you get the point. If anything the LGBT population percentage is probably higher in Australia than the US … less religious hangups about it in Oz, but let’s not open that can of metaphysical worms.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              bobl

              At best double, so I adressed that. Still tiny, still noisy.


              Report this

              00

            • #
              bobl

              PS, you are trying to imply that 1 in 25 are LGBT, maybe in the media, (where I used to work) but in general society? Nope, no way I’ll give you 4 %, maybe 1 or even 1.5% but not 4%. 0.8% – 1 in 120 is about right in my experience. I think the ABS is correct. Oh BTW there are also people who identify as LGBT who are not, fashions are like that!


              Report this

              00

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      I thought the London GB team had been disbanded since winning their bid in 2012.
      Have things already become so bad at home that they are starting out on another bid and before Paris has even had another chance since the Chariots if Fire Games there in 1924 ?


      Report this

      20

  • #

    I find it a little odd that they have cancelled that particular Award, and although reasons may be other than what may be suspected, it’s probably a dig at WUWT, which far and away would win every year hands down.

    It’s a similar thing (well sort of similar) with that search engine of choice that is the most used. It seems that two or three years back, they sandboxed sites that were speaking out against the leftist meme that CAGW has become, and now you have to really search hard to find some things you may wish to look for, as they get hidden away in later pages, much later, and if people cannot find what they’re looking for on page one or two, then they just give up.

    As to the dropping of what was a very popular award, it seems that even though the CAGW meme is virtually forced down people’s throats, people will still vote strongly for sites which do not support that meme, no matter what category they get lumped into.

    People will read what they want to read in the privacy of that seat in front of their home computer/laptop, and it seems that quite a lot of people are quite capable of differentiating good information from dross!

    Tony.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Speedy

      True, Tony

      But in a lot of other cases, they have excluded certain blogs (including WUWT) on the basis that they have already won 3 times previously.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      11

      • #
        Star Craving Engineer

        Yes, that’s what I remember from last year; WUWT ineligible to be nominated any more for an award he’d won thrice. It follows that dropping the Sci/Tech category isn’t a dig at WUWT. No point in closing that door after the fact.

        Probably no base motives here, then. Can’t imagine who they could possibly be afraid would win the Sci/Tech category now, if it still existed! ;)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Tel

    This year, the bloggies has quietly announced  “Best Science or Technology Weblog has been discontinued”.

    Those science haters are everywhere. Gosh!


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Yes,and most of them call themselves “skeptics”.


      Report this

      014

      • #
        Mortis

        Ahhh, clever quips, the cloak for a lack of any real arguments.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        bobl

        Despite the fact that you recently proved to us all that global warming is at best on your own elevated figures, a single 1 degree per doubling, and totally refuse to deal with the IPCC evident disconnect between future and past warming. I would think that particular ad-hom should be ignored.

        You deny even your own eyes.

        While you are on your warmist moral pedestal, how about you do the global warmist morality test. Since you are clearly a proponent of global warming action, I challenge you to answer the following questions truthfully.

        Is it ok that there are 25000 extra deaths in the UK winter directly attributable to fuel poverty caused by climate action measures

        Is it ok to tile 15 square km with solar panels for each GW of baseload equivalent generation

        Is it ok to kill, maim and blind birds and bats with windmills and solar thermal arrays.

        Is it ok to burn food in our cars instead of delivering it cheaply to the poor

        Is it ok to turn indigenous populations off their lands or murder them to make way for climate offset projects.

        Are you happy with replacing our reliable power with energy so unreliable that people will die regularly from the consequences of power failure – think medical machines.

        Do you think it is sensible to drive us back toward a preindustrial climate that claimed the lives of half of Europe’s population – a climate we remain a mere 0.7 degrees away from

        Do you think it’s ok to spend 50, 60 , 70 Billion on climate action instead of curing dancer, diabetes, malaria, Aids or any number of other human maladies.

        In response to cyclone Haiyan do you think it is more sensible to A: build cyclone shelters in the Philippines or B install windmills in South Australia.

        Is it fine with you that billions are spent on climate change while millions still starve in africa.

        Is it fine with you that due to climate action we will probably be the first generation in hundreds of years that leaves our children economically worse off than we were with vast national debts

        Are you ok with burying atmospheric oxygen for millenia along with carbon, locking it away from plants that would convert it back to oxygen and carbohydrates.

        Are you ok with reducing the worlds food supply by 20 % through reduction of CO2 to preindustrial levels.

        Are you personally prepared to have 100 percent green power where you are the first off the grid any time the windmills and solar panels fail to reach nameplate – that is without fossil backup?

        It’s a difficult challenge Phil no warmist who has ever come here has EVER met the challenge of answering my questions. Will you be the first, or just another misguided “Useful idiot” that wants some fairytale outcome, but is not prepared to own the consequences of that action?


        Report this

        50

  • #

    Seems an odd omission as it does not even give the mainstream science and tech an alternative. It is a big area and certainly deserves to be included given the presence of fashion or art.

    I suppose it is good to have a feel good explanation like “political correctness or maybe a conspiracy but instead of speculating how about asking the organisers why? If they don’t give an explanation then the vacuum is created that can be filled with whatever nonsense a blog can come up with. Maybe they can explain the exclusion of sport. And what, dare I ask is “secret”?

    As to your primary aim for this post, why not aim higher and go for “topical”? You are then pitting the climate debate against other things deemed topical. Can you compete against the Royals or Justin Beiber?


    Report this

    20

  • #

    please insert punctuation in the above!

    e.g. comma: “… instead of speculating, how about asking the …” etc

    I write and then proof. But not just then. Sigh.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Franny by Coal light

      Are you trying to distract from what you just said with that pointless remark ?

      Can you compete against the Royals or Justin Beiber?

      Now we know where your true interests lie, there is some hope for you discovering JoNova as you have.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Can you imagine a panel based voting system like they have in one Canadian based system for instance, where ‘quality’ is decided by a panel of worthies over real popularity.
    Watch this would be panelist bleating about the success of Skeptic Bloggs if you can. Why is it journalists still presume to be the brokers of freedom in a society, where people are free to choose ?
    Hickman at that Guardian of public immorals.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ian Hill

    It got too much for me. I had to look up Wiki to find out where that terrible word (in my opinion anyway) “blog” came from. It’s derived from “Web log”. I would never have worked that out for myself.

    In October last year I took part in a Roy Morgan poll when an interviewer knocked on my door. I also filled out a huge book of questions in the following two weeks. It took ages to complete. One of them was along the lines of “name three people in the public eye who impress you” so I had no hesitation in writing down Jo Nova, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter.

    They are probably scratching their heads “Jo who?”, but anything to spread the word around! :)


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Ofay Cat

    To eliminate winners because they continue to win opens the door for the second rate bloggers to win. It is this thinking that has destroyed the educational system in America and Canada.
    The jejune view of fairness on the left is that everyone should take their turn winning. Real winners will go Galt after awhile then we wind up with a second rate world … which is how we got people like Obama running the show. Watch for Justin the destroyer Trudeau to be elected Prime Idiot on Canada in the next round. it’s all down hill now until the revolution.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      bobl

      The race to the mediocre I call it. Ever done 360 degree assessment at work? Same thing, forces all participants to the centroid, to a consensus behaviour, race to the mediocre.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Joe V.

    Best Designed Web Log I’ve seen too.

    Then there’s the Best Writing for a Web Log.

    This one sure ticks a lot of boxes.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    I caught an article about this on a Canadian website (smalldeadanimals.ca) , and yes I have nominated this site in the ‘political’ and ‘Australian’ categories.I’m sure many at SDA have done the same.
    The powers that be want to shut down debate whenever they can. This manipulation is not a large brick, but nonetheless, it is another brick in the wall. I think Poe wrote a story about that,’The Catacomb’.
    There is also a category for best Canadian website. The SDA site should walk away with that. This link will get you to the Canadian nomination form.
    http://2014.bloggi.es/#canadian

    Please take a minute and nominate my website; http:// justinforpm.ca/, as well as SDA.

    Justin Trudeau is Canada’s media darling. He is Obama without any smarts. If Justin had a hint of ‘visible minority’ running through his veins, Canada would be surely screwed.JT supports a carbon tax and is a friend of David Suzuki, Canada’s John Turney without any smarts.

    The website is named ‘justinforpm.ca’, but it is not even close to being pro shiny pony.
    If it is nominated, the ‘progressives’ in Canada will likely vote for it without going to the site. They are as shallow as your chattering class.

    Do it for the children.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    This has 100% to do with the Hockey Stick Team fraud and its avidly invested academic and agency followers who feed Greenpeace profitable alarm, officially stamped. It’s sheer panic now to nix the science category in an era in which science dominates our lives.

    The anger phase of grief has arrived, now that projecting their denial of Mother Nature onto skeptics no longer works. It’s grief about the world being saved from disaster, ironically. The eventual split must arrive when the majority of former alarmists who are not actually evil sociopaths finally save face in the upcoming negotiation phase and then they can enter the depression phase, as they accept that they are not world saviors after all, but former environazis who cheered on potential genocidal tyranny.

    The real force though behind present panic is how the whole American left wing has now doubled down on a more and more obvious scam, so real inertia exists. That the inevitable backlash by formerly indoctrinated graduates will likely lead to Tea Party reformers in *opposition* to old school establishment Republicans, doubles the inertia.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    Hmm … the – old – sleight – of – hand – censor – the – oppostion
    - trick. H/t Max in ‘Get Smart.’
    ‘All war is deception,’ H/t Sun Tzu,in’The Art of War.’


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Considering how some of the Blogs which started out as Skeptic Blogs now fit into so many other categories, if abolishing Science & Technology doesn’t do the trick will they have to consider abolishing the Bloggies altogether ?


    Report this

    10