Huh? The 11th Annual Weblog Awards

This is a bit odd. I noticed an uptick in traffic today and followed a referrer back to the Eleventh Annual Weblog Awards website. On the slightly confusing main page, I searched down to find that I’ve been nominated in the top 5 for ‘best science blogs’. I’m not being modest when I say that I definitely shouldn’t be there, certainly not up against the likes of the cool project Women in Planetary Science or a rather more prolific, professional and productive Wired Science, though I’d like to think I do a better job than climate denial blog Watt’s Up With That.

Still, I thought I’d just acknowledge the kind person/people who happened to nominate me on this and vote, though I have no idea how the process works and how it popped me out in the top 5! Thanks! It looks like a cool concept overall, too.

Anyone who has come here via that site, welcome and feel free to have a look around; the tabs up at the top right can be used to navigate some of my archives on various topics, or use the ‘category cloud’ at the bottom of the page. I’m currently in the process of getting better at science communication; a vote for me is a vote for the future*!

Meanwhile, cyclone update; check out this very scary animation of Yasi tracking towards the Australian coastline (on the left). The cyclone has been upgraded to a Category 5 and is being talked about as potentially the most life threatening and damaging storm for ‘generations’. I seriously hope it loses some force before it crosses the coast in the next 24 hours.

As I recall, this storm was all bark and no bite. Pretty clouds though.

* That was a joke. Really. Sort of.

Advertisements
Categories: Science, Thoughts | Tags: , | 8 Comments

Post navigation

8 thoughts on “Huh? The 11th Annual Weblog Awards

  1. M@

    Oh Win.

  2. Judd

    Good bloody onya Dave!

  3. Thanks, David! We love that you called us “cool”!

    Now let’s take on the big boys, shall we?

    — Susan, from Women in Planetary Science

  4. David,

    I’m one of your new visitors courtesy of your ‘2011 Bloggies’ nomination.

    I have a sincere request. Please don’t use the term ‘denier’ when referring to people like myself who question the claimed ‘settled science’ on man-caused climate change, in particular the claim that if mankind does not immediately constrain/control mankind’s use of fossil fuels within the next few decades that we will reach a climatic ‘tipping point’ that leads to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

    Skeptics (so called ‘climate change deniers’) and more precisely CAGW skeptics like myself most definitely do not deny ‘climate change’. Far from it – in fact it is those who deny the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) who are IMO the real ‘climate change deniers’. Climate change has always and will always as our climate has never been nor ever will be in equilibrium. I’ve a degree level educated ex-nuclear physicist so I’m never going to ‘deny’ the reality of greenhouse gas radiative physics. What I object to is the hyping and warping/extrapolation of this well understood and acknowledged (settled bit of science if you like) branch of physics into a global ‘we must save the planet’ catastrophy issue via the use of global climate model ‘projections’ that assume with NO actual verifiable evidence that water vapour is a strong net positive feedback to CO2’s so called forcing. Somehow or other skeptical scientists like myself are supposed to accept that an odourless, tasteless, gas (that is essential to continued existence of all life on our planet) that is present in our atmosphere at a concentration less than 400 PARTS PER MILLION determines whether or not our planet warms or cools rapidly?

    Well I’m sorry but call me a ‘denier’ if you have to, but I’m going to need a lot more evidence than computer model projections before I’ll be convinced that mankind’s CO2 emissions are having a significant effect on our climate.

    • Thanks for the visit, Kevin. I understand that, if you read WUWT regularly as a source of information, you would disagree with my position and terminology about climate change.

      You repeat numerous strawmen in your post. For one, the term ‘settled science’ is a tired attempt at a double-bind; scientists do not use the term, and understand that the details of science are never settled. No major climate researchers actually hold that position in the sense you seem to mean.

      See here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php

      Or more explicitly, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/

      Not only that, you will look long and hard to find a climate scientist who denies the existence of the MWP or LIA. They are routinely discussed in scientific literature.

      I doubt I will change your mind, but I am siding with the vast majority of active researchers in climate change on this one, and agree that economically sensible decarbonisation is a desirable course of action for many reasons, including its mitigating effect on AGW.

  5. You’ve been nominated under “Best Science Blogs”??? Guess it depends on what you mean by “Science” . . .

    Only kidding! :-) Love your blog. Don’t think any of your readers will be surprised you’ve been nominated. Good luck!

  6. Pingback: Have you voted yet? | notes from africa

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: