Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Marcott et al | Main | Energy opinion »
Thursday
Mar072013

Inconsolable - Josh 208

Click image for a larger version

Last week Leo Hickman got into a bit of a tiz with sceptic blogs being nominated for the Weblog Awards, known as the 'Bloggies'. The Bloggies have been going for some years now and sceptic blogs have had a good showing, Watts Up With That has won twice, since the science blog category was introduced.

So what had changed this year to upset Leo? Well this year James Delingpole has been nominated. 

So hurry over there now and vote - there is still time!

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (25)

What can I say, except RAOTFLMAO!

Mar 7, 2013 at 3:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdam Gallon

Poor Leo. As soon as he starts to make sense in his articles/tweets, someone at the Grauniad pulls him back (I surmise) and he loses it again.

Mar 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Lolz, good one Josh.

Leo asked me on twitter how I could justify 13 out of 17 sceptic blogs for the sci-tech category.

I asked him how the BBC justified 27out of 28 'climate science experts' being activists at their 2006 cabal of liars.

Mar 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterRog Tallbloke

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is, like Delingpole, nominated in the politics section. Although Delingpole is usually very interesting to read, and a lot more readable than the GWPF's stuff, I prefer the GWPF because it goes into the arguments in a much more serious way. Delingpole goes in more for polemics and dumbs things down as if he is writing for slow learners such as Members of Parliament.

In the science section four sceptical blogs are nominated, WattsUpWithThat, Tallbloke's Talkshop, Climate Audit and JoNova. The fifth nomination was also for a blog that calls itself "sceptical" - Skeptical Science - but it has been withdrawn at the blog owner's request. Presumably the blog owner did not expect to win even though the true sceptic vote would have been split four ways!

Mar 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

I have just noticed that the Skeptical Science blog has a posting on why it was withdrawn from "the Bloggies." The link is below and I have cut and pasted some quotes from the article.

Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies by John Cook
http://skepticalscience.com/Why-SkS-withdrew-from-the-Bloggies.html

"I requested that SkS be withdrawn from the competition, as reported in the Guardian. Why? Because the Bloggies have become inextricably associated with anti-science blogs."

"In an inversion of reality, the Science and Technology category is dominated by anti-science blogs that post conspiracy theories about the scientific community, deny the full body of evidence and reject the scientific consensus."

"Can the Bloggies free themselves from the association with anti-science and attract back the interest of the science blogging community? It's a tough ask but I see only one way to achieve this. Anti-science blogs should not be allocated to a science category. An expert panel could take an active role in filtering the nominees, to ascertain that they properly qualify in the category for which they have been nominated. Perhaps instituting such a policy may attract science and technology blogs back to the Bloggies Awards in the future, although it may take time for the association with anti-science to wear off."

Mar 7, 2013 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Roy, indeed. I am sure that GWPF getting a nomination also contributed to Leo going over the edge. Is it a first time nomination for them too? Hopefully next year this blog will win, I am sure it should ;-)

Mar 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM | Registered CommenterJosh

Leo's highly honoured really- he's already bagged the February centrefold in this years calendar, and has an excellent chance of bagging March in next year's.

Mar 7, 2013 at 5:26 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Never mind Leo. As Josh points out they were surely manly tears...like this...filmed at The Guardian offices yesterday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZPC0j-f2tU

Mar 7, 2013 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Crawford

Science is about skepticism. E.g. the first book on Chemistry was 'The Sceptical Chymist' (by Robert Boyle). Although Boyle was an FRS, he relied on proof rather than belief. So, scientific blogs being skeptical makes good sense.

Perhaps Hickman, Gore, et al. should be represented in the religious section of the competition?

Mar 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Your Grace was on the Science & Technology shortlist twice - under two different working urls. WUWT and CA both had two each as well - but only one of each was a working address.

Otherwise I'm sure SS wouldn't have got in the final.

Mar 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterFergalR

Vote Delingpole! As recommended by Beagles.

Mar 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered Commenterfenbeagle

Perhaps Hickman has other concerns on his mind:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/04/juliet-eilperin-out-at-washington-post-environment-beat/

I can certainly empathise with him regarding any recent personal reversals in his career.

But I also wonder if he is old enough to remember Australian cricket captain Kim Hughes crying and resigning when he got beaten by a better team.

Mar 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Hickman says...

The only non climate sceptic blog, Skepical Science...

Without a hint of irony

Mar 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndy scrase

Perhaps Leo would have more luck in being nominated if his employers were a little less trigger-happy with 'opposing' comments? There's a Guardian blog (not one of Leo's) up now about Australia's 'Hottest Year Ever' which has seen readers comments obliterated by moderators.

Dellers, WUWT and BH all allow opposing views - within sensible reason. I tried putting a link to Jo Nova's superb take-down of the G's claims, but it didn't even pass pre-moderation. How can any Guardian blogger be taken seriously with a moderation policy that would make the Stasi blush?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/07/australia-angry-summer-climate-change

Mar 7, 2013 at 7:49 PM | Unregistered Commentercheshirered

First Cook gets upset about a democaratic voting system, now Leo.

We really need a Lewandowsky paper on this topic

Mar 7, 2013 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterMr Bliss

Oh god it's back! Kill it with fire!

(The original Duncan)

Mar 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterDuncan

Leo asked me on twitter how I could justify 13 out of 17 sceptic blogs for the sci-tech category.

I asked him how the BBC justified 27out of 28 'climate science experts' being activists at their 2006 cabal of liars.

Mar 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM | Rog Tallbloke

*

Beautiful! I love this. Tallbloke, sending that reply must have felt so sweet. Thanks for giving me a smile this morning. :)

Mar 7, 2013 at 8:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterA.D. Everard

Why was Skeptical Science "withdrawn by request" from the Best Science or Technology Weblog?

I guess if you can't stand the heat, you get out of the kitchen.

Mar 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeorgeL

Believer blogs are so passé
:D

Mar 7, 2013 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustin Ert

Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies


In an inversion of reality, the Science and Technology category is dominated by anti-science blogs that post conspiracy theories about the scientific community, deny the full body of evidence and reject the scientific consensus. The fact that 4 out of 5 science finalists are anti-science demonstrates that the integrity of the Bloggies Award has been compromised. I, like any pro-science blogger, am not comfortable with the notion of competing for an award that has previously been won by anti-science blogs.

Mar 7, 2013 at 9:18 PM | Registered CommenterAndy Scrase

GeorgeL :

I guess if you can't stand the heat, you get out of the kitchen.
--
Surely it's:
if you can't find the heat, you get out of the kitchen. :)

Mar 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterMr Bliss

Leo asked me on twitter how I could justify 13 out of 17 sceptic blogs for the sci-tech category.

I asked him how the BBC justified 27out of 28 'climate science experts' being activists at their 2006 cabal of liars.

Mar 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM | Rog Tallbloke

tOUCHé !!!

Mar 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/greedy_lying_bastards_2012/

Greedy Lying Bastards (3 words) .Three new words Greedy Al Gore

We need to start hitting the comments sections on everyone of these film review sites.
There enough of us to do it.

Mar 8, 2013 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

Re: jamspid

Only if you have seen the film.

Mar 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Terry when Al Gore made Inconvenient Truth.

Climate Change stopped being about Forensic Science and fact and became just like all politics and culture just another branch of show business.

Thats what gives Climate Change its greatest strength and greatest weakness.

Mar 8, 2013 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>