I’m reposting this because the polls close at midnight tonight.
Each year, George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communications honors “one person and one organization for their excellence as climate change communicators.”
This year, the nominees, which include me in the first category and Skeptical Science in the second, are:
Individual Nominees:
1. Tom Crompton
2. Jay Gulledge
3. Susan Joy Hassol
4. Naomi Oreskes
5. Joseph Romm
6. John Abraham/Scott Mandia/Ray Weymann
Organizational Nominees:
1. Alliance for Climate Education
2. Climate Change Media Partnership
3. Sea Grant Climate Network
4. Skeptical Science.com
5. The Earth Journalism Network
6. Union of Concerned Scientists
Given how much I cross-post pieces from Skeptical Science, it seemed only fair to vote for them, but all the choices are all worthy ones.
You can read the nomination statements and vote here.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
‘Skeptical Science’ will surely get a majority.
Well since climate progress is my blog of choice it was obvious to me how to vote. H/T to #6 bunch though. Skeptical Science was the other choice. They are good at presenting the science in layman terms.
I voted for Joe Romm and Skeptical Science since I rely on both for the current status of the science as well as take downs of the latest denier misinformation. However,I find it strange for George Mason Center for Climate Change Communications to be offering such awards when the university itself is dragging its feet on investigating the charges against Edward Wegman. http://deepclimate.org/2011/01/06/wegman-on-deep-climate/
Voted! Go Joe and SS!
GMU didn’t nominate Ed Wegman? Go figure!
So George Mason University that houses the right-leaning “think tank” Mercatus Center, funded and directed by Koch operatives such as Mr. Fink and Charles Koch, is handing out an award for climate communication. How perfectly ironic, nihilistic and corrupting.
Perhaps any so-called award should be declined for preservation of integrity. I vote: no participation.
Have a nice contest. I contest with the contest.
Congratulations on the nomination Joe!
Yes! Skeptical Science does a fantastic job.
Personally I think you should win the individual catagory Joe. You really do a wonderfully outstanding job!
That individual vote is tough in some ways – I really would like to vote for Oreskes and Abraham, but it’s got to go to Romm. No one comes close to producing the volume, depth and quality of commentary on climate and energy. Imagine relying on just the MSM for climate science?!
I regularly get the response from climate and renewable energy deniers when I link to CP of, “Joe Romm is biased / not credible / a Marxist / blah blah blah.” I always respond, “But where is he wrong?”
No responses so far.
[JR: They go hard after Oreskes, and Trenberth and Gore and Hansen and Holdren and anyone who speaks up on this subject. That's what they do.]
I’m with Solar Jim on this one. GMU have been dragging their feet on investigating the obvious improprieties (both statistical and otherwise) in the Wegman Report for how long now? A year?
George Mason University’s endless inquiry
There’s another irony meter gone into the bin. Not just busted, a freakin’ slag heap it was.
And everyone needs to read this, just to see what a stitch-up the Wegman Report was:
Replication and due diligence, Wegman style
McIntyre’s disingenuousness laid bare for all to see.
All that said… you go Joe!
Joe and SS!
If you ever sit down with a denier (or genuine skeptic) and say, OK lets each have 5 minutes to find a source for that claim (lets say, CO2 follows remp) Climateprogress and Skepticalscience are invaluable! Not only can you get the understandable plain-english version, but you also have the links to the primary sources of very credible institutions.
It’s quite impressive how fast you can get to good answers.
And funny to see what the denier/skeptic comes up with!
Keep up the great work!
Joe!
In further support of the consensus nominee under “organizational”, for those who tweet, Skeptical Science recently added a great new URL, sks.to. It redirects to the original Skeptical Science site, and features intuitive links to all their major arguments, e.g. sks.to/mwp takes you straight to the Medieval Warm Period discussion; or list all the URLs here. What a great resource, although evidently it’s still not easy enough for the New York Times….
Voted for here and for Skeptical Science for different reasons. CP is the best catch-all-of-importance place for daily climate news – including the politics. SS is a brilliant resource for summarised and referenced science issues. As I’ve said before, if in an online joust with a hardcore denialist, links to SS rebuttals of their claims are an excellent tactic because the rule of thumb is that while you are unlikely to “win” an argument with somebody who is good at arguing that black is white, other people reading may well follow the links, learn something and see how untenable denialist talking-points really are.
This takes nothing away from the efforts in a variety of fields of other activists, though. Tim Lambert, Scott Mandia, John Abrahams, Deepclimate, Tamino, DeSmogBlog, Realclimate and of course the excellent Pete Sinclair (in no particular order) are all well worth a regular visit.
Cheers – John
done
got my vote
I would have voted for Michael Mann if he had been on the list. He has endured and continues to receive awful attacks from skeptics. He has most likely paid the highest personal price for standing up for his scientific research.
sorry,
I meant
“you have my vote”
Voted for CP and SS. I do have a financial conflict, of sorts since I have bought Joe Romm’s books and in the case of SS made a small financial donation to support the great work they do.
But,,,but,,,but,,,neither Marc Morano nor Anthony Watts are on the list!! I DEMAND an investigation!!! I’m going to go talk to the Baron about this.
Voted. Awesome job Joe. tough call to make between SkS and CP.
Joe, talking of GMU, why are people not holding GMU’s feet to the fire? They have allegedly been aware of the complaint against Wegman for over a year (Bradley first lodged his complaint on March 5, 2010), and still nothing, zilch. Absolutely ludicrous.
Todd @16, agreed.
You better believe you’ll get chosen Joe, if there’s anyone more honoring of an award for standing up to ignorance, and being a general hero, it’s you.
no brainer here for you, Joe, though Mandia, Abraham, and Weymann deserve a solid silver medal.
I read here recently that we readers are disparaged as Romulans. Frankly I thought that designation was quite amusing, but of course like Romm’n'Legions even better.
Joe you got my vote, naturally, and SS too. Many other blogs are worthy but none have the breadth and simultaneously the lightening speed of CP.
Wit’s End@23: “but of course like Romm’n’Legions even better”
Rommbledore’s Army ?
Union of Concerned Scientists.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
I’ll definitely be voting and am deeply grateful for everyone’s efforts. Meanwhile, I suggest everyone interested in climate communication read this op-ed, read the underlying blog post, and then watch the video interview with the blogger. There’s some good ideas there I think
dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/climate-communication-and-the-nerd-loop/