Another year, another weblog contest duped into including the widely discredited, anti-science and anti-scientist blog WattsUpWithThat.com as a finalist for “Best Science Blog.”
This time’s it’s the 11th annual Weblog Awards, “the 2011 Bloggies.” You can vote for one of the four real science blogs on the list — David Robertson, Boing Boing, Wired Science, or Women in Planetary Science — by clicking here.
I wouldn’t be surprised if WUWT wins, though. Of course the best science blog is being chosen in the most unscientific fashion possible — online voting (see “Memo to media: Enough with the online polls!”). And, as its right given such a gamable process, WUWT is shilling for votes far more than the two likeliest contenders, the high-traffic websites Boing Boing and Wired. Voting is complicated — after you cast your vote you have to scroll to the bottom and fill out a captcha and give them an e-mail address and then click on the link you get in your inbox.
I voted for Wired Science because I don’t really see BB as a science blog whereas Wired is consistently the top ranked science blog at Technorati based primarily on the quantity and quality of websites linking in. For whatever reason, Technorati puts me in the “Green” category where I am currently ranked number one, with an Authority of 995 out of 1000.
Anthony Watts does more than any person in the blogosphere to spread anti-scientific disinformation and smear climate scientists. Giving WUWT a best science blog award would be like giving the Edward R. Murrow award to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.Watts spent most of 2010 twisting scientific data to persuade people that Arctic sea ice was going to recover sharply — #FAIL — and then he spent the couple of months absurdly asserting that he did no such thing (see Arctic Death Spiral 2010: Navy’s oceanographer tells Congress, “the volume of ice as of last September has never been lower”¦in the last several thousand years” Disinformers get it very wrong AND see Tamino eviscerate their laughable November revisionism here).
Watts has, perhaps more than any other leading anti-science blogger, viciously smeared climate scientists and others. On Memorial Day, for instance, Watts directly questioned the patriotism of both Tamino and Rabett (see “Peak readership for anti-science blogs?”) leading Tamino to write, “This just might be the most loathsome thing Watts has yet done with his blog.” But it wasn’t.
- Scientific American editors slam science deniers for misusing their unscientific online poll: SciAm “horrified” by “the co-opting of the poll” by users of “the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That”
- Purported eco-terrorist shot and killed by police: Shockingly, Anthony Watts stands behind his offensive post and comments.
- WattsUpWithThat breaks its own record for fastest overturning of a prediction by reality
- WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with most discredited web metric (hits!) and keeps smearing scientists while demanding others “dial back the rhetoric”
- Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts.
- Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one
- FoxNews, WattsUpWithThat push falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC; Latif told me: “I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up.” NSIDC Director Serreze says it is “completely false.”
- Disinformers defend Foxgate email saying unequivocal warming of the climate should always be disputed: Discredited WattsUpWithThat blogger makes up more stuff
Long ago Watts was diagnosed as a victim of anti-science syndrome based on his decision to reprint approvingly a post that accused the scientific community broadly defined of deliberate fraud. Nothing has changed since except our understanding of global warming has gotten so strong that the National Academy of Science called it a “settled fact” even as WUWT has gotten more and more anti-scientific.
So vote for the real “Best Science Blog” but don’t be surprised if an unscientific process leads to an anti-science winner.