Hmmm… perusing the Weblog awards page, I saw that it’s possible to embed a poll. Coolness.
So, when I look at this I see the latest stats, but cannot vote; I think that’s because I voted recently. I suspect then that if you haven’t voted in the past 24 hours, you’ll see an actual voting panel there. If so, then do what comes naturally.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
November 8th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Yup theres a voting panel, thats way easier than waiting for the page to try to load.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Maybe Capt. Sneery-Face…uh…the Vice-President will offer to take them hunting if they win.
Really, I’m pimping so maybe you’ll get the big late evening surge.
(Let’s see if I get the Spam Filter message again. C’mon, I even call you the ‘Real’ Dr. Phil, what’s a guy gotta do to get off the spam list? [j/k])
November 8th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Looks like the power of Fark is with us:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3190661
November 8th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Now if only we could use the power of the force.
*waves hand at computer*
There is no “Climate Audit”.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:15 am
The “You last voted in this cathegory less than 24 hours ago” right underneath the total number of votes is a clear indication that your suspicion is correct.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Call out the troops. CA Cannot win this thing.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Has anyone submitted this to Digg?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Nice to see that something as world-shatteringly important as a web vote, perhaps the least scientific method of data gathering short of divination, is taking up everyone’s attention.
Back to the pictures of the moon, I guess. Mmmm, moon.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:31 am
>> “Call out the troops. CA Cannot win this thing.”
Didn’t I say something about ideological entrenchment and the thought-terminating cliche a few days ago? Doesn’t anyone else think that this sort of mindset is intrinsically harmful to science as a whole?
Or am I just one of a thousand people talking without speaking amongst a thousand people hearing without listening?
This is mildly upsetting.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:37 am
For all Phil’s comment about the relative merits of his blog versus CA as the home of “reality in science”, it seems to be this site that is the home of comments such as this:
“Call out the troops. CA Cannot win this thing.â€
November 8th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Ah, Centipede, you are discovering the downside to freedom of speech: nobody listens anymore, because the sound of their own voice is far more beautiful, intelligent, and worthy of listening to.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Still haven’t been able to vote. Some stupid software incompatibility, no doubt. Grrr.
And for the concern trolls, I really like LOLCats, but if they were winning for Best Science Blog I’d be trying to call out the troops too. I don’t think this mindset is harmful to science as a whole; LOLCats just aren’t science.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
[...] regarding astronomy, should win the award. In fact, Bad Astronomy is playing hardball and actually embedding the voting application directly into their latest post. As of the time of this post, Bad Astronomy is behind by about 500 [...]
November 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am
the weblog site is totally gonna crash
November 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
We should get SA in on this as well.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am
While I don’t think CA winning will have a devastating impact, it would really be unfortunate. The fact that a unscientific blog is even in the running for a scientific blog award shows that whoever is in charge of nominating candidates is unfamiliar with the difference between good science and bad science. It’s a small example of the much larger disrespect heaped on science by the general population. Even if the award doesn’t really mean anything, giving CA the best science blog award is a real disservice to the bloggers like Phil who work hard to bring you real science.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Oh, so now I’m a troll because I think that science should mostly be divested of emotion, because ideological thinking and its concomitant entrenchment is harmful to the progress of science in general? The red herring isn’t really appreciated, either, as lolcats claim no scientific basis whatsoever.
I didn’t know ClimateAudit existed before this We Must Defeat The Deniers foofaraw. Looking over, though, certainly CA’s responders do fall into a anti-AGW crowd, but we’re not grading things based on responders. We’re grading things based on science. From a pro-AGW point of view I look at Climate Audit as a statistician’s analysis of the statistical methods used as support for AGW and finding those methods lacking–not the entire theory, just those methods. It’s like Dr. Plait arguing against people whose astronomy is bad, or me grumbling when I do about people getting aerospace engineering wrong. It’s his profession, and he has an interest in seeing it done correctly. Science should have nothing to do with ideology; it does have a “right” and a “wrong,” yes, but optimally these are disinterested statements of the applicability of a given theory or methodology to reality.
If ClimateAudit says that the whole hockey stick thing’s statistics are flawed, provide counterevidence that the statistics are not flawed. Failing that, reanalyze the data using statistical methods approved by the consensus of statisticians (just like general climate models need to be approved by climatologists, physics models approved by physicists, et al.).
I still support AGW because greenhouse gases are known empirically and we are producing them in addition to whatever natural cycles may occur, thus minimizing our own impact is a safe bet in any circumstance. With that said, AGW theories should be supported through the most ironclad evidence possible to assert they are indeed more scientifically true than anti-AGW theories and thus simplify (rather than complicate) the political process required to put AGW mitigation strategies into action. We should be thankful for opposition because it points out flaws in our own stances which either need to be rectified or, if those flaws cannot be rectified, development of another model that better fits the data.
“Concern troll.” Hmpf. It’s a sad day for Western Civilization when a call for skeptical openmindedness (which is a far different animal from being so openminded one’s brains fall out) and divorcing the idea from the person gets called “trolling.”
November 8th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I have posted it on few astronomy and sciece releted websites in Serbia, I hope it will help.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Does the “Calculate the name of your perfect lover!” ad at the top of the “Best Science Blog” poll seem rather ironic to anyone else?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Can I applaud “The Centipede”’s comment?
Yes. And I do.
Oh and thanks to the BA, Climate Audit has similarly a shiny new widget where we can both watch this absurd horse race from the blogs involved.
So whichever way it goes, I will still continue to read and appreciate Phil Plait and his travails with people who misuse astronomy, astrophysics or just indulge in paranormal silliness.
By the way, some commenter on CA pointed out that Phil goes on “Coast to Coast” as if that was a point against him. I pointed out that Phil goes on “Coast to Coast” to bat for science and reason, which is why he should be praised rather than smeared by bizarre association.
So support Bad Astronomy and your friendly neighborhood Bad Astronomer!
November 8th, 2007 at 11:32 am
MarshallDog,
Go read CA, properly. It is real working science, so much so that authors in the fields it “audits” find it necessary to post their, much to their own distaste in some instances.
Steve MacIntyre is published in peer reviewed journals on the work he continues to blig on and the audi t movement he started was responsible for the NAS committee of inquiry in multiproxy studies in climate science as well as the Wegman report.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:35 am
This is the first time I have visited this blog. The contest is clearly giving all the contestants new readers. What a shame you are wasting the opportunity by smearing Steve McIntyre and his fine site Climate Audit. He has been classy enough to not return fire.
The results of the contest are really unimportant. What is important is the exposure it will give to the blogs involved. I have no doubt that CA will gain readers, contributors and influence.
My first visit here hasn’t given me much incentive to return.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Lance,
Don’t judge Phil by some of the rather partisan commenters here, or his ill-advised comment towards CA.
Much of what Phil writes about is good stuff and is worth following.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Richarddawkins.net has it on our Forum, though a little late in the game.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Lance apparently missed all this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/11/07/vote-best-science-blog-2007/
November 8th, 2007 at 11:49 am
John A.,
I have found your posts at CA to be honest and insightful, so I’ll give this site a chance.
I wonder if Mr. Plait’s “ill-advised” comments were based on anything but his a priori political biases. After spending a great deal of time following Steve’s work at CA I have nothing but respect for his work and his unbiased presentation of evidence, and unexpressed political views.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Why all the smears against Climate Audit – is this from commenters or does this reflect BAs view of CA? I found the CA blog recently along with RealClimate and found CA to have reasoned, scientific treatments of extremely complex issues. To suggest CA is not a “Science blog” is simply absurd – have you read any of the posts there?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Lance, perhaps you need to understand that CA started the war.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:58 am
> Yossarianon 08 Nov 2007 at 10:05 am
>
> Looks like the power of Fark is with us: [...]
Yep. I mentioned the vote for the BABlog already in this thread:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3182195
Looks like most farkers just voted for Fark.com … :-/
November 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Why the smears against ClimateAudit.org? Is that BA’s point of view or just a few commenters here? I found it recently while researching global warming and found it an excellent source of information about that topic, along with RealClimate.org. These blogs are both at different ends of the “political” spectrum on the issue, especially if you include commenters, but to suggest CA is not a “Science blog” is simply absurd – have you read even a single post there? CA’s main author is an active scientist posting data and analyses, some of which will be published. To me, that would make CA a science blog.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“Oh, so now I’m a troll because I think that science should mostly be divested of emotion, because ideological thinking and its concomitant entrenchment is harmful to the progress of science in general?”
“Concern troll” has a pretty specific definition, which is on wikipedia if you have an interest. It might not apply to you, but that was not obvious in your post. (And yours wasn’t the only such post I was responding to.)
And if you think science should mostly be divested of emotion, why are you waiting for more pictures of the moon? Can’t be because they are pretty: that would be an emotional response. I’ll agree that ideological thinking rarely helps the progress of science, but science is helped by the emotional investment of a great many people. Even if it’s just the appreciation of the latest Cassini collage.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
How so Michelle? I never saw any remarks by Steve M. critical of Phil or PZ. Admittedly some over zealous posters took pock shots, much as the loyal fans here have from what I can tell, but Steve remained above the fray.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Interesting bit of inter-blog snarkwar, eh? This may be the most excitement many sideline commenters get all year. Or not.
I never got caught up in all this “American Idol”–style foofarah for web polls. All the emotion! I say make love not war!
November 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Someone should Digg the story that political blogs are blindly pushing readers to vote for a junk science site they’ve never seen. The story just got on BoingBoing.
BTW, the politico pseudo science denialists are really hammering the voting now, apparently making quite a thing out of getting on top. It is a shame as Bad Astronomy, (which is right behind the junk science C.A.), really, really deserves the win (but you already know this I guess). Not to some of the other actual science blogs on the list aren’t great as well.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
“These blogs are both at different ends of the “political†spectrum on the issue,”
While it’s true that C.A. is on the far right end of the political spectrum, RealClimate does not exist as its opposite as you contend. The two sites do exist on opposite ends of a particular spectrum however, with RealClimate at the science end, and C.A. at the junk end. And if you really need examples of C.A.’s politically motivated (which you don’t deny) junk science, than you aren’t looking very hard, as it is documented all over the web.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Lance: “JunkScience.com has been nominated in the category of Best Science Blog although we’d like to suggest you consider a vote for ClimateAudit, largely because various ideologues are apparently trying to suppress their vote.”
Right there. That’s what I call paranoia. That’s what I call being a whiner. And that’s what I call being overly sensitive.
Pay attention.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
There is a striking difference between the US and the rest of the world. Americans are generally extremely competetive. That is good. Most of the time. But when one takes beauty contests seriously, things have gotten out of hand. This is a striking example. What happened to science? Is science a competition as well? Calm down.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I would like to point out that CA is a Canadian blog, and Steve McIntyre still likes to win whether its at squash or silly polls like this one despite not being American.
I still maintain that the best result of all of this is that all of the blogs got a lift in traffic and some new eyeballs that will hopefully stay.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I find it ironic that both CA and BA are performing essentially identical services in thier respective fields of study. From many of the comments above one would conclude that they are are opposite ends of the spectrum. As a long-time reader of both blogs, I feel that both are vital and desperately needed to help deal with the epedemic of scientific illiteracy that is infecting our world.
To those that feel that CA is right wing, denailist or any other immature adjective you might chose to insert, please spend a few hours actually reading through the CA archives. I believe you be impressed with the high scientific standards that Steve maintains and insists upon in his own entries and on those of his commenters.
While I personally find CA to be less emotional and pursues issues to a far greater depth, the two blogs are doing excellent work in their respective fields. Thank you both, Phil and Steve, for your great contributions to the advancement of science.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Make your vote count twice. Click on the Digg and reddit buttons when you vote!
November 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Very well said, Don.
Thank you both, Phil and Steve, for your great contributions to the advancement of science.
I second that.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
CA has been vindicated not only by the NAS but also by Hansen when Steve found out that the hottest year was in the Thirties. This proves that they deserve to win. AGW belongs in the same category as UFOs, JFK conspir-idiocy theories, Y2K(which Gore also endorsed), the Ice Age Scare of the Seventies(which Schneider and Hansen also endorsed), and my all-time favorite eco-hoax…African Killer Bees!
Go, skeptics!
November 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Dear lord… this is just getting stupid on both sides. It’s a freaking web award… I don’t get how this remotely affects how you should write your articles? Seriously, I love BA, but this isn’t what BA is about. Some sort of petty competition.
As for this idea of either BA or CA “starting the war,” that’s completely irrelevant… Seriously, none of us are in kindergarten anymore. Commenters of both blogs have been less than polite to each other and this is completely pointless. Trying to assign blame to one party for being more hostile is completely based on your own biases and it takes two to tango after all. Why don’t we all just vote for whomever the heck we want to vote, keep any emotional opinions to yourself and congratulate the winner of this award no matter the outcome (or perhaps as the band War so eloquently put it: Why can’t we be friends?)
November 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
CA has been vindicated not only by the NAS but also by Hansen when Steve found out that the hottest year was in the Thirties. This proves that they deserve to win. AGW belongs in the same category as UFOs, JFK conspir-idiocy theories, Y2K(which Gore also endorsed), the Ice Age Scare of the Seventies(which Schneider and Hansen also endorsed), and my all-time favorite eco-hoax…African Killer Bees!
Go, skeptics!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Bwain: My recommendation is to read for intent.
“Oh, so now I’m a troll because I think that science should mostly be divested of emotion, because ideological thinking and its concomitant entrenchment is harmful to the progress of science in general?”
The sentence loses a lot if you selectively quote it.
No, I am not an anti-GW right wing woohoo trying to come off as a pro-AGW ’skeptic with concerns.’ I am but a pilgrim seeking knowledge, which requires me to be skeptical about a lot of things. The establishment of ideology, of we are “Right” with a capital R, is naturally hostile to skepticism and thus to my quest to find truth. I don’t know how I can make it “clear in [my] post” that I am a climate troll, because that requires me to maneuver around someone else’s value judgment. It’s just another thought-terminating cliche useful for weeding out those who do indeed have doubts, no matter how partial, even if true climate trolls exist (as they probably do).
It doesn’t help anything to say there’s a “war,” and it helps even less to say “they started it.” Bull. There is nothing but the truth and our observation of it through a glass darkly. My message has practically been a constant on this blog: vitriol serves no purpose. The mutual haranguing and head-covering and doubleplusloud-yelling is a sick, sad, darkly humorous irony given that the two things in question are both aiming for the truth, but in different ways.
One is about statistics, among other things.
The other is about astronomy, among other things.
Both believe science must be backed up by the best evidence possible.
Mr. McIntyre (my apologies if he has a higher degree) and Dr. Plait both search for truth and try to prevent the truth from being drowned in dogma.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
SuperSkeptic, that is incorrect. Sure, Mr., McIntyre did a good thing — which I’ve pointed out — but it’s the conclusions drawn from that which are way off. 1934 may be the hottest year on record in the US, but only very slightly behind 1998, and almost certainly within the error bars, making them in a dead (haha) heat. Search my blog for this; I wrote extensively about it.
Science is more than collecting data, it has to be interpreted as well.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
The only thing this whole thing shows me is the complete absurdity of these blog awards, and the use of the word “best” in place of “most popular”, or “most ballot-box-stuffers”.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Wow. Fark brought CA’s lead from 1000 to 400 in about 30 minutes.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
’sci-guy’
The hottest years of the globe are now, not in the 1930’s. Not even close. See the chart presented in Wikipedia –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The arctic is melting. Greenland is melting. Both more than expected by the conservative climate models.
The basic science of global warming is 200 years old. Forget killer bees, you have to throw out all science to get rid of the idea of global warming. The question is not if, it is when, and the global temperatures are up –on average, meaning some days and some places may be colder — 1/2 degree. Energy wise, this is huge.
Why do you call yourself ’sci-guy’? Do you know the physics and chemistry of the earth’s atmosphere? Do you know how to see the whole picture of a science, or do you think that grabbing a couple of ‘facts’ and trumpeting them widely is research? Or are you paid to create blogs by an oil company (probably indirectly?) Or are you just an innocent who has swallowed the mishmash of facts and lies fostered and funded out by the oil companies and power plant industries who don’t want to lose even a small fraction of their quarterly profits?
November 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
jfatz: Though all things considered, Fark isn’t really the best promotional tool for this purpose…
Phil’s well known as an established Farker. That has always had a lot of currency on Fark.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Give it a rest, Phil. I come to this website because you have a unique and interesting take on science and politics, not to be electioneered to. I’ve voted for you, but enough is enough.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Right Wing Campaigns To Get Climate Skeptic’s Blog Named ‘Best Science Blog’ In Weblog Awards
see the rest at Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/08/weblog-science-denial/
November 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I think it’s fairly obvious at this point that someone is ’stuffing the ballot box’ for Climate Audit.
Over time, you can see the BA total closing on the CA total. If you do frequent refreshes, BA is closing by 5 to 20 votes per minute very consistently.
Then, every time the lead narrows to within a few hundred, the CA total jumps by 1000 to 2000 in a very short period of time.
I am extremely skeptical that there are caches of Climate Audit voters who are coordinating their vote timing. The chance of this behaviour happening by chance is tiny.
Someone has a multiple-vote script they are running.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Phil Plait,
How can you be so obtuse?
I think it a good thing that Steve MacIntyre wins this pathetic little popularity contest. This has certainly thrown the blogger of this site into a stark relief with his graceless and ill advised coimment inuendo and error by ommission.
This little episode has turned me off even considering any comment of merit that might emanate here. I doubt I am alone.
Scince blogger? What a disgrace.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“>> “Call out the troops. CA Cannot win this thing.â€
Didn’t I say something about ideological entrenchment and the thought-terminating cliche a few days ago? Doesn’t anyone else think that this sort of mindset is intrinsically harmful to science as a whole?
Or am I just one of a thousand people talking without speaking amongst a thousand people hearing without listening?
This is mildly upsetting.”
Completely quoted, just to make sure I didn’t miss anything.
You showed up at a blog, competing in a popularity contest, and said that we shouldn’t cheer for that blog. How can that make any sense? Do you show up at football games and say, “Yes, I like the home team as well, but don’t say that we must stop the away team from winning. That would be uncivilized.”?
Go back a year, and you’ll find the same or similar comments, this time about Pharyngula. Not because BA considers Pharyngula to be unscientific, or because he disagrees with his political views, but because they are competing in a contest. And that competition was not harmful to science as a whole: it stirred up a lot of interest in both blogs, if nothing else. Emotional interest, I might add.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I don’t know about Diebold, but I’m afraid this poll isn’t exactly secure.
Just delete the flash shared objects located here:
C:\Documents and Settings\_USERNAME_\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player\#SharedObjects\_RANDOM STRING_\2007.weblogawards.org
And you can vote again.
Someone with less homework than I could easily write a script or a mouse macro to rig this thing.
I’m actually a bit disappointed in the weblog awards. This would have been relatively easy to secure…
November 8th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Phil,
Can you please post some extreme liberal cruft so all the CA sycophants will storm off in a huff? I’m really getting tired of hearing how much of a saint Steve McIntyre is, considering he’s just a pocket-scientist for the AGW denialists.
“Unbiased” – get real. As I’ve said before, if he were unbiased he’d be going after the blatantly bogus “studies” that “show” AGW to be a hoax (after all, they should be really easy pickings for him).
Instead he spends all his time crawling over the work of AGW proponents looking for the smallest hiccup, no matter how irrelevant to the final conclusion of the data.
Real science is the creation of knowledge, of information that others can build on. Stevie creates nothing. If he were anything more that a statistician he would find errors in datasets and then *correct* them to the best of his abilities to help bring the current models closer to reality. Of course that would leave him open to the type of attack he is currently targeting at real scientists now, so I don’t expect him to do that.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
@Jacob:
Obviously somebody is already doing that. See my last post.
Also, how can this possibly be easy to secure? IP address tracking can be defeated in a number of ways, and suffer from the major flaw of punishing legitimate voters who are on NATed subnets.
Adding client side information like cookies, registry entries, or files, is also easy to defeat (of course, that’s exactly what they did).
So how can you do this?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
@Mango:
It’s not a quick fix, but an algorithm could be written to monitor the flow of votes, while allowing a reasonable number of votes coming from one subnet.
Example:
If the monitoring application picked up >10-15 votes per second from a particular IP, it could flag that address as a possible illegitimate voter, and either block it, or set the flow control down to only allow a vote or two per minute.
That would still allow for large institutions like colleges to participate, but still block out the bots that are voting hundreds of times per minute.
The philosophical implications are a bit muddy, but it would work.
Note: I said relatively easy, not just outright simple.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
You having trouble with your vote? ha
Did that just start when CA pulled out into the lead?
Here is Jacob showing us all how to cheat.
Be sure and back up your registry first, cheaters.
Jacob does your wife trust you?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Bwain:
>> “You showed up at a blog”
I think you missed the part where I was posting on this blog long before the weblog awards.
>> “said that we shouldn’t cheer for that blog.”
I said no such thing. I said that other people and blogs should not be villified. Those are two distinctly different concepts.
>> “How can that make any sense?”
Admittedly, it doesn’t. I do apologize if my stance was unclear.
re: Cheating
This has been happening for days now, both sides. Recall the ‘computer lab’ comment last week?
It’s a flash-based web ‘award’ ‘competition’ prone to ballot stuffing. It’s like the All England Summarize Proust competition: because no one has fully encapsulated the deeper philosophical meaning of Proust into 30 seconds, the award goes to the girl in the audience with the biggest tits.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I’ve been here for a good spot. Not constantly, I’ll admit, but rumors of my spontaneous generation are greatly exaggerated.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Argh. URL didn’t work. Sorry to spam things up. http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/01/16/usa-todays-astrological-nonsense/#comment-11829
November 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Interesting that the voting site says:
“RESULTS ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL WINNERS ARE ANNOUNCED! Each poll is checked during the voting and after polls close for excessive voting from individual machines. If excess voting is found it is noted and the votes are removed.”
It’ll be interesting to see if some of CA’s huge jumps vanish after voting closes.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Centipede, I agree with every word you have said.
You seem like a very thoughtful and fair minded person.
You would be pleasantly surprized at my comments regarding BA at Climate Audit I think.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Wow, this whole thing has really brought out the concern trolls. Even more than usual, that is.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Doc, CA’s total sticks out like a stastical sore thumb. I am certain that if someone is checking for irregular voting patterns, they will have a heavily reduced final total.
@Jacob:
Okay, they could have server-side heuristics trying to deduce when somebody is using a script. It’s tricky to find a good threshold, though. If someone at a company sends out an e-mail to his co-workers and says ‘Vote for this’, then you can likely see one or two dozen votes from a single IP in a couple of minutes.
Script writers, on the other hand, can deduce the threshold and operate just under it.
It might be more effective to just let the cheaters do as they will, then look at the voting patterns after the fact and disqualify their votes.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
From what I’ve been seeing, both sides are accusing the other of cheating whenever peaks and jumps occur.
The sad thing is that both sides are probably correct.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Papertiger:
>> Centipede, I agree with every word you have said.
Including the ones where I state I agree with AGW theory? *raised eyebrow*
November 8th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Centipede, you might be right.
If that’s the case, though, then the BA cheaters are much better at it than the CA cheaters (or at least one CA cheater). Adding 2000 to the vote total in a chunk is pretty obvious.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Might, hell, I know both sides are cheating from the evidence presented (namely, people on both sides crowing about their own 1337 skillz).
As for which group of cheaters is better… well, that ends up being sort of moot, doesn’t it? It still trivializes the whole thing (not that it was particularly important to begin with) and highlights the utter stupidity of the lengths ideologues–BOTH SIDES, MIND–will go to just to get a ‘victory.’
A victory from a bloody Flash application on the Internet, bastion of truth and individual distinctiveness, where men are men, women are men, and children are the FBI.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Put yourself in my shoes if you can for just a minute.
Ever since Al Gores movie my local paper has fed a steady stream of uncritical fawning coverage of AGW. They parrot the “consensus as evidence” line.
Practically no one agrees with their position judging from the online comment sections which accompany every AGW news story.
People in my city want more then platitudes and “most scientists agree that global warming is the worst impending crisis for mankind…”
The paper cheered with a banner headline when Al Gore won his prize.
The comments ranged from “gag me” to “You have got to be kidding”.
I suppose the paper deleted the posts that featured more pharmaceutical strength language.
And I live in a relentlessly liberal city.
It might come as a shock to you that after a series of scientific consensus’,(new ice age, killer bees, bird flu, mad cow, fat is bad for you, no sorry fat is good for you, eating too much meatwill kill you, eating to many carbs will kill you, cell phones are killing the bees, cell phones are causing ear cancer, Aids is a problem for everybody not just gays and IV users, Asteroids are going to hit the planet, Y2K will cause civilization to end, climate change will cause drought, climate change will cause floods, climate change caused Katrina, Climate change caused record low hurricane activity) which all amounted to scientists pulling our collective crank, that people are sort of tired of being hoaxed.
Quit jerking us around.
Only a minute to go
Cimate Audit is still in the lead
Do
YOU
BELIEVE
IN MIRACLES?
YYYYYYEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
November 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
@ Centipede et al.
I’m sorry, but BadAstronomy is one of my favorite websites, and something I check everyday. Even without this recent controversy I can honestly say I’d vote for him. I honestly never heard of climate audit before this, and in terms of accessibility and newbie friendliness BA’s blog takes the cake. Stylistically, CA is utter crap, whether or not he’s right. Meanwhile, BA is qualified when it comes to the science of his blog, and he’s good at presenting it in an entertaining way. It takes both of these to qualify for an award in my book. CA is getting votes because a bunch of political hacks started vote stacking, naturally people interested in quality science blogs have to react, and I’m sorry, but CA could be as right as rain, he still doesn’t deserve the award.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I’d like to that the Academy and Mom of course…
What?
Oh right, I personally didn’t win anything.
But I still feel good.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
(Thank)* the Academy — oh whatever.
See ya dudes.
BA you can still say VOTED SECOND BEST SCIENCE BLOG
on the book jacket.
I really like your pictures too. (psss-don’t tell anybody. it would ruin my rep)
November 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Ibrahim:
I understand where you’re coming from and I don’t disagree. I do wonder though why it was directed at me when all I’ve been saying throughout is:
1) We can get through this without ideological vitriol
and
2) both sides have probably cheated.
*thwaps papertiger*
Okay, the childish gloating’s wearing thin. Worn thin. Worn to the bone.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Makes my heart sad. I voted for you every day, Phil!
November 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“I think you missed the part where I was posting on this blog long before the weblog awards.”
Indeed I did. I just saw 8 comments, none of them particularly vitriolic, followed by 2 saying “Don’t be so vitriolic!”. I might have jumped to conclusions, but then that seems to be a difference in our approaches to science. I think you can form a tentative conclusion based on 10 data points, and use that as a guideline unless later data shows you wrong.
Key to that approach, of course, is to be open to new data. I appologize for calling you a concern troll; that seems to have been a premature conclusion. I do not appologize in the case of some other posters, although I’d be happy to get new data in their case as well. If, say, papertiger were to call on CA’s mad statistikx skillz to be brought to bear on the voting patterns, that might be a good start…
November 8th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
If, say, papertiger were to call on CA’s mad statistikx skillz to be brought to bear on the voting patterns, that might be a good start…
Is it a call for a Florida style recount I’m hearing? Cool with me.
But nix the hanging chad crap.
Have your lawyer contact my lawyer.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Moose: Phil’s well known as an established Farker. That has always had a lot of currency on Fark.
I guess more of an “in the past” thing after setting up his own site, eh? I don’t recall running across a post of his since I started following BAB a while back, and I think we’re likely to visit the same kinds of threads.
At any rate, I was not insinuating he created an account just to get people to show up and vote, but rather to say I was amused to see his comment in the thread, and in general to point out that a Fark-mention is not likely to work out favorably. Hehe…
November 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Bwain:
Apology accepted. I’ll admit I was somewhat miffed, but I know that such things happen and so I’m certainly not going to hold it against you.
Truce?
>> I might have jumped to conclusions, but then that seems to be a difference in our approaches to science.
Ah, but these are internet postings, which have a bit more to do with diplomacy and communications than science. I’ve made the ‘limited data set conclusion’ many times in my life and been wrong enough and burnt enough to try and be careful of such things nowadays.
Prevents the added aggravation which may prevent further evidence from ever coming along.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
So what’s up with he vote totals now? 20,000 even? Seems fishy, this whole poll has no credibility in my book.