Vote for Best Science Blog - 2008 Weblog Awards

[Andre]

It's time to vote again for the best science blog

http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog//

There are other categories too:

http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/

 

[Andre]

The polls are closed. And the winner for best science blog is Anthony Watts (Watt's up with that)

 

[Gokul43201]

Am I allowed to point out a fundamental error (as well as what looks too much like a deliberate cooking of the numbers) in the so-called analysis presented on the current front page of this "best science blog"? Or would that be off-topic? On the other hand, if I do, then does this become a back door entry to circumventing the Earth forum rules?

So unless a Mentor here specifically permits discussion of the content on this blog, let me just say that I'm wholly unimpressed and not particularly surprised.

If this discussion is not permitted here, you - meaning anyone that cares to - may call my bluff via PM.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

if I do, then this becomes a back door entry to circumventing the Earth forum rules...

A hidden agenda? Gokul, I'm shocked at the suggestion of it!

Not a blog, but right up there:
http://www.theonion.com/content/index

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know about agendas, but I do believe that it would be a pity for bad "science" to get free advertising on PF, yet remain protected against debunking by our own rules.

 

[NeoDevin]

Anthony Watts is completely inept at data analysis; he's done things like plot different
anomaly graphs (from different baselines) on the same axis, correlate time with time, and
lovingly publish analyses that turn graphs upside down and claim the trend reversed.