Comments 1 to 14:

1. David Horton at 10:07 AM on 23 October, 2010
   Done John, I think - what a clumsy voting system! Good luck.
   0 0
2. adelady at 13:18 PM on 23 October, 2010
   I think I voted too. Very odd.
   0 0
3. Doug Bostrom at 13:53 PM on 23 October, 2010
   The physicist's take on voting? Obviously it must be the best... A pretty nice selection of websites, many of which I didn't know of; I can see a lot more time expended in my future.
   0 0
4. Doug Bostrom at 14:21 PM on 23 October, 2010
   Might be worth clarifying how voting is supposed to work because for us unphysical types it may be puzzling. When you click on the link for your selected website from a given category, you'll be taken to that website, with a sort of toolbar shown at top. In the toolbar is a bargraph of little stars. Click on the star rating you want. You get to vote for more than one entry in a category, with what you think is the appropriate star rating for each site. Clear as mud, eh?
   0 0
5. Tenney Naumer at 15:37 PM on 23 October, 2010
   Well, it was easier than setting the clock on my VCR.
   0 0
6. Ari Jokimäki at 16:21 PM on 23 October, 2010
   Somebody has thought hard how to make a voting system that is as awkward as possible. I voted SkS too, probably. I gave some stars to zooniverse too, as I have been there long time ago classifying some galaxies and lately I have digitized some old weather observations. I suggest that to everyone - this is your chance to do real climate science: http://www.zooniverse.org/home
   0 0
7. les at 18:58 PM on 23 October, 2010
   I believe this nomination is nothing to do, directly, with the AGW/Anti-AGW debate or SkS position on it; except so far as this debate has forced a lot of people to communicate science in general and physics in particular, at a number of levels, with the general public. As a spin-off of this 'debate' sites like SkS have provided some stupendous explanations, digestible by anyone and everyone, whatever their perspective on AGW. SkS's 3 level explanations, appropriate use of graphs, equations, analogies etc. is clearly a great example of the communications of science with the general public - what ever your perspective on climate change.
   0 0
8. Paul D at 19:55 PM on 23 October, 2010
   Tenney Naumer... What's a VCR? :-)
   0 0
9. mbayer at 23:35 PM on 23 October, 2010
   Come on people, voting was not so difficult. :-) You do not vote a single website; you can give 1-5 'points' to any of the shortlisted websites for each group. You have the chance to visit the sites first before voting. Open new tabs for each website. When you do the rating for each website (selecting 1-5 stars), the system sends your vote to physics.org to get counted.
   0 0
10. protestant at 05:33 AM on 24 October, 2010
    Not going to vote for John Cook. I could vote him, if he just would take in account all of the evidence, not just the ones that match to his preconceived notions. At this state, this site is only skeptical on skepticism, not much on anything else.
    0 0
11. mbayer at 05:58 AM on 24 October, 2010
    Come on 'protestant'. The physics.org website does not have any denier candidates shortlisted. Do you think this is just selection variability or that there is a scientific trend on physics.org? SkepticalScience does very well in the voting, and is head to head with Sixty Symbols.
    0 0
12. David Horton at 09:10 AM on 24 October, 2010
    Do you think, just possibly, "protestant" has missed the point of SkS? His proposition "take in account all of the evidence" seems to fly in the face of the whole web site which is devoted to examining all of the evidence AGAINST global warming. None of which, so far, stands up.
    0 0
13. archiesteel at 13:02 PM on 24 October, 2010
    @protestant: Actually, it is the contrarian's arguments that require a lot of cherry-picking and ignore the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW theory. This site is about finding the truth. I encourage you to continue learning about the science and abandon your naive belief in the pseudo-science bandied about by contrarians. If you aren't interested in learning more about science, then I suggest you just go someplace else where your preconceived notions will be welcome, such as WUWT.
    0 0
14. DaveMcRae at 11:14 AM on 25 October, 2010
    I think I voted as well - ta Doug#4 And yes to Les#7
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.