6 Responses to “Anthony Watts Award”

1. Simon Hopkinson says:

   January 4, 2011 at 9:30 am

   Yeah, so Easterbrook’s post was off-base. You don’t need to read Renowden’s blog to determine this, though. You just need to read the comments at WUWT.
    
   Mosher’s point, made elsewhere on Judith’s blog, is well made and trumps your “Anthony Watts Award” conflation. Mosher says (with my emphasis):
   “The readers of skeptic blogs hold them [the contributors] to account, or more precisely they give the appearence of that. Since the skeptics were told there was no debate, their strategy was simple: host debate. link to your enemies. invite them to post. let them comment.Since they were told that a consensus existed, all they had to do was demonstrate that the consensus was constructed, was enforced by the power of publication. Now that’s a risky strategy because there will come the time when certain authors of the blog are thrown under the bus ( see Goddard) but even there the strategy of providing a free marketplace of ideas (however stupid) will in general trump the closed debates run by the anonamati.. deep climate, eli rabbit, tamino, etc etc and the controlled debates run by the elite ( RC)“

2. Keith Kloor says:

   January 4, 2011 at 9:55 am

   FWIW: the new “awards” are so named because a pattern by each has been well established.

   Also, I don’t see anything resembling a “controlled debate” on climate change, not with all the various blogs for people to flit back and forth. What annoys me more than anything about comment sections is cheerleading and partisan/ideological tilt, which I see rampant on most popular climate blogs, be it Climate Progress or WUWT. An exception to this is Dot Earth, where a healthy diversity of perspectives is evident.

3. HugeDifference says:

   January 4, 2011 at 10:25 am

   “Also, I don’t see anything resembling a “controlled debate” on climate change, not with all the various blogs for people to flit back and forth. What annoys me more than anything about comment sections is cheerleading and partisan/ideological tilt, which I see rampant on most popular climate blogs, be it Climate Progress or WUWT. An exception to this is Dot Earth, where a healthy diversity of perspectives is evident.”

   What are you asking for?  That blogs should all have moderators that test for diversity and other qualities in a post?

   I gather that WUWT has no moderation at one extreme, RC mostly posts only congratulatory affirming comments at the other extreme, and I’m not sure, but as a NYTime blog, DotEarth has some mysterious (interns?) group of moderators that probably do what you seem to ask for, moderate for diverse (and often bland) viewpoints that are mostly bell curved around the consensus.

   Not sure if that’s what you’re looking for, but I’d hardly consider that to be better.

   I guess I’d rather read Professor Manuel’s comments here than know than discover that because his views of the nature of the sun fall outside the New York Times view of physics (google Robert Goddard New York Times) that his comments never survive moderation because they are so ha, ha, outlandish and break the rules of Physics and only Dr. Einstein can do that. Ha Ha, silly Robert Goddard.
    
   If there is no moderation, or little moderation, how can you be upset with how the comments tilt?
    
   FWIW, I really enjoy (way too much) FARK, where there is almost no moderation, and 99% of everything is said in pseudonymity, and often, quite often, I learn quite a bit from the miscreants of “both sides” that show up there to post.  And it’s funny how often FARK is accused in the comments of being right wing AND being left wing, often in the same thread.
    
   What would your “controlled debate” look like?
    
   (BTW, I sometimes imagine it would might look like a “cross” between the wiki and the Talmud) (http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/web-tech-valencia/all.html) in which a position/statement/blogpost/argument was the central matter, and it was surrounded on one side by supporting commentary and on the other side by opposing commentary, with the best comments of either side as somehow voted by the readers, appearing larger, closer, higher, bolder, etc.)

4. Simon Hopkinson says:

   January 4, 2011 at 11:38 am

   Keith, every climate blog runs the risk of devolving into an echo chamber. Even yours.
    
   But where, in your view, does the debate on the Guardian’s CiF sit? The extremes of environmentalism from the likes of Monbiot and Randerson are invariably countered voluminously in the comments. Do you subscribe to Monbiot’s delusion that his own CACC astroturf organisation is being overwhelmed by an even more effective, yet strangely illusive and unnamed, counter-campaign from deniarrrs?
    
   The Guardian appears to me to be extraordinarily out of step with its readership. It’s a wondrous example of belligerent denial.

5. Keith Kloor says:

   January 4, 2011 at 11:54 am

   Simon, the day my blog becomes an echo chamber would be its last day of operation.

   I don’t read the comment sections of the blogs you mentioned. Except for Dot Earth, I tend not to read the comment sections at newspaper blogs. I gotta draw the line somewhere, or else I’d never sleep.

   HD,

   WUWT and CP pander to their audiences. They know who their readers are and that is reflected well in the comment sections. Best as I can tell, Dot Earth’s readership reflects the NYT readership and Andy’s generally thoughtful and edifying posts often trigger interesting and diverse comments.

6. Simon Hopkinson says:

   January 4, 2011 at 2:31 pm

   Reading the comment sections of blogs is surely key to understanding the blogs themselves? The example I gave – the Graun – is more proof that a blog* is not necessarily geared to the affirmation of its readers’ beliefs. Monbiot’s irrational diatribes of late don’t appear to have harmed the readership numbers. To understand a readership it seems patently obvious that you need to read what the readership says.
    
   * It appears that Monbiot has been moved from the status of journalist to Op Ed columnist (aka blogger). This appears to me to be as a defence against complaints to the press complaints commission regarding factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations in his writing. I could be wrong, and he could have been demoted for different reasons, but the ability to avoid PCC ramifications as a result seems to suit Monbiot’s writing style well.