http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/11/cast_your_vote_for_real_scienc.php

 

Conservative bloggers (more here) have helped push Steve McIntyre's pseudoscience blog http://climateaudit.org to the top of the vote for the 2007 Science Weblog Awards.

 

Here's a writeup on some of the pseudoscience Steve McIntyre has tried to push, for those interested:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/the_mcintyre_factor.php

 

Steve McIntyre is a former mining executive with no climate science background. His writing on climate science has thus far been limited to his blog and the non-peer reviewed conservative journal Energy & Environment:

 

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/business/pt_wsj.html

 

First, I'd like to encourage everyone to vote for a real science blog, such as Bad Astronomy. Second, why is it that these political blogs have taken an interest enough to vote a political pseudoscience site to the top of a poll about science blogs? Are these people scared of the conclusions of science? I think so.

Frankly, science isn't done by vote. What is most scary about this to me is that this is one of the primary ways the populace receives it's science information, and these blogs can say anything... No peer review.

 

 

Did you hear? Purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. It's true! I read it on climateaudit.org, and that's a science site!

Yeah, you know I like healthy skepticism, but I expect it to play by the rules and this crap is circumventing the scientific method - which means it's worthless to me.

 

This is a problem within conservatives. This creepy denial system based on fighting science. They make it feel noble with emotional appeals sprinkled with rebellion psychology.