Hi, in January we traditionally publish a selection of the best blog pieces from the preceding year. This year is no different, so I'm starting this thread to give you all the opportunity to discuss current nominations and make some of your own.

Here is a list from our poll. It is not exhaustive as Club Troppo, our collaborator in this has their own list. Order is order of nomination on our site.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/29/top-10-ways-to-reduce-your-co2-emissions-footprint/

http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=3767

http://laborview.blogspot.com/2008/07/of-saints-and-sinners.html

www.writerunboxed.com/2008/10/08/natural-magic-inspiration-from-the-animal-world/

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/12/whatever-became- of-sin

http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2008/03/introducing-horseshoe-theory.html

http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2008/02/griffith-law-school-leftist-clique.html

http://dont-tell-margaret.zoomshare.com/13.html

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/12/19/david-evans-greenhouse-sceptic-debates-his-views-on-troppo/#comment-337361

http://www.prosper.org.au/2008/08/11/the-great-capital-gains-tax-hoax/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/05/good-news-on-high-fuel-and-food-prices-a-note-from-ian-mott/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/06/stop-complaining-about-the-lower-murray-and-open-the-barrages/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/02/why-i-am-a-dynamist/

i guess im ignorant,but as you posted this 10 hours ago maybe im not alone,..so i will make a response[and a nomination]

first my nomination is my only thread i posted allowed into the forum[the''creationist need not respond,evolutionists present your proof'' debate;]

while many gave up on it
no one actually proved evolution to be a science

at its conclusion it was generaly agreed that while speciation is valid...evolving one genus into an-other genus...has never been scienticilly validated

[considering the many people are decieved into thinking speciation within a genome genus ...to prove'macro-evolution'INTO a new genus[as that is what evolution theorises..[is not proved]

there are huge gaps in the theory[strangly they mostly fall into the gaps between genus]

in fact there are many missing-links[the few put forward have all been disproved[the bird lizard has modern chicken feathers[and lucy is a fraud]

noting of course any response to this comment;should be directed to the topic[not here][a rule i presume based on common courtesy[if not common sense]

im presuming any comment on any debate should not take over this topic....that is[i presume purely for nomination any given olo posting]?..from either the poster or any one else?

im not sure how voting will go
but im sure graham will clarify 'the rules'[i seem to have missed the rules?]

as for the list i havnt checked any out
and im unsure,how i would vote for one anyhow?

there have been other very intresting posts
can i nominate more that one?
can i vote for more than one?

do we have best per topic?
[like a feel good one by foxey or a thoughtfull political one by belly[or a religion or a science one?[best off topic troll?[or most consistant/responsive poster]?

anyhow i responded and nominated

now tell me how to vote[or multivote?]..please[ssir]

cheers graham[please remember the stress involved to writing comments to a moderator are right up there for stress levels]

so thanks for your moderate moderation it has made us more open to each others opinions..[were all grown-ups right][ok im,growing out more than up]

cheers fellow olo'-ers
thanks gray

Haven't read them all, Graham, but will gradually get through them over the next few days, and alter my choice if need be.

So far, the first one, Brave New Climate, is my pick for top of the list.

And Jennifer Marohasy's, Why I am a Dynamist, should definitely stay at the bottom. How such deluded and self indulgent pap got on the list in the first place I'll never know. And how a climate change denier can call herself a dynamist is another mystery.

I liked Bill Muelenbergs "Whatever became of sin".

I have an Oxford Australian Students colour Dictionary and theyve chopped out Sodomy (the act by a man of sodomising another person or child/anal intercourse).

Likewise theyve cut out Beastiality (the act of intercourse with animals).

How are the children to know what is abomination to God and what spreads foul diseases?

I look everywhere and the deviants are rising to power...and teaching 'new flesh' their deviant ways.

I think the conspiracy is greater than Bill Muelenberg thinks and is part of the great moral threat to world society...the fall to come.

Its one of my life observations that many in the artie craftie/photo/academic fields are prone to the deviant thing?

They as a group sure seem happy to dump Holy Bible principles when it suits their tastes.

Thanks Bill for speaking.

Oxford...you smell!

Bronwyn, nominations were open to all, including authors. I agree that the term "dynamism" stinks, but I think Jennifer is more right than wrong on climate.

Graham Y

".. but I think Jennifer is more right than wrong on climate."

With respect, Graham, you would. We're well aware of your fuzzy stand on climate change - the disproportionate number of articles on OLO from climate change sceptics clearly attests to it. Anyone who truly understood the urgency of climate change wouldn't risk muddying the waters by legitimising some of the drivel you have in the past in this critical area.

I'm a clear supporter of all you do here on OLO and I don't like putting the boot in for that reason. But on climate change, I feel quite strongly you've comitted a grave public disservice. There are some cases where freedom of speech arguments won't wash with me and this is one of them.

Gibo

"I liked Bill Muelenbergs 'Whatever became of sin'."

Thanks Gibo, that's one less for me to read. On the strength of your endorsement alone, I know that particular blog won't be anywhere near the top of my list.

Thats alright Bronwyn.

Youre just one of the many who dont want to think about personal sin and a Judgment for it.

Have you seen Mary K. Baxters revelation of hell?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477673356766932160

It sure changed many hearts towards The Lord over several decades.

Gibo,

Are you one of these types that like to look up all the rude things in dictonaries? Expecting to find that in a dictonary aimed at Children? I suppose being a colour dictonary it has illustrations. Were you expecting to see pictures of this?

Ah haa hahaha. That gave me a real chuckle Bronwyn. I have this mental picture of your boot sinking into Graham’s backside with such force that it sent him flying twenty metres and ending up in a crumpled mangled heap!

Snort, grumble, grunt. Clp clup clup clup (the run-up) Booooooot eeeeeeooouuuuuuur thudflupflupflup. ( : ~ {

However I don’t have any criticism of him regarding the apparently disproportionate presentation of articles on the sceptic’s side of the climate change issue….although I’m open to it if I had a bit more information…

Do we know what the ratio of articles submitted to OLO is on each side of this debate? Do we know whether Graham has rejected any? Is there a requirement, by way of a philosophical or moral position, to present just the same number of articles on each side of the debate, or to present a majority on the pro-action side? If more articles are presented that run counter to the dominant belief paradigm, doesn’t this just give us more food for thought and comment, as opposed to articles with which the majority of respondents would just agree?

In the time I’ve been on OLO (3 years), I’ve seen many more articles that just accept continuous population and economic growth than ones that question it. As you know, I think that this acceptance and even promotion of continuous expansion is the most fundamental error in thinking amongst the many learnEd authors on this forum.

But I don’t see this presentation of articles as a bias on Graham’s part. It is just the dominant mindset.

So in just the same way, I reckon we’ve got to expect the majority of climate change articles to uphold the growthist philosophy and thus be very sceptical of climate change or anything done to address it that would threaten economic growth and human expansionism.

But yes, I do agree that Marohasy’s blog should come right at the bottom of the list.

Ludwig

"I have this mental picture of your boot sinking into Graham’s backside with such force that it sent him flying twenty metres and ending up in a crumpled mangled heap!"

Ah, Ludwig, LOL. I know I get a bit carried away at times, but I'm not too worried at the thought of Graham painfully reeling from the force of my boot! It is after all a fairly small boot and I'm sure his backside is more than tough enough to withstand the impact!

"If more articles are presented that run counter to the dominant belief paradigm, doesn’t this just give us more food for thought and comment, as opposed to articles with which the majority of respondents would just agree?"

I agree totally - on all issues, except climate change. Articles questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, in my view, only risk adding further to the complaceny and inertia already preventing the world from taking the tough action required to save the planet.

We mightn't all agree on all the data and all the reasons behind the changes we are living through, but the situation is so urgent that we owe it to future generations to adopt the precautionary principle and get on board regardless. We don't have the luxury of time to sit round and debate the finer points.

Much of the computer modelling and the time scales previously predicted are already proving to have woefully underestimated the speed at which change would occur. The artic ice melt is occurring decades in advance of earlier estimates as are many of the other indicators.

The overwhelming majority of people want tougher action. This to me is one area where we just cannot afford to give the flat-earthers a wedge to splinter community consensus and delay urgently-required action.

Anyone still persuaded by the need to give sceptics a platform on this issue should have a look at 'Climate Wars' by Gwynne Dyer, or 'Now or Never: A Sustainable Future for Australia' by Tim Flannery, or www.climatecodered.net.

Sorry Ludwig, I've got carried away again!

'The overwhelming majority of people want tougher action.'

Perhaps you move in social circles where this is the case, or believe what people say in polls is what they will do. I can guarantee you if the government crippled the energy industries in the name of AGW, or trippled the price of petrol, they would get a very swift boot up the backside next election.