Pay no attention to that...GIANT ICEBERG ATTACKING AUSTRALIA!!!!
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Pay no attention to that...GIANT ICEBERG ATTACKING AUSTRALIA!!!!
Now that Sarah Palin has weighed in with her fact-free, ripped-from-the-Facebook-headlines Washington Post op-ed, I'm convinced that manmade global warming is a hoax and....wait, does anyone else hear the music from "Jaws"...Oh no!
A giant iceberg double the size of Sydney Harbour is on a slow but steady collision course with Australia, scientists have said.
The mammoth chunk of ice, which measures 12 miles long and five miles wide, was spotted floating surprisingly close to the mainland by scientists at the Australian Antarctic Division (ADD).
But this has nothing to do with global warming, right?
Dr Young said sightings of large icebergs could become more frequent if sea temperatures rise through global warming.
But Sarah Palin has told me not to worry -- even though she experienced shrinking glaciers and permafrost in her home state of Alaska. But who are you going to believe -- Sarah Palin's own lyin' eyes, or a killer iceberg zeroing in on Australia?
Comments (66)
I don't and can't deny the earth is getting warmer but the effect that man has on global warming cannot be proved. The only thing proven by global warming is that Al Gore is a dope. It is one thing to say man may have an effect on global warming but quite another to charge man with killing the planet and focusing on changes that may cripple the economies of many countries, even further than they are today. What many of the crazed global warming experts fail to acknowledge is that the earth, for millions of years, has gone through periodic increases and decreases in temperature. This occurred long before the first Hummer rolled off the assembly line. What is your carbon footprint Will? I guess it will go down when the Inky goes out of business as a few more trees will be saved.— 23- What does Sarah Palin have to do with this?— IggleFan68
"What many of the crazed global warming experts fail to acknowledge is that the earth, for millions of years,......" . . . . . But isn't the data regarding earth's age cooked up to discredit religion and make us all socialist zombies?- Iggle -- all that hot air is contributing to the problem. We were cooler when she kept it in her head. 23 you can keep denying science, but in the meantime, if I were you, I'd take swimming lessons
Comment removed.- I'll keep pointing it out for the slow neocons. The country usually raises one degree every 2250 years and it has risen one degree in the last century. It coincindes with the industrial revolution. No collection, right? I blame the 6000 year old dinosaurs and that Bible that should be taken literally.— HandNik
- Creation science (which Palin wants taught in public schools) believes the earth's geology was formed in one year by a great Flood. We don't need to hack any e-mails to find out why....... "If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis... then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, will collapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism, humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation". -Henry Morris
An iceberg has broken off and floated away? Unprecedented! Igglefan68: Didn't you know, in the lefty world, Sarah Palin has everything to do with everything.— jmc- IggleFan it's called the Straw man Fallacy ....http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html— apropose
- Apparently Palin's entry into this debate isn't so welcome? LOL
Listen to Will, complaining about someone writing a "fact free" opinion piece. Pot, meet kettle!— rudytbone- ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz— CROSSI
- Comment removed.
- HandNik - question, since you post this on a regular basis that the country raises one degree every 2250 years. Tell me how the information was gathered for this statistic to be determined and to have such accuracy that you can estimate it to the exact degree from before Christ? As for Will - Alot of the northeast US is glacial till from large glaciers covering over areas from the northeast - this has happened for millions of years, it's science. You grasping for straws is so comical it is a great laugh to start my day - you search the internet night and day and look for the most pathetic things to say, "look normal temp in Philly this year is suppose it be 42 and it is 45 today - explain no global warming to me now!" Do you have any idea how much technology has advanced from the industrial era - it is astonishing and would make your head spin. As for the neocon name calling put forth by that elegant statesman HandNik - the EPA was proposed and started by a Republician. So the neocon, idiot reference - need to ask TPS for a new talking points bullet my friend.— reddog44
- "An iceberg has broken off and floated away? Unprecedented!" . . . I don't think it matches the record, iceberg B-15, about the size of South Jersey.
- Perhaps an iceberg has appeared in the harbor because the Antartic icepack has grown to it's largest recorded size ever and there is more ice closer to warmer water available to break free? Anecdotal evidence is so convincing!— rudytbone
- Handnik....the 1 Celsius degree/2250 years number is ludicrous. Data published by AGW high priests (IPCC) refutes this (current warming trend from Little Ice Age, 0.6 C change in 70 years, ref.: Climate Change: IPCC Assessment, 1990). Sorry for the old reference but this inconvenient graph (European temperatures, 900-1950 A.D.) has long been removed from the AGW reports. The AGWers still fail to get the point. Their simulations have uncertainty values as large as or larger than their predicted results. This is their only evidence of human culpability in the climate and it is mathematical garbage! Just because you use math doesn’t mean you are doing science. Also, I hope this iceberg appears in the next ’Whale Wars’.— Joe Funk
- "Alot of the northeast US is glacial till from large glaciers covering over areas from the northeast" . . . . . Which explains the unprecedented break up of the Antarctic ice shelf. You see Will, it's science!
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Antartic icepack has grown to it's largest recorded size" . . . . . Not because it's any colder, but because there's more moisture in the polar region, a by-product of a warming climate in the Southern hemisphere.
- Comment removed.
- "Love the smarminess of the remarks when the 'nuts and 'bags have no real relevant comment to make in the face of the (daily) mounting evidence." Mounting evidence that ice melts. The burden of proof is on your side since you want to propose top down solutions to save us all from a calamity predicted by a model that couldn't even forsee the stall in warming the last decade. And look up Yamal tree controversy, Hansen's GISS revisions, the hockey stick graph controversy, etc. to see a pattern here. Interested parties refusing to share data so the study can be verified. That is far from science. But hey, if melting ice makes you panic, by a freakin bike, don't impose your nonsense on me.— RG
- Nothing like posting only part of the story, Will: "However, Dr Young said the iceberg was unlikely to hit the Australian mainland. If it continued on its path north, it would eventually break up into hundreds of smaller icebergs, he said. "As the waters warm, the iceberg will thin out, so it is not going to get to Australia, the further north it goes, the more it break up," he said. " Why didn't you mention that relevant info, Will? Instead of frothing at the mouth to counterattack Sarah Palin? Oh, and regarding this quote: "Dr Young said sightings of large icebergs could become more frequent if sea temperatures rise through global warming." Could, Will ... could, could, could. And mankind could be wiped out if an asteroid hits the planet. Considering that the globe has not warmed over the last decade, COULD is about all the AGW types have lately to scare people.— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- While I usually completely disagree with many things Will says, this one I at least partially agree (Palin is a fool by the way). There is a massive amount of evidence to support global warming but at the same time, it's not all manmade. The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. Should we be more environmentally concious and seek alternative fuels that are more friendly to the Earth, absolutely. But our main focus in doing so should be to put the terrorist supporting countries of the Middle East to bed finally.
- Comment removed.
- "There is a massive amount of evidence to support global warming but at the same time, it's not all manmade. The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. " And Palin has said exactly that in her Wash Post Op-Ed: "That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure. But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402.html Don't be like Will in not having the entire story straight yourself when you comment on it. Although in your case, that is probably accidental, while in Will's case it is probably deliberate.— db_cooper
- Why do liberals have a hard time understanding that not everyone believes this? This is NOT a "flat earth" or "denying gravity" argument. There IS disagreement in the scientific community about whether global warming exists, and whether climate change is significantly due to man-related activities. The scientific community who believes in man-made climate change has FAILED to successfully communicate exactly what is changing, why, how man's activities has contributed to it, and why the fix is what they say it needs to be. They have further clouded the issue by politicizing it from the very beginning, and having Al Gore as your chief spokesperson who made a "scare them back to dark ages" movie does not help. Nor does the absolute hypocrisy of the people like Al Gore want to pass rules that impact everyone else other then them. It also doesn't help to demean people who challenge your data and conclusions. Reasonable people are left questioning what the heck to believe. It SEEMS reasonable that pouring tons of pollution into the environment is bad. But it does not seem reasonable that if we don't make a decision to make radical changes in the next 15 minutes, that we have lost our opportunity and the world will become a disaster. Reasonable people know that our weather forecasters can't accurately predict weather in a very specific location with any degree of accuracy beyond 3 days. How is it then believable that people could predict what is going to happen 1-5-10-20-100 years down the line? Particularly when climate events in the past are poorly understood? The point: reasonable people can disagree on this, and the scientific community should spend more time focusing on coherently explaining this, explaining what their data sources are, how they get them, how their conclusions are reached and why they are valid.— IggleFan68
- "Now that Sarah Palin has weighed in with her fact-free," And your "fact-free" link goes to Media Matters, and just a casual reading of it reveals them to be engaging in full-scale spin themselves, along with the most powerful lie of all, omissions - for example, when they claim that there was no effort to re-work the peer review process, they don't mention all of the emails in question, just one.— db_cooper
- Will, please stop making this political. Nobody is denying there has been tiny (by measure of the overall picture) changes in temperature on the planet. What is the argument is if man has had any impact. The evidence is inconclusive at best, and the arguement is a logical nightmare at worse. As someone whos industry benefits greatly from global warming fantatics I still have seen nothing to convince me that A) it is man made, or B) is as significant and horrendus as some say. The big issue here is this, okay lets error on the side of caution and say something needs to be done. Reducing our emissions has other benefits (public health, energy independence, etc) so even though it adds a carbon tax (via the shell game that is cap and trade) in the end it will ultimately help. However by painting dissenters as crazies you sound the same as creationist fantatics who wont listen to the rational arguement of evolution. Additionally, if something needs to be done, we should not just address the problem from the standpoint that man is the cause, and there will be a disater. What if man isnt the cause and there will still be a disaster, should we figure out a way to cool, or reengineer the climate of our planet if it is so serious? This is something climatologist rarely mention, which clearly indicates some bias towards the whole clean energy and carbon tax movement, above the actual science.— Greg S
- Shallow, even for liberals. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/2005-01-20-1956-antarctic-iceberg_x.htm— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Thanks for the iceberg historical link, tr88. From that link: ""According to the United States Navy sailing directions for Antarctica, the largest berg hitherto reported was that seen Jan. 7, 1927, off Clarence Island by the Norwegian whale catcher Obb I. The ship said it was 130 feet high and roughly 100 miles long" 1927. Will: "But this has nothing to do with global warming, right?" Still want to spin the story this way, Will, given this historical evidence? How about this evidence? [3] "In 1893 (after arriving in Nelson in September 92), the iron sailing ship "Margaret Galbraith" was homeward bound around Cape Horn. Mr. N.H. Burgess the 2nd Officer reported that from three days north of the Falklands to about one weeks sailing north of the Falklands they were "among the ice," which culminated with a days sailing past a single giant berg "40 to 50 miles long," http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/Iceberg.htm 1893, Will. You really should stop your anti-Palin hyperventialting long enough to read and validate your positions and the positions taken by what you link to. Or is such no longer needed in this day and age of journalism?— db_cooper
- LOL! Yesterday, db was on here telling us not to criticize Palin's weighing in on global warming - because Gore didn't graduate divinity school. And today db's hyperventilating because Will had the gall to criticize Palin yet again. Nothing get's db's dander up quite like a criticism of Palin. Besides, everyone knows Palin really is an expert on the topic. I mean she attended, what, four colleges, right? And she does live in the state closest to Russia.— Talking point sleuth
- "its CEO blames environmentalists dead-set against mountaintop mining who have waged “nuisance” lawsuits for the job loss"....." . . . . How ironic. Ask the good CEO how many mining jobs have already been lost to mountain-top removal methods?
- Say - a question for our beloved Attytood deniers. If the data which show unprecedented warming recently are trumped up and false, how do you explain animal migratory changes and changes in flora that are consistent with a warming trend? From what I've read, there is a very significant amount of evidence of such changes. Lindzen was on the radio today saying that we've had, in the last 100 years or so, alternating decades of warming and cooling. If that were the case, there would be no such prevailing trend in migration of plant and animal life.— Talking point sleuth
- "LOL! Yesterday, db was on here telling us not to criticize Palin's weighing in on global warming - because Gore didn't graduate divinity school. " Uh, no, TPS. You were making an issue of her academic background to disparage Palin's qualifications to comment on the subject, and you mentioned Al Gore, whereas I pointed out that Al had a BA in government and dropped out of divinity school. What is this thread, the undead thread of pointless (and factless) liberal AGW counterattacks?— db_cooper
- Love the smarminess of the remarks when the 'nuts and 'bags have no real relevant comment to make in the face of the (daily) mounting evidence.As opposed to the relevant comment you present.— (reeducated)Yankee Air Pirate
- "how do you explain animal migratory changes and changes in flora that are consistent with a warming trend?" Even if theis were true, a) can it be attributed to AGW b) do we know what the ideal migratory patterns should be? and c) should we sacrifice human well being for animal well being? Remember, those propsoing top down mandatory change carry the burden of proof.— RG
- "If the data which show unprecedented warming recently are trumped up and false, how do you explain animal migratory changes and changes in flora that are consistent with a warming trend?" False front, TPS. There has been some warming since 1850. The question is, has human activity caused any or all of it. Palin said exactly that in her Wash Post editorial. And the warming has stalled over the last decade - is that triggered by the deep solar minimum of late? You know, real scientific questions, as opposed to the bad statistical science being bandied about by many AGW proponents - such as Hansen's hockey stick graph that tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (and make the recent warming seem more notable as a result) - when it turns out the algorithm turns out a hockey-stick shape from a random Monte Carlo test data set.— db_cooper
- ROFLMAO! ooooooooo y'all sooooo serious!!! The boring old right wingies gettin there granny pannys all in a bunch! HAHA! It's a kool article - and it will be interesting to see what actually becomes of some of these gigantic blocks of ice floating around out there.— MnsaChk
- db. I never defended Gore - the reason being that he is a non-expert. I criticized Palin for being a non-expert, and you weighed in to say "Na, na, Gore isn't an expert either." So, outside of "Oh yeah, well you're a bigger one" justifications, obviously, there is no reason why Palin should be weighing in on the debate - except if she is seeking to capitalize on the politics involved to promote her book sales and her future candidacy. Nice. Exploiting an important scientific debate for her own personal gain. No wonder you're such a die-hard supporter.— Talking point sleuth
- "The boring old right wingies gettin there granny pannys all in a bunch! HAHA! " We're not the ones who took what is basically a non-story (Antarctica creates icebegs, man bites dog) and turned it into a baseless attack on Sarah Palin. "It's a kool article - and it will be interesting to see what actually becomes of some of these gigantic blocks of ice floating around out there." Try reading the entire article, then - the same scientist says the iceberg in question will break up into small pieces as it drifts northwards. As they have for years.— db_cooper
- db_cooper- Although Will is clearly overstating the "Jaws" effect here; the collision with Australia is not the issue. If you don't see the ominous nature of MASSIVE chunks of previous ice-shelf free flowing through our waterways, then I can't help you. The boneheaded obsesssion with holes in the global warming theory will cause more damage than anyone can imagine; even Al Gore. He should have thought about this before putting all his eggs in that one basket.— pagoda
- }}}--- is that triggered by the deep solar minimum of late? ---{{{ Oh brother. This one again, eh? The theories are that given the drop in solar output, if solar input were the driving variable as it has been in the past, without the increased CO2, we would have seen cooling lately, not a leveling off at temps that are still among the highest in recorded history. Why do you need to have the same points made over and over? If you don't accept the arguments, fine. But you act as if you've never even hear them. Why is that?— Talking point sleuth
- "I never defended Gore" No, but you mentioned him in your post attacking Palin's academic credentials, TPS. Which is why I responded to your post in the manner I did. And last I checked, no one in the AGW movment calls into question Al Gore's academic credentials when he speaks out on global warming.— db_cooper
- Apparently you missed the point, RG. Lindzen said that there have been alternating decades of warming and cooling - focusing on the short-term variability rather than the longer-term trend. If there were nothing other than non-anomalous variability, then the changes in flora and fauna, consistent with an overall trend of warming, would not be evidenced. I have no idea what your "ideal" response had to do with the question. The point is that experts like Lindzen are saying that there has been no significant trend of warming (listen to Smerconish's radio program), while there have been some insignificant short-term trends. His explanation would not account for plant life and animal life displaying characteristics which are unprecedented in recorded human history - trends which are consistent with an overall trend of global warming. If you can't answer the question, then why bother to respond? And who said anything about changing our own behavior to prevent changes in animal and plant life? A complete red herring.— Talking point sleuth
- LOL! I mentioned Gore because I was pointing out that non-experts like him are not valuable within the scientific debate. And I was, consistently, applying the same reasoning to Palin. In contrast, you are defending the involvement of a non-expert in Palin, while critical of Gore because of his lack of expertise Sheece. I get it, db: You're gaga over Palin. But that doesn't justify her using the global warming debate as a platform for pushing her agenda of personal gain.— Talking point sleuth
- "His explanation would not account for plant life and animal life displaying characteristics which are unprecedented in recorded human history" Yes, recorded animal migration trends are robust and accurate going back 2000 years.— RG
- "I mentioned Gore because I was pointing out that non-experts like him are not valuable within the scientific debate." And you're wrong. The vast majority of people don't pay attention to someone unless they are not a celebrity, whether you like that idea or not. The question then becomes, does the celebrity in question have their facts straight or not, and are they gaining monetarily from what they are proposing or endorsing. In the case of Al Gore, he is deeply invested in AGW-related business, so he has a very deep vested interest. Whereas Palin keeps her name in the papers, motivates the base and sells books, but will not profit directly from carbon trading or other such measures the way Gore does. Big difference.— db_cooper
- "If you don't see the ominous nature of MASSIVE chunks of previous ice-shelf free flowing through our waterways, then I can't help you." See my post from 9:42. Massive chunks of ice shelf have been observed floating about the Antarctic since man discovered it. And it is highly relevant to see if there are serious issues in AGW science, given the massive economic impacts that are being proposed. I'm not convinced, given the paleoclimatological record - rapid warming and cooling has happened often over the last few million years. So is the warming we have seen natural or human caused or a mix? The CO2 warming models did not predict the levelling off of warming (and perhaps even a slight decline) over the last decade. The infamous hockey stick graph of climate data produces that shape even if you feed random numbers into it. Yet I am supposed to just accept the notion of government forcing massive economic shifts when there are such glaring holes in the AGW science?— db_cooper
- "The vast majority of people don't pay attention to someone unless they are not a celebrity" Oops, should have been 'are a celebrity".— db_cooper
- db, you seem to think that there are no economic incentives to question or disprove AGW. None for Palin, none for scientists. Do you think energy and other corporaste interests are in collusion with global warming alarmists, and why?
- "db, you seem to think that there are no economic incentives to question or disprove AGW." The incentives go both ways. You don't get grants, speaking engagements in front of world leaders, and professional prestige for saying "We can't see a trend, nor do we know if its driven by man's actions".— RG
- Comment removed.
- What I really find distastful about liberals, generall speaking, is how intellectually superior they think they and then to prove it they throw out such such a simplistic, illogical non-scientific argument like there is a big iceberg floating towards Australia so that proves AGW is real. Sarah Palin is dumb but Al Gore (Nobel laureate and Academy Award Winner) is smart when they both have similar non-scientific grasp of the issues surrounding global warming? It's purely political spin and media disinformation.— tr88
- "db, you seem to think that there are no economic incentives to question or disprove AGW." Where did I say that? I said in comparing Gore versus Palin as high profile commentators on the subject, Gore has direct, vested business interests (carbon credits, for example), whereas Palin's financail interest is highly indirect. I believe there also used to be a lot more corporate money being spent to disprove AGW, but that has both diminished and been dwarfed by the amount of government money going into climate change research. In addition, a lot of corporations now want cap-and-trade, because they realize all the money that could be made controlling the availability of the world's supplies of fossil fuels. Cap and trade is a stupendously bad idea because of all the opportunities for mischief and enrichment of many of the same parties that brought us the financial meltdown (while getting bailed out).— db_cooper
- "What I really find distastful about liberals, generall speaking, is how intellectually superior they think they and then to prove it they throw out such such a simplistic, illogical non-scientific argument like there is a big iceberg floating towards Australia so that proves AGW is real." And when just a simple Google search can reveal documented history of big icebergs over 100 years ago. Yet here the claim is posted as irrefutable proof of AGW - on a website for one of a major metropolitan area's newspapers - along with a link to a poorly-spun Media Matters story that can be unwound with just a casual knowledge of the CRU email story. And yet, MSM reporters wonder why they are losing ground...— db_cooper
- "Creation science (which Palin wants taught in public schools) believes the earth's geology was formed in one year by a great Flood. " That's a generalization. There are three basic veins of thought here - intelligent design, creationsim and young Earth creationism. Intelligent design postulates that God has a hand in speciation. Creationism believes that God create the Earth and the universe but allows for interpretation that the seven days mentioned in Genesis could actually mean something else, such as billions of years. Young Earthers are the ones who believe it all has happened in the last 6,000 years, and I do agree those folks are largely nutbars - they have the Atlantic Ocean opening up in a year to explain continental drift, for example. I've seen Palin mention creationism and ID as saying they could be taught in schools along with evolution, but I don't see anywhere that she is a Young Earth type - just speculation that she might be. Personally, I adhere to an evolutionist viewpoint, but intelligent design per se is not an affront to the geological record the way Young Earth creationism is (I see simple creationism as being an attempt of someone to reconcile science and faith within their own viewpoints). If you can show where Palin is verifiably quoted as believing in young Earth creationism, please provide the link.— db_cooper
- --snip-- Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- "recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska." Real unbiased secondhand source, there, TPS. How about something from a direct interview with Palin?— db_cooper
- From Palin's very own book: She doesn't "believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”— Talking point sleuth
- "From Palin's very own book: She doesn't "believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”" That's still not Young Earth creationism.— db_cooper
- }}}--- That's still not Young Earth creationism. ---{{{ Indeed, db. So, we have evidence from a questionable source. And although she's been interviewed extensively by favorable news media outlets, she has never stated, one way or the other, conclusively, whether she thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah actually floated around on a boat with animals and plants of every species on the planet, etc. Interesting, isn't that? She writes an op-ed for the WaPo on the climate debate, a subject where she has absolutely no expertise, yet somehow manages to not state her opinion on a major component of religion debates, despite talking about the importance of her religious beliefs over and over and over. LOL! Seriously, db, your support for Palin is surprising. She's toxic to any concept of legitimate debate and above-board politics.— Talking point sleuth
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: