Reader “Andrew” asks in comments:
Andrew Submitted on 2011/10/05 at 10:55 am
We can always check on hits to climate blogs/sites. I’ll bet there already down on ALL pro and con AGW/climate sites (maybe ask Anthony to provide data comparing all sites with say, same of a year ago). Interest in these sort of issues nearly always fade away, especially when there is nothing on note happening with the weather etc .
Happy to oblige. Here’s the current ranking and past numbers of skeptic/lukewarmer sites compared to the “premier” site, realclimate.org, run by “real climate scientists” and others.
Traffic rankings on October 5th, 2011:
Site Information for realclimate.org
Alexa Traffic Rank: Global Rank,181,105 Traffic Rank in US: 98,924
Sites Linking In: 4,036
Statistics Summary for climateaudit.org
Alexa Traffic Rank Global Rank 94,096 Rank in US 35,748
Sites Linking In 1,602
Statistics Summary for judithcurry.com
Alexa Traffic Rank Global Rank 144,262 Rank in US 37,218
Sites Linking In: 409
Statistics Summary for skepticalscience.com
Alexa Traffic Rank Global Rank 100,778 Rank in US 43,144
Sites Linking In: 1,776
Site Information for wattsupwiththat.com
Alexa Traffic Rank: Global Rank 17,087 Traffic Rank in US: 7001
Sites Linking In: 4,093
And the summary graph for the past year:
As a side note, one thing I’m particularly amused at is the difference in rankings in New Zealand. You see, Gareth Renowden, a truffle farmer who runs the website hot-topic.co.nz who has in the past referred to WUWT as µWatts (microwatts) seems to think he’s reaching a lot of people, much like John Cook of Skeptical Science. The numbers are quite interesting, it seems I’m not the one with the traffic rank in six plus digits.
He seems to have the traffic numbers for the basis of that µWatts label inverted:
Now compare that to WUWT’s rank in New Zealand:
Hmm, WUWT is beating him at his own game in his own country, 490 to 8,788. I hate it when that happens. Or as he puts it- Savaged by a dead sheep. Indeed not. Of course Gareth may simply be confused over the fact that in the Alexa traffic rank scheme, lower numbers are better.
h/t to Charles The Moderator for the tabular summary.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“As a side note, one thing I’m particularly amused at is the difference in rankings in New Zealand. You see, Gareth Renowden, a truffle farmer .. who has in the past referred to WUWT as µWatts (microwatts) seems to think he’s reaching a lot of people, much like John Cook of Skeptical Science..”
It seems that Gareth is not very renowned then?
Almost like that gaggle can’t tell when their graphs are spliced in upside down. Shame if that were really the case, yeah?
Perhaps Gareth Renowden Takes the difference in traffic and inverts the sign. This seems to be a familiar AGW proponent trick after all.
Congratulations on an excellent site that you hold open to opinions of all stripes provided they genuinely advance the discussion.
Nick.
[How about reposting this under Tips and Notes? -REP]
Congratulations to all, including CTM. I find it hilarious that ClimateAudit still draws more traffic than SkS or RC or Judith Curry.
w.
Anthony, are you implying that the the alternate moniker should be megaWatts instead of microWatts? LOL
Despite being a New Zealander and in the energy business, I have never heard of Gareth until now. Does that make him a legend in his own mind? From the look and info on his site, it isn’t hard to see why he inhabits the outer reaches of the bloggosphere. Long may he orbit there.
Just because WUWT out shines the others by more than an order of magnitude, we must remain diligent and keep the AGW trolls in check. A small cadre of ignorant fools can still do substantial damage.
“[How about reposting this under Tips and Notes? -REP]”
Can you repost it for me thanks? You snipped it and I dont have it anymore. Could reconstruct – but I’m lazy
[REPLY: Why did I know this was coming? I can’t move a comment, but I DID copy it to my clipboard. Create an entry in Tips and Notes and I’ll copy it back in. Deal? -REP]
As a Kiwi and regular blogger at NZ’s best climate site, Climate Conversation Group, I have long been aware of Hot-Topic’s pathetic standing, and Renowden’s vinegar rhetoric. Btw, a truffle farmer is a pensioner retiree who blogs all day and a few times a year goes poking around in his one-acre truffle orchard to see if he can dig up some supplementary income, hopeful that the rabbits haven’t got there first.
I just stumbled across a series of videos on Youtube, called Youtube Worldview: The biggest problem facing the next generation. A lot of celebrities and elder statesmen etc are asked the question, I clicked through a dozen of them and the only one I could find who mentioned Climate Change prominently was Peter Gabriel. It seemed to me that everybody else wants to avoid that theme at all costs.
It’s dead, completely dead. Only Peter Gabriel didn’t notice.
Alexa thinks New Zealand, Australia and Finland are regional?
To show our appreciation to this fine website, please click on the ads (google ad-sense) to send Anthony some Love…
I love Gareth’s (borrowed) list of impacts.
These include:
Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States
Permanent Dust Bowl conditions over the U.S. Southwest and many other heavily populated regions around the globe
Sea level rise of around 1 foot by 2050, then 4 to 6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
Massive species loss on land and sea — perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity
Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”
Much more extreme weather
Food insecurity — the increasingly difficult task of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, and then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.
Myriad direct health impacts
Is any of this supported by crediable research or is it mostly a result of assuming worse case increases in temp spit out by the models and then speculating what “might” happen?
Even if you accept the world’s climate is warming due to human activities, how can one believe that it will result in catastrophy? Where is the evidence?
PaulR says:
October 5, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Alexa thinks New Zealand, Australia and Finland are regional?
==================================================
Geography…..pppffffttt…….
From late 2009 on, the summary plot for WUWT is identical to Mann’s hockey stick, only inverted. Such exquisite irony!
Toujours l’audace! As a discriminating, ie. sentient, observer of the noosphere, we note that der grosse General von Watts displays a Napoleonic ability to lead a charge while maneuvering Left, Right, and Center against onrushing Climate Barbarians. Varus, thou shouldst be living in this hour.
Mike Jowsey – maybe the rabbits do get em and thats what makes him so sour
Can I point out Anthony that as a regular poster on your esteemed site, that I and another person are completely different Gareths? Just in case there is any confusion!
I think Alexa data is only logged for those that have the Alexa toolbar installed. I don’t know how it affects the overall positions. I presume that high-traffic sites like WUWT get a fairly representative view from Alexa, but I am not sure about the lesser ones.
I did read some comments on hot-topic.co.nz that they were all far too intelligent to have such ghastly things as toolbars installed, hence the values were not representative.
I don’t think that trafic rankings are a good indicator for interest in a website. I use RSS to monitor new posts on WUWT and CA among others. WUWT has serveral posts a day, CA about once or twice a week. So I visit several pages at WUWT a day and only a couple a week at CA. That doesn’t make CA less interesting.
I think trafic ranking / new posts is a better indicator.
[Reply: One of the best traffic measures: in less than 5 years WUWT has received over 675,000 reader comments. ~dbs, mod.]
“100 Giga watts?!!! 100 GIGA WATTS! Where am I going to get a power source like that?” (“The DOC”, in Back to the Future 1.)
If he’d known about WUWT he’d have had no problem.
ClimateAudit’s ranking is amazing. It has got to be one of the geekiest sites out there (in a good way) and yet it outranks RC, SkS, and ClimateEtc. That’s some serious credibility.
[SNIP: Your drive-by snark is juvenile and tiresome. Why not participate? -REP]
Whoa…whoa…whoa! According to skepticalscience’s model they’re beating you badly Anthony, sorry to say.
[REPLY: Anthony provides verifiable statistics. Do you have a verifiable link? -REP]