From The Legend of the Titanic at RealClimate (bold mine):
However, if the notion that information makes little impact is correct, one may wonder what the point would be in having a debate about climate change, and why certain organisations would put so much efforts into denial, as described in books such as Heat is on, Climate Cover-up, Republican war on science, Merchants of doubt, and The Hockeystick and Climate Wars. Why then, would there be such things as ‘the Heartland Institute’, ‘NIPCC’, climateaudit, WUWT, climatedepot, and FoS, if they had no effect? And indeed, the IPCC reports and the reports from the National Academy of Sciences? One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.
Look at the data, then you be the judge:
From Alexa.com – note that the lower number for traffic rank is better
(Google is traffic rank #1 for example)
Source for comparisons: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com+realclimate.org#
Seems like an order of magnitude slam dunk to me, RC can’t even get out of the grass at greater than 100,000 traffic rank…they aren’t even being tracked anymore. Here’s the last 6 months:
Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/realclimate.org#
Rasmus goes on to say at RC:
What do I think? Public opinion is changed not by big events as such, but by the public interpretation of those events. Whether a major event like hurricane Katrina or the Moscow heat wave changes attitudes towards climate change is determined by people’s interpretation of this event, and whether they draw a connection to climate change – though not necessarily directly. I see this as a major reason why organisations such as the Heartland are fighting their PR battle by claiming that such events are all natural and have nothing to do with emissions.
The similarity between these organisations and the Titanic legend is that there was a widespread misconception that it could not sink (and hence it’s fame) and now organisations like the Heartland make dismissive claims about any connection between big events and climate change. However, new and emerging science is suggesting that there may indeed be some connections between global warming and heat waves and between trends in mean precipitation and more extreme rainfall.
This is a good time to remind readers and the few remaining RC denizens of why Rasmus Benestad is clueless on the “emerging science” of severe weather = climate change:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As always, the left/alarmist denizens are entirely clueless about history.
The Titanic is not a legend.It broke in half and sank via an ice berg just as CAGW will.
gavin is right about one thing- the more information I attempt to present to AGW True Believers, the more they shriek their ignorance back at me.
Yes, gavin, since ‘PR wars’ were more important to you than REAL science (such as the increasing number of peer-reviewed papers showing NEGATIVE feedbacks), you HAVE lost- just too bad it is going to take an entire generation to get a lot of people’s thinking back on track.
The love of theory ..
Don’t worry Rasmus, the science is in and it is settled. It was a complete waste of time.
The similarity is between climate models and the Titanic, as Rasmus puts it “a widespread misconception that it (they) could not sink” .
Physics meets reality.
“…new and emerging science is suggesting that there may indeed be some connections…”
I think that sums it up pretty well.
I don’t think they should feel too bad about their ratings as compared to WUWT. The fact is that there is little need for warmist websites. We get all the warmist stuff we want or need from the mainstream media. If the CBC were skeptic, or even neutral I might not feel the need for a fix of rampant skepticism form WUWT with my morning coffee.
Seems to me the market for BS (Bad Science) is evaporating.
cool. the question has been breached. must be the answer passed by a few times for that to happen, eh?
WUWT has done more (i.e., alerted us to and prevented much damage) than all the protest.the.protest donation sponges having catered lunches with astronauts and pretending to be influential among themselves.
WUWT works. It has an inspired crew who knows what they are about. Sharp focus, relentless scrutiny and a frumious BS button. And the mods are the best i’ve ever seen anywhere.
Thanks. Nobody else does it like you do.
“One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.”
Yes it has been. Enjoy your loneliness. Now about refunding all the money you took from taxpayers to do your site on the taxpayers dime?
RC was in a basic catch-22 situation. If they did not censor skeptics they would have been eviserated. However, by censoring they gave the impression they were afraid to debate the issues. The classic lose-lose situation.
Of course, the reason for this is very simple. There is almost no evidence to support alarmism. They simply wouldn’t let that fact sink in to their own little world of groupthink.
If you visit a blog and your comments (polite, reasonable, intelligent) always go awol, you tend not to visit anymore.
Could it be that sites stuffed with taxpayers’ money are bound to fail??
“what the point would be in having a debate about climate change” — now that is a hypothetical question! When another ship radioed to the Titanic to warn them about ice, the reply was to shut up. That does compare with the RC response to skeptics. Other than that, I think the Real Comparison to the RC climate change “debate” is WWF wresting — entertainment only.
AGW is similar to the Titanic in some ways: after the Titanic sunk in 1912 there was a series of investigations. Experts, learned engineers, etc. disagreed with eyewitness testimony that the Titanic broke in half as it sank. The official report, based on consensus and expert opinion, was that the Titanic sank whole. It took Robert Ballard to discover it on the sea floor in 1985 to prove the experts wrong. They just had to have the story turn out that the Titanic sank whole, against evidence to the contrary. So it is with AGW: they simply need the story to be true, contrary to scientific evidence.
“One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.”
Oh, no. You have provided us with much amusement, and with many examples of why it is a bad idea to try to scare people into agreeing with you.
I used to visit RC once in a while to see what was up, so I apologize for boosting their miserable numbers even a little. I’ve also noticed WUWT regulars attempting to engage that lot in honest & thoughtful debate, only to be shouted down.
After the second round of Climategate emails and the total lack of attention paid to climate issues in the 2012 presidential campaign, I suspect they are a testy lot over there. Can’t say I feel sorry for any of them.
As we say in Chicago, “Stick a fork in ’em, they’re done.”
So Gov Funded Scientist are complaining because the proletariat have not been swayed by the Al Gored sermon on the mount and instead the average person seems to be accusing the scientist of playing version of 3 card monty.
It is MUCH WORSE then Expected.
Why resort to “new and emerging science is suggesting” when the debate was already ended by the grantee gravy train crowd in the first place? And the Oscar goes to the group think manipulators who continue to fight FOIA laws based on special case arguments of exceptionalism.
The Titanic sank because the reaction of the Captain exposed the length of the ship to threat. He tried to avoid the unavoidable instead of dealing with it.
According the first Alexa image, RealClimate’s rank improved 45,067 places in the last three months. I hereby confidently state that WUWT cannot equal that rise in the next 3 months. 🙂
There are advantages to being #169,732, you just have to know how to spin it!
Yes it was entirely in vain. As everyone knows, pontificating alarmists are full of self-importance and are tiresomely vain.
I never would have even heard of realclimate.org had it not been for WUWT.
Ironic.
I can’t wait to see the Josh Cartoon on the Titanic significance of RC in the climate debate. 🙂