Busiest month ever at WUWT

And the hits just keep on coming…1,318,794 page views for January according to WordPress.


Thanks everybody!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom M
January 31, 2009 9:47 pm

It has mostly been too cold to do anything else around here.

Roger Knights
January 31, 2009 9:58 pm

What’s down with that?
(The last leg of the graph, I mean.)

January 31, 2009 10:02 pm

There’s no going back now. Even if you stopped blogging today, your blog hits will continue to increase for the next 1,000 years.
Keep up the good work.

January 31, 2009 10:02 pm

Tom M: might have a point!!
Any bets for an early spring?

Tim L
January 31, 2009 10:12 pm

As the GW’s come out of the closet, the sights that are fair and open minded are few.
Thank You Anthony!

January 31, 2009 10:23 pm

Congratulations! Until Hansen & his gang have their way, this site and others that discuss the lack of science in AGW will thrive.
You have an excellent, thoughtful and interesting style. I am glad to have found it.

January 31, 2009 10:31 pm

AEGeneral – Funny stuff. Probably true though.
It’s not stopping any time soon. I’m good for 30k or so myself– just kidding. Congratulations again and one for next month too.

Mike Bryant
January 31, 2009 10:37 pm

No!!! Thank YOU! We all know how challenging this enterprise has been. I am especially impressed with the way you treat the proponents as well as the contrarians here. Those who challenge either position are treated with the respect that humans are entitled to. This site is an example to all who would foster a real debate on the issues that are so crucial to humanity in the next few years and decades. Thanks again, and may we, the commenters and contributors be mindful of our responsibility to remain courteous to those who do disagree with us.
Mike Bryant, Courteous Contrarian

Robert Bateman
January 31, 2009 10:42 pm

This site is perfect for those who are wondering why they are getting frozen while Global Warming is kicked in their face.
The Internet generation will find you.
You ain’t seen nothing yet.

January 31, 2009 11:07 pm

Roger: perhaps it has something to do with February 2009 having only an hour or two in it so far. Just guessing.

January 31, 2009 11:16 pm

Thankyou for the site, its been a pleasure to read it, refer it, discuss it

January 31, 2009 11:20 pm
Leon Brozyna
January 31, 2009 11:24 pm

Good numbers after all your hard work. Might not see ’em for awhile; there are only 28 days in February. But it’s a good start on payback. All those quality articles aimed more toward a lay audience got you a slowly growing readershop which, in turn, got you all those weblog nominations. And that week of voting got you huge exposure to new readers. I’m sure that many will stick around after experiencing a blog site where differing points of view are accepted on the condition of adhering to certain standards of civility.

January 31, 2009 11:25 pm

Sorry, some broken links there- retrying the first two.
Again, Congrats!
Weird censorship over at Climate Audit, though.
REPLY: Nothing weird about that, you have some banned words in there and links, the automatic SPAM filter of WordPress traps the comment and puts it in the spam que. Same would happen here. There is no censorship on Steve’s part. He probably hasn’t found them in the que yet, but you might want to clean up the language a bit.- Anthony

January 31, 2009 11:33 pm

Anthony, you’ve clearly reached a tipping point. I’ve done a 6th order polynomial on the growth rate and projected it 500 years into the future. If things continue to increase at this rate, my scenario B indicates virtually all known carbon resources will be employed to support this increase in page views.
A better use of the energy I can’t think of at the moment, so I just thought I’d warn everyone about the consequences in advance…
I sure appreciate having this resource and am amazed at the depth and quality of the discussions here… Thanks again, Mike S.

January 31, 2009 11:42 pm

Way to go!
FWIW, news reports a volcano near Anchorage has a large hole opening in the side and is ‘getting ready to blow’.
Also KY has called out the National Guard to deal with the ice storm. Sure am glad we had global warming… think how bad it would have been without it!

Ozzie John
January 31, 2009 11:46 pm

You have achieved the Hockey Stick graph !!!!!

February 1, 2009 12:19 am

That graph of hits is beginning to resemble a……hockey stick…
Only this one is supported with real data…
Congratulations, Anthony!
I have learned more at WUWT in a few weeks than I did in a couple of years on other sites. This is the way the internet ought to be!
I am speaking to chemical engineers in October in Long Beach, California, and some of my material will be taken or derived from what I learned here, both pro and con on AGW. Thank you to all who participate and share your knowledge and opinions.
Of course, by October we will have additional hard data to share and discuss, including Arctic ice maximum extent in March, and minimum extent in September, possibly a volcanic eruption in Alaska and elsewhere, sunspots still missing or perhaps appearing, hard data on temperatures around the world by which to determine the severity of this NH winter 2008-2009, the SH summer, and the NH summer, perhaps an El Nino or La Nina, sea levels slowing their rise or decreasing, and who knows what else! Probably the only thing we can predict with certainty is that the CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise.

February 1, 2009 1:37 am

Not surprised. Links to WUWT have been popping up all over the place. Probably a few Instalanches here and there?
Now, if page hits were dollars (or even cents!)…

February 1, 2009 1:56 am

Once the agw dies down of course interest will decline on all climate sites. Freezing cold in NH = 0, boiling hot in Australia = 0 its all normal weather/climate nothing unusual. If we all lived 1000’s of years we could make possibly a comment on a “climatic change”. Ask any meteorologist.

February 1, 2009 2:04 am

Just shows that winners get prizes

M White
February 1, 2009 2:38 am

WUWT close to tipping point

M White
February 1, 2009 2:45 am

OT, Britain to be brought to a standstill
“UK: severe weather warnings”
“A covering of snow is likely anywhere, with 5-10cm possible, and as much as 10-20cm – particularly over the hills.”

February 1, 2009 2:59 am

Forget Al Gore
I want to know what the Groundhog said. Haven’t heard in Aust.

February 1, 2009 3:33 am

Steep rise recently! Getting logarithmic!
Anthony, as numbers go up, you might want to think again about making introductions to skeptical Climate Science more visibly accessible from your website. I don’t want to blow my own trumpet over this, but I also feel, if my work can help, I’d like it to be accessible. It is also open to correction by readers. Seems likely that Ric Werme, James Peden, Ken Gregory, and others who’ve written good introductions may feel similarly.
Jon, suggestions on how to avoid derailing the topic, like it seems you were doing at Steve’s, consciously or no. I got snipped too; your posts are not all gone; so
(1) let it go,
(2) keep to the the subject of the thread,
(3) look for solutions not gripes
(4) try to be courteous to the poobahs all round and be willing to apologize, this makes it a lot easier to follow the thread, stand your ground on essential issues, enjoy yourself, engage with the team, and not lose your own integrity in the process.
We can all fail on this last one but we can apologize as well as refrain from unnecessary attack, and that always helps a lot IMHO. I’m sure you’ve got useful contributions to make. I think that several at CA were trying to help you. Just my thoughts, though I might be wrong.

Pierre Gosselin
February 1, 2009 4:29 am

Weather forecasters here in Europe are predicting a Polar Split for February.
This means that frigid air will spill down to lower latitiudes, while the pole itself could warm by as much as 30°C. That’s what I just read at some German site.
Anyone hear anything about this? Is this rare?
Steve McIntyre may want to look at the data and program used to make that suspicious lookin hockey stick. 😉

Pierre Gosselin
February 1, 2009 4:36 am

Steve has extraordinarilly high criteria that have to be met. No editorialising, unrelated chatter or opining. No ad hominem attacks.
I have had probably half or more of my posts removed, and often rightly so.
Don’t take it personally!
He even deleted the post of a very well known climate scientist not long ago – whose name escapes me at the moment.
It’s one reason his blog is so highly respected.

February 1, 2009 5:40 am

Good work Anthony, Team, Contributors and of course, the visitors. Working as one giant team with engaging and differing viewpoints make this an excellent place to learn. Thank you all.

Roger H
February 1, 2009 5:54 am

Congratulations Anthony. I am not a scientist of any type but have really been drawn to this site since Ed Wallace introduced it to me last year. My main question would be how can this information get distributed to larger amounts of people in a shorter time and therefore possibly enlighten our Politicians to the situation? I realize there might not be a way to change their minds but it might cause some to realize that there is an alternate view to what’s actually happening. Other than letters to the Editor, does anyone have any other ideas?

February 1, 2009 5:57 am

Pierre Gosselin (04:29:58) :
Likely the German site is referring to the “unprecedented” warming in the Stratosphere which has recently occurred.
Check out this site:
(I removed the “h t t p : / / w w w .” from the start to avoid problems with the spam filter.)
Warmth in the stratosphere often results in cooling in the troposphere beneath. Therefore the anomaly at the north pole will likely generate all sorts of discussion.
I fully expect to see this news on WUWT soon, and to read interesting comments. (Alarmists will see the anomaly as being due to CO2, while Skeptics will see it as being due to solar powers, I’ll betcha.) And, because the subject and discussion are so fascinating and well-handled on WUWT, readership will continue to soar.
Time and Newsweek ought heed. They might be more worth reading.

February 1, 2009 6:55 am

I consulted a certain Mr. H. about your posted readership graph, and using advanced computer modeling focused on the most recent trend, he was able to conclusively prove that this blog will cease to exist 12 hours from now. For this reason he advised that we immediately pass a government initiative placing all blogging under direct governmental supervision. The centerpiece of this supervision will be a cap and trade system whereby all blogs will be allocated a certain number of “hits” per month. Those who go over the cap and have too many “hits” will be deeemed to be taking more than their “fair share” and they will be forced to pay a financial penalty to those governmentally approved blogs who do not achieve what the appointed planning boards determine is their “fair share” of hits. The goal at first will be equality and stability; of course once that is achieved the goals will be shifted to make sure that current governmental policies are supported and that reactionary opponents are slowly eased out of the system.
This should guarantee complete stability in both the upper and lower blogospheres – what could go wrong? In fact, Mr. G., an expert in governmental policy, is so convinced that it is a good idea philosophically that he argues that we should do this regardless of the cost since it is the only way to guarantee the existence of online civilisation in the years to come.
Mr. H. and Mr. G. assure me that all good and decent net citizens will immediately spring to the support of such a wonderful and altruistic proposal such as this. And they tell me that they know how to deal with the rest.

February 1, 2009 7:18 am

Well done. You’re getting traffic from us as I regularly post snippets and link back here from Traders-Talk.

Pierre Gosselin
February 1, 2009 7:22 am

I’m wondering how rare (or common) this is.
I think this could be very interesting.
Does this happen when we have protracted solar mins? I also hope that WUWT can shed more knowledge about this.
Some European Weather Offices see it potentially developng later this month.
The implications are frigid temps in Europe and a very warm polar cap. This phenomena is well documented in the Antarctic.

February 1, 2009 7:42 am

Thanks, Anthony, contributors, and commentors. I feel like I have been on a thrilling, wild ride as I Iearn, correct old knowledge and feel the heart and mind swelling with hundreds, at least, of new questions. I am an academic (non-science) who once taught “IT” — thankfully only from the perspective of “unconscious communication” and the film’s methods of persuasion — but I read Science and Nature (past tense for the latter) faithfully and “knew” then that the “climate science” was gold-plated.
Now my printer is constantly cranking, my files are filling, my computer is jumping all over the worlds of science and engineering — physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, forecasting, environment sciences, paleontology, and so forth. As a bonus, I have rarely laughed so hard as I do at the witty comments here. This is good for the heart and soul!
Leon Brozyna, “Quality articles aimed toward a lay audience”. Yes, and it also feels like the professionals take us very seriously and are willing to go to great lengths to inform us of fundamental principles and those freshly emerging — and to have a real go at and with each other. And Anthony sits there and rubs his chin in wonder. “What have I wrought”, he thinks.
Thanks to Lucy Skywalker for her excellent introductory essay. I have sent and given it to many.
WhatsUpWithThat is not only the best science blog, but simply THE BEST.

February 1, 2009 7:43 am

Robert Bateman (22:42:47) : “This site is perfect for those who are wondering why they are getting frozen while Global Warming is kicked in their face.”
I second that; it’s the current situation in a nutshell. Well done, Anthony and friends!

Brian Macker
February 1, 2009 7:58 am

“What’s down with that?
(The last leg of the graph, I mean.)”

That’s the forecast of February traffic provided by global warming models.
Only having one days worth of data they filled the rest in with zeros.

Pierre Gosselin
February 1, 2009 8:13 am

Here’s the German RTL report in English:
Is the Siberian Winter coming Back?
Everything begins with the polar cyclone.
Are we threatened by a nasty cold snap in February? Signs of this happening are mounting. About 13 Kilometer above the Arctic one finds a blank spot on the map of meteorlogical knowledge. There in the stratosphere a permanenet huge storm occurs in the wintertime with speeds of up to 300 km/hr. It’s a storm turning around the earth’s rotational axis – it’s called the polar cyclone. What does that have to do with Siberian Cold snaps in Europe? A lot!
Photo: Picture-perfect Iceland Low. The polar cyclone is a distant relative. (NASA)
The weather engine is broken
The stratospheric storm has no driect influence on the weather, as it is located a level above the layer responsible for our weather. But this polar cyclone has a profound indirect influence on our weather conditions. It is the engine that brings Europe the weather from the west. It brings us the most low pressure systems from west to east, and thus keeps our climate relatively mild and wet. But now this engine, the polar cyclone, is broken. In Moscow temperatures will plummet about 12°C in the next few days. The first signs for us (western europe) were found already in the middle of January as the polar cyclone split in two. This phenomena is rare, but not unknown. The consequences on Europe’s February temperatures is now being hotly debated by meteorologists. We are not sure but many meteorologists now feel that an extreme winter event will occur beginning in the middle of February which could plunge temperatures in Western Europe to double-digit below zero (Celsius) and bring snow.
More exact forecasts are not yet available. A polar cyclone split occurs too rarely and impacts us too indirectly to allow researchers to draw any conclusions. Normally reliable weather models are in this case clueless, and predict this or that. Also wetter.de-forecasts until the middle of February are possibly overly warm. In the course of the next few days, it will become clearer and clearer as to where temperatures for Europe are headed.
I wonder what effect a Polar Cyclone Split has on North American weather.

February 1, 2009 8:32 am

MOre and more people are waking up to the truth, the scientific truth that is!

February 1, 2009 9:05 am

Congratulations! This is a fantastic site!

February 1, 2009 9:19 am

Congratulations on the hits. Your site is great. Much of the mathy detail (oh, those statistics) is way over my head, but I get the general gist of most of it. (Because I am such an amateur, I just lurk.) Thank you for you hard work and dedication. I distill much of what you say into layman’s terms and use it in my blog and with my kids and coworkers. Congrats again!

February 1, 2009 10:04 am

Anthony … and all who contribute here,
Congratulations and “Thank You” for a most informative site.
Well done.
Best wishes,
Alberta, Canada

February 1, 2009 10:14 am

Hmmm, correlation does not equal causation but the rise in WUWT seems to equal the rise in CO2. Can we overlay these graphs and create a publishable, peer reviewed paper? It would make as much sense as much of the published ‘climate science’.

February 1, 2009 10:27 am

Thank you Anthony –
I believe the continuing uptick is due both to the great knowledge demonstrated at this site, as well as the intellect shared by those commenting.
I have shared this site with many people – all have thanked me.
Kind regards, and please keep up the great work.

Pierre Gosselin
February 1, 2009 10:39 am

But I simply cannot resist:
I’d like to know what them bloody bloke Brit AGwarmists are thinking now.
Make em go out in their bathing suits…
In Germany it’s official – January was 1.5°C colder than the 1961-90 average.

Tim Clark
February 1, 2009 10:43 am

E.M.Smith (23:42:51) :
FWIW, news reports a volcano near Anchorage has a large hole opening in the side and is ‘getting ready to blow’.

Anthony’s graph above eerily resembles the mountainous Anchorage skyline, with half of that mountain missing. Is the enormous success of this site, unlike CO2, now a leading indicator of natural events?
Brian Macker (07:58:58) :
That is too true!
Pierre Gosselin (08:13:27) :
Normally reliable weather models are in this case clueless, and predict this or that.

Refreshingly honest!!
Excellent job Anthony! This site illustrates that integrity breeds success. I am hopeful that integrity will eventually win the debate on AGW. I can only imagine the increasing workload you and the other moderators have experienced. But, it doesn’t stop me from commenting. :<)

Benjamin P.
February 1, 2009 11:48 am

Things I have learned with my contributions of page views to your busiest month ever.
1. Anecdotal evidence trumps most everything
2. Al Gore is a Douche
3. That Hansen guy is too.
4. Models suck
5. Warmists are energy communists who want to take away your SUV
6. There is a secret geo-political agenda, but that agenda is loosely defined (or not at all)
7. Warmists are only in it for the money
8. Its easy to lie with statistics
9. Figure Captions (something I tell my students are the 2nd most important part of papers (the first being the abstract)) tend to be lackluster and non-informative.
10. Description of methodology does not happen
11. Conclusions are met with 100% certainty (even if it is just a qualitative assessment of some graphs)
12. CO2 does nothing to climate
13. Sun spot cycles, while poorly understood, are the only short-term climate driver
14. Consensus is bad (something we can all agree on)
Did I miss anything?
oh right…
15. Pseudoscience and science are indistinguishable.
Man, a bit of a harsh assessment on my part with respect to this blog (something we determined a few posts back that I did not like very much…which isn’t true, I very much enjoy reading this blog).

February 1, 2009 12:08 pm

Anthony, Congrat.
These stats put a smile on my face.
Now that the government and the MSM are now joined lovingly hand in hand, it’s nice to still see a place where you can follow truth’s bread crumbs wherever they lead.
OT – Also, if anyone is interested in Aurora Borealis alerts texted to their cell phone, I wrote some code that broadcasts them for free via Twitter:
(Assuming cycle 24 gets out of the blocks)

February 1, 2009 12:26 pm

Someone reflected on how long the blog may live on if you gave it away.. I noted other’s responses but mine would be “most likely not until till hell freezes over”.
But with a result like that I believe there is no stopping now with your finest hour yet to come. In the meantime time, well done on this milestone…and also to your excellent contributors.

February 1, 2009 12:29 pm

Curiously today I saw a parallel with someone else, which I will share. On reading about the break thru on the gigapixel barrier I also received an email about some amazing photo work by Julian Kalmar. This shows an image of the restored Piaristen Church in Vienna with clear as crystal 1.3 gigapixels quality for a composite of 200+ photos that can rotate to give 360 degree views of everything.
It seems to me that your graph also shows a similar count of over 1.3 million hits. Like Kalmar’s work, yours also joins a large composite of perspectives to provide great clarity and 360 degree views of debated issues. I noted also that Kulmar like you shows equal humility about his great work.

Frank Lansner
February 1, 2009 1:03 pm

Truly Amazing 🙂 Congrats!!!!!
All the best best best wishes!!!!
K.R. Frank

Bobby Lane
February 1, 2009 1:09 pm

Bravo Anthony! Bravo!
You do the Opposition (i.e, skeptics) a wonderful service in heading up this blog, along no doubt with the wonderful mods and guest posters. There are many informational sites that I like, but this one offers so much more of an atmosphere. There is variety, there is community, there is healthy and often vigorous debate, and there is manifest fairness, even with those who disagree. It is a noble tribute to what one man can start up and bring others on board to share. A great and worthy enterprise no doubt!

February 1, 2009 1:10 pm

Watch out Anthony! Hansen will steal your graph!
Any graph showing an uptick will be issued new variables and claimed as proof of global warming.

February 1, 2009 1:42 pm

Hey everybody,
I seriously urge everyone to keep a close watch on what is currently happening at RealClimate at the moment (and in the near future, of course).
Looks to me as though they are very near meltdown!
Absolutely desperate! Take a look!
No longer any pretense of reasoning about the facts and figures. They are now just trying to convince us that they didn’t ever present an “irreversible” scenario!!
Shysters! (Or however that’s spelt [I’m English].) The lot of them!
Keep thinking for yourselves, everyone!
For Anthony.
You are doing a great job, Anthony, but can you help me with the following?
I’d like to open a thread on some site or other (I’d happily start my own, but I’m not clever enough, and don’t know how at the moment) to discuss a “formal proof” that CO2 does NOT drive temperature.
That would be a FORMAL ACEDEMIC PROOF, a big ask, but I have convinced myself that it’s possible.
The numbers actually speak for themselves. It’s just that no-one seems to be looking at them in the right way.
I have developed (OK, stumbled one) a very simple logical case that should be easily understood by any jury of “peers” (12 men and true) from any western court, and which should put an end to all this AGW rubbish if it can be presented in a serious legal forum. But I need to discuss it with some sensible people.
And it will need sensitive handling, so I would appreciate your diplomacy in what you publish about this message.
I mean, the place for this is in a legal court with appropriate authority, with the appropriate protagonists present (you know who I mean).
If any of this interests you, please drop me an e-mail.
Please feel free to copy this, and your thoughts, to people (eg Steve McKintyre, Lucia, William Briggs etc) who you feel we can really trust. But keep in mind that emails are very probably being watched! This AGW thing really IS a conspiracy.
OK, so you don’t actually know that you can trust me. Of course not. So please suggest any other secure way you would prefer to communicate. You are more expert at this sort of thing than I am, I’m sure. I’ll go along with anything you say.
There’s quite a long way to go, but I can see the end of the tunnel from here!
Your thoughts, please, in confidence (copied to anyone you really trust).

February 1, 2009 1:45 pm

Congratulations Anthony.
Pierre Gosselin (04:36:50):
“He even deleted the post of a very well known climate scientist not long ago – whose name escapes me at the moment.
It’s one reason his blog is so highly respected.”
By all quarters, even some at RC.

February 1, 2009 2:01 pm

wws (06:55:17) :
OMG Don’t even JOKE about it!
I’m sure they would if they could!

February 1, 2009 2:44 pm

… and, now, a part of everyday, from every computer I login on. Logical conjecture based on overwhelming evidence, affirming ~thanks

February 1, 2009 2:50 pm

Pyromancer, thanks.
Anthony, roof-raising thanks!!!!!
Everyone, here’s fun http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/videos/

just Cait
February 1, 2009 2:58 pm

Congrats, Anthony and a hat’s off to all contributors. First place I visit when I log on. I’ve learned a great deal here and also have a ton of files saved/bookmarked/printed. This site is indispensable for those seeking the truth.

February 1, 2009 3:12 pm

Let me add my congratulations to those already expressed. You have a great site here, one characterized by substantiave content, real debate, professional courtesy by the pros, and a healthy interaction between specialists and members of the general public who are thirsty for serious information about global climate.
Roger Stritmatter
PhD, Comparative Literature
Here a member of the general public.

February 1, 2009 3:36 pm

Jim Thomas (12:08:10) : OT – Also, if anyone is interested in Aurora Borealis alerts texted to their cell phone, I wrote some code that broadcasts them for free via Twitter:
Cool! But like you said… if the sun ever gets going again…
Now that the government and the MSM are now joined lovingly hand in hand, it’s nice to still see a place where you can follow truth’s bread crumbs wherever they lead.
One more bread crumb:
I’ve slogged my way through the Python in GISStemp STEP1 (it’s sort of readable even if you, like me, have never written it). My ‘best guess’ about it is that it more or less does what you would expect from the ‘readme’ gistemp.txt file. It tosses some records and has a couple of specific sites where GISS have manually adjusted the record (documented and I guess OK).
The only place where I’ve found that it creates data (fabricates? constructs? ‘freely interpolates? whatever you call it when temperatures that do not exist are created…) is in the two programs: comb_records.py and comb_pieces.py and of them, the comb_records.py looks like it mostly just takes duplicate records for the same location and averages them together. It’s comb_pieces.py that looks like it has ‘magic sauce’ in it.
If I’ve read it correctly (a big IF given that I have no training in Python!) it looks to take pieces of temperature record for a location that has ‘gaps’ and stitch them together by looking at ‘nearby’ stations to compute a correlation, then using that to turn the ‘nearby’ station data into the data created for filling in the ‘gap’.
The problems I see are:
1) It, too, uses a ‘linear’ fit rather than a slope adjusted fit (i.e. it uses linear subtraction / averaging rather than correlated fit curve or relative slope as it’s behaviour driver).
2) If I read it right, it cycles out 1 degree at a time up to 10 degees from the site with a gap looking for a ‘local’ station. This needs a real Python programmer to look at it (it uses a binary database an earlier step created and the variable is named ‘rad’ assigned a staring value from RADIUS_BUCKET – and that’s about all the hint it has … (a bit light on comments and readme docs…) It seems to me that 10 degrees is rather a long ways away from ‘local’…
So it looks to me like we have an explanation for why the middle of some curves move some times… If anyone has any insight on how often a USHCN station has a ‘dropout’ in the data series for monthly averages from NOAA it would be interesting to know. (That would give a sense of the ‘size’ of the issue here…)

Phil's Dad
February 1, 2009 3:56 pm

Roger H (05:54:36) : says “My main question would be how can this information get distributed to larger amounts of people in a shorter time and therefore possibly enlighten our Politicians to the situation? I realize there might not be a way to change their minds…”
Roger, I am a politician with an environment brief. Probably not ‘your’ politician – but who knows. The point is we are here, reading, sometimes asking questions, hopefully learning.
Anthony, it’s working – don’t stop.

Nic Lonsdale
February 1, 2009 4:00 pm

I do not know what is true about CO2/AGW/&Warming.
I am concerned that after Copernicus it was said that “the science is settled” and Gallileo was tortured by the Inquisition for proposing another theory. (A theory we now consider correct).
Am I allowed to read/listen/think/question and study without being burnt at the stake for heresy ? (And buy Nigel Calder a pint for explaining the Danish research).
Great web-site. Much food for thought.

February 1, 2009 4:10 pm

E.M.Smith, the largest gap in the USHCN raw data that I’ve come across so far, is 15 days in July 2002.
The B91 form (monthly form from observer) from New Braunfels, TX stated “FLOOD” in caps.
The reason I found it was that I was trying to track down the spike in annual data that occured in 2002.

February 1, 2009 4:23 pm

Hello Steve of G Brown Land
I suggest you go to this BBC site where complaints weere made about splice gate-the BBC’s splicing together of two unrelated segments of Obamas inauguration speech to try to pretend he said more about AGW than he actually did.
‘Captain Climate’ on post 42 suggests the BCC mount a programme called ‘Did co2 kill the planet’ which would be conducted with the rules of evidence of a court. This would allow the two sides to meet for probably the first time to give objective information- not unsupported theories. I suggest you add your voice to this idea?

February 1, 2009 4:33 pm

Tom in Texas (16:10:17) :
E.M.Smith, the largest gap in the USHCN raw data that I’ve come across so far, is 15 days in July 2002.

15 days is not too bad. I was more worried that a station or stations might ‘come and go’ for months or even years at a time.
Thanks! Your posting got me thinking: by this stage in the processing, GIStemp has already combined UHCN and GHCN data into one composite set, so dropouts in either would be handled by this ‘in-fill’ code. I’m assuming it’s the case that what NOAA put in UHCN ought to be in GHCN…`
It’s also the case that the ‘reference station’ used to create the in-fill has already been through one ‘reference station method’ adjustment step (supposedly to adjust for UHI, but done in a way that will fail to do so). This means that you will be creating the in-fill data from stations that will themselves often have ‘modified’ data. A kind of ‘double dip’ into the fiction bank…

February 1, 2009 4:42 pm

I also live in G. Brownland, (guess why it’s brown), probably something to do with all the sh1t.
I submitted a formal complaint about the Newsnight program and rather foolishly put in my real postcode, (zip code).
Why foolish? I don’t watch T.V. so I don’t pay the T.V. tax, the only thing I have watched was this piece of misreporting on the internet. However, this now leaves me liable to this tax. Sad isn’t it?

Ellie in Belfast
February 1, 2009 5:00 pm

I’ve long thought that the debate on climate raging here* is the modern equivalent of the Royal Society in the 18th and 19th century (“The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge” and analogous institutions elsewhere), where, ‘gentlemen philosophers’ and the scientists of the day presented and debated their discoveries and theories.
* OK not just here, but WUWT has to be one of the best in terms of the mix of subjects, people and the decorum maintained.
The mix of professions and scientific disciplines, and expert and lay knowledge is amazing. Finding little time to comment recently, nonetheless I have found the posts on WUWT, since the New Year especially, really interesting and they have moved my understanding forward enormously.
My daily read! (even before ‘the news’ – if you can call it that these days.)

February 1, 2009 5:17 pm

Pierre Gosselin (10:39:28) : But I simply cannot resist:

Thanks! Maybe Anthony could do a post explaining what this ‘pole split’ is. I’ve never heard of one and it sure does seem to have made a mess of the U.K.! From the article in your link:
This winter has already been the coldest for 13 years, delaying the arrival of snowdrops in gardens.
Now horticulturalists have reported unusually late daffodil growth.
“Now is the time you’d expect to see the daffodils coming out but we’re not expecting them for two or three weeks at best if it warms up,” said Laura Davies, head of horticulture at the National Botanical Garden of Wales.

Gotta love those gardens… the plants know the truth and never lie…
Best of luck with the snow… but look on the light side: Every day with snow counts as a ‘rain free day’! 8-}

February 1, 2009 5:47 pm

Congratulations Anthony on your excellent site. As a new comer to it I’m particularly impressed with your control of ad hominem when compared with alarmists sites like RealClimate where the stock response is to try and make questioners feel somewhat ridiculous and/or foolish.
I’ve never brought into AGW and until I started reading around the blogs my decision was purely intuitive thinking how could humans possibly affect GW. Having now read extensively from a laymans point of view on the subject I’m utterly convinced humans have little influence on CO2 production. That more is better and that CO2 does not significantly affect our climate when relative to other external influences completely out of our control.
However having said that and after perusing a list of Pro IPCC Views sites on http://climatedebatedaily.com/ the arguments for AGW are both many and well presented on authoritative looking sites. The articles are also often authored by respectable sounding people from positions of authority. SO how EASY it would be to buy into AGW and heavens lets all get together and save Gods planet before its too late – and who cares if we ALL have to pay more taxes to do so as its our fault in the first place. Its gotta be the only course of action because I mean even our new messiah Obama believes the planet needs saving.
Obviously the political decisions makers are ambivalent about good science because they work to an agenda that is all about implementation of good socialism and the levels of control it brings. It will be an easy position to sell particularly in the USA where people will be keen to stick it to the greedy capitalist businesses who stole their money.
Another problem is that irrespective of how many skeptics of scientific authority the anti-AGWer’s roll out it wont matter a damn because, as skeptics are quick to point out, good science is not necessarily based on consensus within the scientific community. Also the average person like me does not understand the difference between good and bad science so we make our decisions based on WHO is telling the either good or bad science and how convincing they are. And also perhaps somewhat influenced by what the weather is currently doing 🙂
And so that finally brings me to the point that the skeptic community really needs to play the game from within the AGW stronghold by cramming as many influential “deniers” as possible within positions of political importance. And just maybe over time many more non-scientific people like myself will listen and start taking heed.
My last comment is that if our planet was capable of independent thought and action it has certainly learnt how to come out in support of the skeptics cause. Maybe a new skeptic tag line should say “even our planet supports us”.
Blessed are the crack for they see the light.
Thoughts from New Zealand.
Thanks all.

February 1, 2009 6:41 pm

@ Benjamin P. (11:48:08) :
Things I have learned with my contributions of page views to your busiest month ever.
Wow, dude. You need to take a course in reading. Obviously, what is written is not registering. Or were you trying to parody the defensiveness of the committed AGW when confronted with the reality that the “consensus” ain’t one?

P.L. Harmon
February 1, 2009 11:38 pm

What a great site! I have learned a great deal here and look forward to the frequent posts. WUWT has re-taught me to look behind the seemingly authoritative statements made on many issues by those who somehow get into the news and examine the supporting details. It is so great to have a site that discusses the science of the issues and is so respectful of all. I appreciate all you do and have recommended the site to many who spout AGW dogma and should know better. Keep up the good work.

February 2, 2009 5:56 am

Anthony, you may be responsible for a bit of “work slowdown” and not just in the U.S. Do you realize that the comments to WUWT posts beginning last Tues keep on growing! I got up early this morning (Mon) to make sure that I could follow the threads. I return to S. Goddard’s Sat essay about ocean corals being acidified; from Sun to Mon comments have increased from 176-235.
I’ve let the lovely gull go and I tried to give up on Forecasting — too difficult for me. I even threw away my little sticky of the front of the computer that helps me keep my place. However, I take a peek this morning and the comments number 324, many more than when I left off. Since E.M. Smith and Tony B and Juan are there, I return, reading backward from #324. Finally, I hope I can stay with the MET (Sun) and look forward to new posts, but when I check one where Dr. Theon provides his wisdom about James Hansen of NASA the comment number has jumped from 484 to 549. My eyes ache…..
What helps most about the threads is that not only do many commenters put complicated science into understandable concepts and language, a manageable chunk at a time, but some AGWers — still too many ad hominem attacks and faulty science — are trying to present their best scientific perspectives. The debate is lively and it is likely that no one and no position has all the answers.
Anthony, I think you are helping to create a new interdisciplinary science of climate as differentiated from weather out of its old-wive’s-tale or propagandistic beginnings. Quite an accomplishment.

February 2, 2009 6:04 am

Mama mia, I left out Frank Lasner’s insightful CO2 temp and ice ages — Sun 346 comments, Mon morn before the sun is up 370!

A Lovell
February 2, 2009 11:57 am

Benjamin P
“There is a secret geo-political agenda, but that agenda is loosely defined (or not at all).”
See http://www.green-agenda.com. The agenda IS defined, and it frightened me! The more people who know about this the better I feel. (Be sure to include the dash in green-agenda.)
Many congratulations Anthony. I think a few thousand hits were mine during the voting! Nail biting stuff.

Benjamin P.
February 2, 2009 1:06 pm

@A Lovell
Thanks for the laugh! That website has me near tears!
The Club of Rome is going to take away your SUV and make you a ‘gaia’ worshiping pagan!
Some of the current members have been dead for decades…I imagine they are contacted by a Ouija board?

Benjamin P.
February 2, 2009 1:13 pm

@A Lovell
Ah, and finally I have found the agenda defined on that comedy site you linked.

And so, based on my research, I have become personally convinced that ‘climate change’ is being used to implement a much deeper agenda. In order to protect Gaia from the ‘voracious beast of capitalism’ they must strike at the beast’s lifeblood – fossil fuels. And in order to transition to ‘sustainable global earth community’ they must implement a new form of governance which will allow them to control, and ultimately reduce, human activity on this planet.

Steve Reynolds
February 2, 2009 1:31 pm

Benjamin P,
I saw your comment over at RealClimate complaining about the quality of the science here. I’m responding here because of the likelihood of being censored at RC.
While I think Anthony’s site is very useful for the original posts, I can see some truth in your opinion in some of the comments here, and do find the comments much less useful. But Anthony is very successful with his comment moderation policy, so who am I to tell him to change?
Have you done much reading at climataudit.org ? I think the policies there address many of your complaints, and still do a very good job of questioning the ‘consensus’ on AGW. “Learning the language and thinking critically about data”, as you say.

Benjamin P.
February 2, 2009 2:37 pm

I will be honest. I am not a ‘warmist’ nor a ‘denilist’ nor a climate scientist. I am an igneous geochemist with a passion for volcanism and what the chemistry of rocks can tell me about processes associated with said volcanism.
With respect to climate, I think climate is a pretty complex thing but the truth is in the data, and as long as we are honest with the data the truth will be ours at the end of the day. I think it is disingenuous for many of the folks here to write off AWG simply because they think there is some vast geopolitical conspiracy (e.g. comment from A Lovell (11:57:36)), or that climate scientists are only in it for the money (much more money out there if you are a denilist), or a whole host of other ‘ad hominem’ that is on display here in many of these comments.
I think the “useful” original posts you talk about could use a bit more science in them as well. I see very little with respect to methodology in the posts, I see very little with respect to providing data used in the undescribed methodology, etc. An example is the CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages post by Frank Lansner. Honestly, that post is laughable in my opinion.
An example:

“Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostokdata confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced.”

Okay, its actual data…great! It should not be described in the subsequent comments how it was constructed or what the process was to make the graph. Figure captions should “stand alone” and leave no questions in the readers mind of what it is they are looking at.
Perhaps folks are under the impression that since this is a blog those types of things should not be included. Well, I know folks here think this is a science blog, and that’s part of the gig with science. That whole “peer-review” thing that many people here believe to be such a bad thing is vitally important. Its not a bunch of bearded dudes saying “I like this paper because they agree with me” or “This paper sucks because they don’t agree with me”.
The peer review process is there to ensure that the science is sound. That the methodology is sound, the data is sound. Its a process designed to make sure that the data is honest.
I think some of the posts that are dealing directly with the analysis of data would be much improved if there was more time spent talking about how that analysis was done.

Steve Reynolds
February 2, 2009 2:39 pm

Just to satisfy my curiosity (and possibly let RC readers see a wider world), I tried posting my comment above (without most of the first paragraph) at RC.
As expected, it was censored. Plenty of cheerleading comments disparaging WUWT were allowed through.

February 2, 2009 5:33 pm

Benjamin p
I was not sure about some of Frank Lansner’s data either so did the logical thing, contacted him direct rather than make comments where he is not likely to look and therefore is denied the chance to respond. And he came up trumps, data right back to NOAA – still not as much as I’d have liked, but certainly enough to prove its genuineness. So why don’t you try the same? I suspect I’m not the only one here who works like this.
Many of us are here because we have good reason to suspect serious flaws in the practice of peer-reviewing. In theory it is right. But there are heavy questions in practice – and you will only find the science behind those heavy questions explored in places like here. We have been teaching ourselves the science and doing it for ourselves because we have found the official authorities wanting and failing to come clean. So quite often our work may look “amateur”. Perhaps you should remember that an amateur is one who does it for the love of it, not for money or power. And Truth (and therefore Science) comes far closer to love than to money or temporal power.

Benjamin P.
February 2, 2009 6:50 pm

Thanks Lucy for the response.
While contacting Frank may have been the best way to address my questions, it was not really the point I was trying to make. The point is, if Frank’s analysis is going to be passed along as “authoritative” or “research” then it should be constructed and presented as such. There should not have been any questions in my mind what was done to make figure 2, but there was. I was not even sure what I was looking at and I was not alone as the questions came up in the comments.
The methodology must always be on display and in the forefront because without it there can be no replication. As we know, replication is a rather important aspect of the scientific method.
As for your suspicions of the peer-review process, I am curious what that is rooted in. Are there clear cases where papers where dismissed solely because it was an inconvenient idea to the folks who are doing the reviewing? I’ve experienced peer-review first hand. If anything, I would say the process made my article better (not everyone involved was warm to the ideas presented).
I understand that while data is impartial, it is the human element in science that sometimes makes the science partial. People spend whole careers researching a particular subject and some folks get very attached to their ideas. But the truth is in the data, and whether or not you dislike the conclusions, you can’t refute data.

February 2, 2009 7:24 pm

Sorry if somebody already said it. The steady rise in you web stats must be a result of increased atmospheric CO2. What else could it be?

Pamela Gray
February 3, 2009 7:19 am

The peer review process is highly political and is nearly a fool proof gate for papers that make it into journals. And that is the key. Making it into journals. It is the journal submission peer review that provides us with one-sided views of observations. It is as corrupt as any political arena (which means that there are pockets of ugly political processes as well as pockets of truly double blind processes, with the majority somewhere in-between the extremes). Anybody who wants to publish in a journal understands this: data analysis is a way to make your data say what you want it to say. No one wants to spend millions on studies and then have something that is not significant. So you talk about it in interesting phrases so that it looks like it could become significant. And then you submit to journals that want you to say what they believe. Bottom line, if your study doesn’t go along with the river flow and you can’t publish, just try to get that next grant.

Benjamin P.
February 3, 2009 8:18 am

Pamela Gray,
Your comment on the peer-review process is said with such certainty! It would really be interesting for me to see you substantiate your claims beyond a few links to some posts from random blogs/websites.

data analysis is a way to make your data say what you want it to say

No, that’s called data manipulation.
Your general mistrust for science, falsely construed as it is, speaks volumes.

Henry Phipps
February 3, 2009 8:35 pm

@Benjamin P.
Mr. P. :
Pamela Gray’s comments about the peer-review self-validation system seemed both gentle and restrained to me. And data analysis IS data manipulation, of course. Think about what the words analysis and manipulation mean. Perhaps it has escaped your notice that the people who are most concerned about obtaining scientific credentials from the closed society of the prestigious editorial boards are often the very type of scientists who are later found to have falsified their work? It has not escaped the notice of the unwashed masses with whom I find myself increasingly in agreement. The academic elitist is a rank novice compared to someone who must live with the consequence of his research. Give me an “oil company researcher” any day – if he’s wrong, he gets fired, and I never hear about him again. No tenure in the real world. Your distrust of scientific skepticism, the foundation of real, verifiable science, speaks volumes.
My bachelor’s degree is in zoology, my doctorate is medical. Henry Phipps is my real name. Or you can call me Henry P., if you are uncomfortable using real names.

Benjamin P.
February 3, 2009 11:03 pm

Dr. Phipps,
I do not have a distrust of scientific skepticism. The key word is scientific paired with that word skepticism.

Perhaps it has escaped your notice that the people who are most concerned about obtaining scientific credentials from the closed society of the prestigious editorial boards are often the very type of scientists who are later found to have falsified their work?

I suppose this must be, what? 99% of researchers in your mind?

February 4, 2009 11:55 am

Finally! A hockey stick graph American can believe in! Congratulations!

February 5, 2009 9:37 am

Benjamin P.,
Read the Wegman Report to Congress: click
You will see that the peer review process in the climate sciences has been thoroughly corrupted, and is controlled by a small self-serving clique of insiders, who by their agenda bear much of the responsibility for the unwarranted loss of respect for scientists in general.
Read also Prof. Richard Lindzen’s account of the disreputable shenanigans by like-minded people pushing an AGW/CO2 agenda: click
It is unconscionable that the bias and corruption of those feeding such false information to the public, like the discredited Hockey Stick and other bogus climate scares, has resulted in an adverse and unjustified impact on the credibility of scientists in general, the great majority of whom are honest.
And I should point out that if the tables were turned and you did not believe in the AGW/CO2 hypothesis, and you attempted to post your views in the same manner on RealClimate, your comments would be deleted. Why? Because RealClimate can not tolerate the truth, so they censor opposing views.
A big part of the reason the this site received about ten times more votes than RealClimate is its tolerance for different points of view. That makes it possible to sort out the truth — something that the folks at RC, Tamino and similar sites have a big problem with.

Tom M
February 5, 2009 10:04 am

Smokey (09:37:03) :
A big part of the reason the this site received about ten times more votes than RealClimate is its tolerance for different points of view. That makes it possible to sort out the truth — something that the folks at RC, Tamino and similar sites have a big problem with.
I’m new to this debate and have stumbled onto RealClimate, Climate Audit and WattsUp and a few other places looking for help to understand the science. I have found RealClimate to very unhelpful as, according to their apparent policy, opposing viewpoints are not allowed. I read something about them not wishing to give credence to myths by repeating them. That means they define truth from myth in the back room and don’t give me a chance to see the process or information that led to the decision. Somehow that makes it difficult for me to feel comfortable with what I’m reading, knowing that all opposing viewpoints are either redacted out or were chased away long ago by the policy. And that leads me to my question for this blog, which is surely more robust, (to borrow a word I’ve been seeing a lot of lately). I also have observed that the people at Real Climate are primarily climate modelers. Even this last Antarctic warming letter is some sort of reconstruction of the the past 50 years without actually using real data from years 50 to 25 because the satellite data was not available then. There was some sort of effort to extrapolate that data using ground station data. They call it interpolating, not extrapolating, but I don’t get that because they are going open ended backwards in time to nowhere. Although I do understand that they have interpolated data as between missing points of ground station (and satellite?) data somewhere along the line. I understand that sort of bootstrapping. I don’t like it particularly, but I understand it to be interpolating, but the greater purpose is to interpolate so they can get back to a point that gives them the desired trend. Anyway my tiny brain keeps whispering to me, “this is not real climate information, it’s unreal climate information”. I think they should adjust their website name, in the spirit of the way they adjust the temperature data, to UnRealClimate. This is only partly tongue in cheek because the essence of their efforts is “modeling”, which by definition is “unreal”.
The field should be left open for someone wishing to study and discuss real climate data to use the name real climate. Does this make sense?

February 5, 2009 3:09 pm

Tom M 10 04 17
I like the idea of someone setting up a spoof science blog call Unreal Climate.
complete with spoof subjects
“Adventurer to surf to North Pole’
“Startling new evidence shows sea level will rise 7 feet by next Wednesday.”
“Dr Mann apologises for hockey stick graph-it was only meant as a joke.”
On a more serious note it is essential that the issues are discussed from all viewpoints rather than just a mono view which will not even consider any ones elses contrarian arguements might have some merit.

Benjamin P.
February 5, 2009 5:58 pm

Is that the same Richard Lindzen who thinks smoking isn’t bad for your health?
As for the Wegman report, I would be interested in seeing their “social network analysis” for the folks on the other side of the climate debate (McIntyre, et al.).
Also, from the Wegman report….

Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Funding should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.

I think that is something we can all agree on.

February 5, 2009 6:38 pm

Benjamin P.:

As for the Wegman report, I would be interested in seeing their “social network analysis” for the folks on the other side of the climate debate (McIntyre, et al.)

See, you left out the tens of thousands of scientists with your ‘et al’, versus the relatively tiny clique identified in the Wegman Report. That is the problem. If Wegman’s analysis covered the AGW skeptic side, the network would have to include the majority of U.S. scientists: click
The problem with federal funding on climate research is that it is political, and therefore funding is funneled primarily to those pushing the AGW agenda. If a half-dozen prominent skeptic scholars were allowed to appoint half of the recipients of this taxpayer largesse, the outcome would be entirely different; the truth would emerge. Instead, as Wegman shows, a small clique receives the bulk of all the money, and they also control the climate peer review agenda as Lindzen so convincingly explains.
Anyone who thinks that science should not be politicized must find the current regime extremely distasteful.

%d bloggers like this: