Another record month at WUWT

Love it or hate it, WUWT gets traffic.


This month was 1,478,801 page views. This is up significantly from both January (1,324,097) and February (1,168,852).

As always, my sincere thanks to the many readers, commenters (even the angry ones, you know who you are 😉 ), moderators, and guest contributors that keep WUWT fresh and interesting.

– Anthony

UPDATE: Since I had a question about it, the numbers and graph above are from my internal traffic counter and stat system. They are actual counted pages views, not estimates like some external web traffic analysers.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 31, 2009 5:03 pm

Congratulations! WUWT is the go to place for interesting climate information!

March 31, 2009 5:06 pm

Anthony, you are a perfect example of a meritocracy.

March 31, 2009 5:14 pm

I suspect that you could correlate the atmospheric levels of CO2 with that data set.

March 31, 2009 5:19 pm

Smiling 🙂
Thank YOU, Anthony.

Mike Bryant
March 31, 2009 5:21 pm

Wow, what a difference a year makes!
Onward and upward,
PS Has anyone actually made any of those “screeching mercury monkeys” patches? I would proudly wear one…

March 31, 2009 5:23 pm

I love it.
Goods news on the numbers……
People are being educated about the global warming ruse little by little.
Hopefully, the nutty politicians in DC can be stopped before they run this country completely into the ground.

March 31, 2009 5:23 pm

Excellent! That curve must be proportional to the number of Climate Realist Awakenings.

March 31, 2009 5:25 pm

A, very well done!

john s.
March 31, 2009 5:27 pm

Congratulations, Anthony. I very much appreciate the high level of expectation you bring to this site which makes it a much more thoughtful and welcoming place than most. I have learned much from the persons that Keep up the good work.

March 31, 2009 5:31 pm

Keep up the good work!

March 31, 2009 5:34 pm

I have been entertained and enlightened by reading your website. For the most part, your commentors are very smart people.
Thanks Buddy!
Mark Mudgett

John W.
March 31, 2009 5:34 pm

Congrats, Anthony!!
I bet the alarmists wish this graph was the global temperature trend instead.

Frank Miles
March 31, 2009 5:39 pm

a steady increase, no doubt caused by humans.
i enjoy the site. thanks

March 31, 2009 5:40 pm

Oops! I thought it was a HS… Joking… 🙂

March 31, 2009 5:41 pm

Congratulations Anthony!
Love the site.
Now about that graph; nobody named Hansen works for you do they?

Graeme Rodaughan
March 31, 2009 5:57 pm

Excellent work Anthony and too all the guest posters who have contributed so much to making this blog as interesting as it is.
A general round of thanks to all the commentators who also have so much value to contribute to this site.
(from eyeballing the graph) This site has added approx 1M views in the last 12 months. Could well breach 2M views per month by July – possibly on the back of Arctic Sea Ice watching… (My Hot topic for the next 6 months).

March 31, 2009 6:00 pm

Congratulations Anthony on another record breaking month.
House Democrats unveil sweeping plan to reshape energy in America
Tue Mar 31, 6:35 pm ET
WASHINGTON — Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday announced a sweeping plan to change how the nation produces and uses energy in order to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.
No environmental legislation in America has ever attempted such wide-reaching changes. The bill — an incomplete draft that will evolve in the months ahead — would provide incentives to boost wind, solar and other renewable energy, would improve efficiency so that homes and businesses need less fuel and would support the development of cars that run on biofuels and electricity.
It also would make using fossil fuels more expensive — and that will be the central issue of debate in Congress , with armies of lobbyists on both sides.
The measure contains a variety of terms intended to help businesses survive the energy transition, but it leaves open for debate the central question: how revenues from pollution permits would be used. That means the question of how consumers would be helped also remains to be worked out.
The plan calls for a system to limit for the first time the amount of global warming pollution — mainly carbon dioxide from coal and oil combustion _that’s permitted from utilities, oil companies and large-scale industries, which make up 85 percent of the U.S. economy.

Keith Minto
March 31, 2009 6:01 pm

Great result for a very informative, accessable and readable site.
May your numbers keep growing.

March 31, 2009 6:03 pm

Well, since half those page views are mine, since I discovered the site, I’ll take some credit!
Seriously, I’m impressed with the caliber of posts and comments (for the most part), and appreciate the work of the moderators in maintaining civility.
Now if I understood all the statistics better. . .
/Mr Lynn

Dave Wendt
March 31, 2009 6:03 pm

Well deserved congrats Anthony. This site has become my haven on those increasing occasions when the events, pronouncements, and actions of the politicians and the public lead me to seriously question my personal grip on sanity. You might want to send a thank you note to Mr. Hansen though, the voluminous comment threads generated every time he spouts off must be contributing significantly to your bottom line. If he wasn’t already making out like a bandit from his present gig, you’d probably be justified in offering a cut of the tip jar to keep up the good work

Mrs Whatsit
March 31, 2009 6:08 pm

You deserve it, Anthony. I’ve learned a great deal here, and I especially appreciate your attention to the tone and focus of the comments.

Tom Trezise
March 31, 2009 6:09 pm

As a layman with an abiding interest in the AGW debate but limited technical understanding, I’ve become an addict! You are my source of trustworthy information in a sea of propaganda.

March 31, 2009 6:11 pm

Congratulations! It is an excellent site.
Speaking only for myself, after the election the whole issue of global warming is more urgent, since our one-party government is likely to do something foolish and expensive. So I have made it a higher priority to educate myself on the subject. I would be curious whether other new readers are similarly motivated.

March 31, 2009 6:24 pm

Hmmm – That graph reminds me of something, I got it, it looks likes a hockey stick!
Congratulations to one of the most interesting sites on the net.

March 31, 2009 6:28 pm

Speaking of the tip jar, if some of the regulars here could donate say 10 dollars every other month or so, Anthony’s life would be a lot less…stressful.
About 4% of poster/viewers account for about 50% of the traffic.
Looks like about 114,000 unique people (worldwide) stopped by last month.
C’mon you 4,500 people. Chip in! At least every once in a while.
jeez aka charles the moderator

Evan Jones
March 31, 2009 6:56 pm

PS Has anyone actually made any of those “screeching mercury monkeys” patches? I would proudly wear one…
I think I can safely say I’ve earned mine.
REPLY: Yes but you are a screecher, junior grade, probie. 😉

Evan Jones
March 31, 2009 6:59 pm

Mrs Whatsit
A non-American fan of A Wrinkle in Time?

March 31, 2009 7:04 pm

jeez is right. What’s a few bucks? A big mac? A quarter tank of gas? Two packs of cigarettes??
If we don’t get the word out, nobody will.
The AGW/CO2 scam is built on this: click
Some pushback, and they might be scrambling to explain.
And for all those who contribute something to this great site: click!

D. King
March 31, 2009 7:26 pm

Very well done!

March 31, 2009 7:49 pm

Well Done, Anthony. This site is on my must-reads daily. I’ve learned a lot here.

March 31, 2009 7:50 pm

Love this site. It’s my favorite place on the web! Ultimately, this means good things for you, and for the advance of legitimate scientific study of Climate issues. Congratulations!

March 31, 2009 8:21 pm

This site just gets better and better. Congratulations to Anthony, the guest posters, and moderators. This is the way the internet ought to be!

James Allison
March 31, 2009 8:29 pm

I have no science training and always intuitively thought significant AGW just wasn’t right. Since stumbling across this site and subsequently understanding a little more about the science and a lot more about the politics driving the AGW scenario I’m concerned how much badness the AGW believers/fanatics will have on your American economic future.
Your site Anthony has both good science and ridicule in abundance which is a very good thing because they are both effective weapons for combating the AGW virus.

Leon Brozyna
March 31, 2009 8:33 pm

Congrats on another blow out month.
Since you hit the 10 mil mark on 15 March, 800,000+ in the second half of the month; if that trend continues, you may well have another good record-setting month in April.
And all without censoring dissenting thoughts. Who’d a thunk?!

Fluffy Clouds (Tim L)
March 31, 2009 9:05 pm

I got it!!!!
April fools!!!!!!

March 31, 2009 9:30 pm

Four hours since my pledge drive and three donations.
Seriously, I think we can do better.
According to the marketing stats, 34% of you make over 100K/year, although maybe those are all the pro AGW types.

Derek Walton
March 31, 2009 10:35 pm

But the real question we need answered are….
1. Is this data the RAW data or the ADJUSTED data?
2. Is the hit counter correctly sited or is there some microsite bias that forces up the hits? I have a strong feeling that the counter could be contaminated and we should therefore adjust it with a more ‘rural’ blog: I think that once this is done you will find that WUWT has fewer hits than RealClimate…

March 31, 2009 10:46 pm

Must have been the barycenter debate 🙂

March 31, 2009 11:00 pm

It would be interesting to graph WUWT viewer stats with the increase in skeptical pieces in the MSM Anthony noted in the media tipping point thread. I think there will be a strong correlation found.
Well done Anthony and all guest posters, mods, and contributors!

March 31, 2009 11:08 pm

jeez (21:30:55) :
OK…. my wife and my accountant are both going to kill me. I make a bit less than 35K per year as an adjunct and I’ve contributed about $200 in yankee green back dollars this year to WUWT and CA. I also bought two of Lucia’s cool mugs. The smaller one still holds about 30% more coffee than any other mug I own. Skeptics and deniers, put your money where your mouth is!
Reply: Well, I did try and target the more affluent players. ~ charles the moderator aka jeez

Dermot Carroll
April 1, 2009 12:43 am

your welcome.

April 1, 2009 3:25 am

With the quality of the headline articles and the continuing increase in viewing traffic, has WUWT reached it’s own tipping point?
Perhaps it is only me but it seems that over the last six months or so that there is a quiet but steady increase in the number of easily read and easily understood articles / papers by more and more quite prominent and highly respected climate researchers, appearing on WUWT.
Am I the only one detecting this trend or am I imagining things?
Richard Lindzen’s article on Negative Feedback, easily read and written in a way that can be understood by an interested layman, was an excellent example of this trend.
Dr Roy Spencer’s article on Publishing and Sensitivity was another example.
There are many other examples of climate scientists or those delving into the innards of climate science starting to use the blogs such as WUWT as their means of publishing the basic outlines of their research and their results and all in simple basic english that any interested person can understand.
WUWT as well as the other top climate blogs are increasingly cross referencing and cross publishing interesting and relevant articles with one another which is a development that can only be applauded.
With the discrimination by the major journals that is now being applied to those researchers who do not toe a particular editorial line, are we seeing a new alternative system of taking that research to a possibly much wider audience than just those who would normally be expected to read those journals.
The benefits for those researchers who follow this new and alternative means of publishing their data and conclusions may turn out to be very large indeed.
To have an item accepted to be published in a forum such as WUWT would require the presenter to couch their research conclusions in very easily understood english and to make the whole presentation interesting and relevant.
This of course then gets that research into a very large number of corners of the technical and political parts of our society where for the first time some very influential but non technical people may and can get an understanding of a subject straight from the horse’s mouth so as to speak.
With this access to a different and direct outlook on a science subject without having to go through an interpreter, this could have a profound effect upon the decisions that the particular decision makers subsequently reach and the implementation of those decisions and the follow on effects on our society as a whole.
This formula of easily under stood science was once followed by the likes of Scientific American until it went into a drastic decline in quality.
The british based New Scientist also followed the same formula but that too is now in a steep and rapid decline as it’s almost pathological editorial fixation on climate change to the exclusion of any other views has already taken it well down the road to increasing irrelevance in so much of it’s science reporting.
In fact I was a bit shocked at the slimness and lack of any quality material in the latest edition when it turned up in the post.
There is a precedent for my next query and that is
I know this is a very hard ask but is it time for a WUWT parallel blog / forum to be set up to accept papers initially on say Climate Change.
A volunteer editorial board and a peer review process to ascertain if the quality of the paper is acceptable to the site for publication.
And a language filter that requires at the very least, the paper’s conclusions and as much as possible of it’s research computations to be couched in easily read and easily understood english for it’s public forum postings.
Once the a site like this became known then the reach of a good, easily read and understood paper would be very large indeed and would also serve as an educational and reference tool for any interested members of the public.
Finacing such a site would be problematical to say the least and yet the AGW ideologists seem to have no problems rounding up finance from various foundations and of course also by back door government [ tax payer ] finance through the various enviro organisations.
Surely somewhere out there, there is somebody who is loaded and would like to see that climate science for starters, warts and all should be made available and accurately reported to the public and that person would like a few of the kudos that would come from being associated with a very highly respected and increasingly influential blog / forum such as Anthony Watts, Whats Up With That

April 1, 2009 4:00 am

jeez (18:28:59) :
Speaking of the tip jar, if some of the regulars here could donate say 10 dollars every other month or so, Anthony’s life would be a lot less…stressful.
About 4% of poster/viewers account for about 50% of the traffic.
Looks like about 114,000 unique people (worldwide) stopped by last month.
C’mon you 4,500 people. Chip in! At least every once in a while.
jeez aka charles the moderator

I’m in. Only ten bucks, but I’m as poor as a churchmouse at the moment.
Come on you high flyers, dig deep to cover that bandwidth bill !!

April 1, 2009 4:32 am

OOPs, sorry! “Watts Up With That”

Pamela Gray
April 1, 2009 5:52 am

This site has almost convinced me to become a registered Republican…she said as savethesharks is observed clutching his chest and fainting dead away ;~). Luv ya sharkie.

George Patch
April 1, 2009 5:53 am

The problem is that I’m skeptical of all hockey sticks now days.

April 1, 2009 6:42 am

Congratulations Anthony!
We are sure you will surpass the “hockey stick”
We must thanks too, to those thousands of GWRS who secretly visit this webpage

April 1, 2009 6:52 am

The big difference is that Anthony’s hockey stick is real!!

April 1, 2009 6:52 am


April 1, 2009 9:48 am

Hasse@Norway (06:52:55) :
Ah, yes, but only the ones before nov 2008. The later ones should be adjusted UP.
Oh dear. No patronising snide rhetoric from John Philip in this thread? Well, well.
Good job Anthony. I really enjoy reading this blog and mention it to all I can during conversations about AGW.

Earle Williams
April 1, 2009 10:16 am

Congratulations on the UNPRECEDENTED viewership.

Ron de Haan
April 1, 2009 10:39 am

Watts up with that is the place to be.
Thanks Anthony.

April 1, 2009 12:09 pm

ROM (03:25:27) : …it seems that … there is a quiet but steady increase in the number of easily read and easily understood articles / papers by more and more quite prominent and highly respected climate researchers, appearing on WUWT. Am I the only one detecting this trend or am I imagining things?
I think you are right on Rom. I think many of us sense a huge sea-change, that the AGW blight has also been a driver to produce new growth that is commensurate with the Internet and people’s need for truth, courtesy, and other human values. WWII was a driver for Science as it was then.
As a former active warmist, I decided the issue was so important that I needed to teach myself the science… and then I wrote it down, both to consolidate my own understanding and to help others. I came to feel passionately that Climate Science needs a “citizens science” approach to clean it out, rehabilitate it, with the transparency that can make obfuscation and disinformation a lot harder in future. Without shame, I think my “Primer” is now at a pretty good standard and is unique of its kind.
As more and more folk come to WUWT, I wonder how “organic growth” can happen so as to maintain quality here. Many have learned a heck of a lot and want to pass on the best of what we’ve learned, and find ways to communicate to intractable warmists. For this, I personally hold up a light for a skeptics’ wiki. I believe that such a project is capable of working and of being fun. I’ve written a page on this and have a sticky thread on our Forum, so that, whatever happens, ideas are still accumulating and distilling. I still do not have enough clout to do much more than accumulate ideas steadily – but our collective clout is growing.
Anthony, anyone, any other thoughts on keeping WUWT growth sweet?

Adam Soereg
April 1, 2009 12:16 pm

A nice amount of increment last month. According to the overwhelming scientific consensus, it is “very likely” to have been human-induced. The science is in, the time for denialism is over… 🙂
Great site. Congratulations!

Carsten Arnholm, Norway
April 1, 2009 12:26 pm

That’s great. I really appreciate the information and work done here.
I found the donate button, so I hope it continues!

John H.- 55
April 1, 2009 12:45 pm

It sure is hard to imagine where all of this will be in 5 years.

April 1, 2009 1:08 pm

Congrats, Anthony. I love reading your articles and the informed debate and commentary by your other readers. You have consolidated my skepticism. Three years ago I was in the AGW crowd. No more.

April 1, 2009 1:11 pm

PS, I just hit the donate button. This is the first time I’ve ever donated to an internet News Organization. Keep up the great work.

Jack Simmons
April 1, 2009 3:04 pm

Love this site.
As others have already observed, much of the material presented here is by professional scientists written for the lay audience. Very appreciated.

ian middleton
April 1, 2009 4:32 pm

Well done Anthony.
AGW = Anthony’s Great Weblog

John Andrews
April 1, 2009 8:26 pm

I was just reading WUWT on Google Reader. Only going to the site to read the comments. Now I always go to the site to make sure that Anthony gets the credit due. I pay my dues, too.
— John Andrews in Knoxville, Tennessee

Mike Bryant
April 1, 2009 9:02 pm

Our models reveal that the readership of WUWT will continue to decline as CO2 levels increase. The data that is represented by the graphs at the top of this page must therefore be incorrect and there just happens to be a peer-reviewed paper coming out later this month that will explain precisely how and why these spurious data came to be. The correct data have been recorded by satellite and have been massaged and homogenized for your protection.
Thank YOU,
Really and Truly REAL Climate

Reed Coray
April 1, 2009 9:16 pm

The internet gives the world access to jewels and trash. WUWT is the Hope diamond of jewels. Keep up the good work, and thank you.
Reed Coray

April 2, 2009 5:09 am

Anthony, I am taking your innovative site for granted. I am two days late in saying thank you. I hope others subscribe, as I have done, not just contribute occasionally. Your efforts are raising awareness on a global scale; you are warming the neurons of our thinking brains.

May 17, 2009 6:24 pm

Sorry, about that dip in February. My reader had a glitch and I missed a bunch of posts. 😉
Keep up the good work.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights