Another record month at WUWT

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

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?!

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 surfacestations.org.
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

OOPs, sorry! “Watts Up With That”

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

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

Hasse@Norway (06:52:55) :
THESE NUMBERS ARE IFFY AND SHOULD BE ADJUSTET DOWNWARDS ACCORDING TO DOGMA!!!
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.