Back on March 15th, 2009, I was amazed to find that WUWT hit 10 million on the internal WordPress hit counter.
I started the WUWT blog in late November of 2006, and it took me over two years to get there
Now just six months later, I’m amazed again:
Despite the many people of the alarmism bent who dislike what we do here, WUWT continues to be popular. As always thanks to the many many readers, the guest contributors, and especially to our moderators dbs, Charles, and Evan who keep the flow of conversation going smoothly.
I’m grateful to all of you for the continued success and support. I’m especially grateful to those who spread WUWT links on other websites, helping to drive traffic here.
Now my most important question: what could WUWT do different or better?
– Anthony
Your post [resources comment 65319] is indeed a good one and one to which I have referred several times and to which I have referred others. You may recall I once mentioned that I had to go to the page source to see how you did it.
What I had in mind with my suggestion above [F. Ross (21:58:22) : ] was nothing earthshaking, but to have on the WUWT Resources page a few permanent html tags links [or a summation of your tags info] under, say, the Other Data section.
Improvements:
Numbering comments, quoting other comments (automatically in a different font) and formatting like “Climate Audit” (but does it always work there?).
The possibility to jump directly to today’s comments, especially in “Tips and Notes”.
Congratulations.
On improvements, recommend:
1) Link to both the IPCC and NIPCC publications under Resources.
IPCC
NIPCC
2) Invite specialists to post popular summaries systematically working through each of the major issues in climate change science.
3) Begin series on the projected decline of conventional fuels (Peak Oil) and development of alternative fuels.
4) Invite articles on the constraints of Peak Oil on projections of anthropogenic CO2 and Climate Change.
APSO
Especially publications by Robert L. Hirsch, Kjell Aleklett, Mikael Hook,
Willem Nell,
Gail E. Tverberg (“Gail the Actuary”) e.g. Peak Oil overview
Khebab on World Export model
OT, kindasorta (well, this IS the place to get abnswers!
The SOHO page at NASA has been down for several days. Does somebody here know why? Recent sunspots knock it out?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/home.html
Felicidades Anthony,
a reference blog, without any doubt, with your little place in my blog, of course.
In adding my congratulations, may I say that you are too modest – I would suggest rather than a small milestone it is in fact a [snipping} great signpost to climate common sense.
It is heartening to see that people are increasingly looking for answers to the questions being asked here every day. It is sad to see so little reasoned argument being contributed by proponents of AGW.
In response to your request for things to add, can I suggest a sidebar link to Antarctic ice coverage below the Arctic sea ice one.
My thanks for the immense effort put into this site by you and your team.
Ultimately I think that we should launch a wiki about global warming/climate change/climate science that takes all the information posted over the past three years as blog posts and make it a reference on climate science that is based on peer reviewed, publicly refereed data that is open and transparent in all the raw material and data that goes into it.
Congratulations, well deserved. The main problem I have is finding archive posts by topic other than a punt in the search box.
Good idea Mile Lorrey.
When can you start?
Congratulations, Anthony, and the Mods (sounds like a singing group, now?)
Seriously, Great Job. And, Thanks.
Should have been: (sounds like a singing group, no?)
Anyway, Thanks, again.
Congrats Anthony and mods! It proves that if you build a better blog the world will tap (on a keyboard) a path to your door. I tap in to WUWT at least twice a day.
As for improvements, I wouldn’t mind a book review section. I have read a few books dispelling the notion of AGW and I’d like to read more. There are so many books though that it’s hard to choose. I don’t want to rehash the same information in another book and I don’t want a book whose science is so high above my head that I have no hope understanding it.
Contributors could briefly state the outline of the book, how scientifically educated a reader needs to be (i.e. it’s suitable for high school students, science graduates, Nobel laureates etc), how pleasant it is to read (does it read easily or is it like a dry textbook) and if it contributes anything new to the discussion. These and other features of a book could be written up by WUWT readers and hence introduce enquiring minds to more information. The success of WUWT demonstrates there are many intelligent minds out there looking for truth without spin or psycho-babble.
LilacWine, the bookworm 🙂
David Hagen, you have to stop with the peak oil BS (bad science) . It is sad and unprovable. Get over yourself. Paul Erlich was wrong, and so are you.
Many thanks and congrats Mr. Watts and Co. This is an excellent web site.
LilacWine (17:16:03) said :
“As for improvements, I wouldn’t mind a book review section. I have read a few books dispelling the notion of AGW and I’d like to read more. There are so many books though that it’s hard to choose. I don’t want to rehash the same information in another book and I don’t want a book whose science is so high above my head that I have no hope understanding it.”
I agree and would appreciate a book review section too as I struggle understanding complex scientific writing.
“Link to both the IPCC and NIPCC publications under Resources.”
Those would have to be under resinks, would they?
Reply: I like joke grenades. Tick…Tick…Tick…….Boom ~ charles the moderator
> Now just six months later, I’m amazed again…
I’m not surprised you get so many hits. You’re an oasis of sanity in a desert of mindless hysteria and intellectual dishonesty.
Congratulations, and don’t do anything differently.
CONGRATS Anthony and non-Hockey Team!
The case against “consensus” can be summer in three legs:
First, original (or raw) unadjusted data do not support a case for alarm. Or that AGW is the most relevant explanation for climate change. Instead, nothing appears to support it.
Second, all the falsifying evidence supports non-AGW explanation. How do consensus scientists deny natural cliamte change?
Third, the most sensational stories and “studies” almost always result from cherry-picking of the evidence. The worst and yet still most prominent are “Hockey Sticks.”
When we can all put a stick in that last villain, our work will be done.
Great site Anthony, but some improvements could be made.
1) I get peeved seeing people copy into their post whole paragraphs from earlier posts, which all of us have already seen. Such duplication is a waste of time for readers. Could you enforce a rule where this is banned? Surely its not impossible for posters to just include the name & date/time of earlier post. This would save frustration for pedantic people like me. Implementation would be easy – just delete the whole comment, with an explanation, & over time people will change their ways when they don’t get to see their stuff on the web.
I am in Australia, & look at this site often, usually when you guys are tucked up in bed. I will volunteer to perform the edits/moderating, if you needed extra manpower to get it done.
2) What about numbering posts like Steve does on CA? See point 1.
3) There seems to be an excess of mindless comments & sniping at others here. Too many people engaging their keyboard before their brain. Again, I would like to see much of the dross filtered out by the moderators. I can get my fill of rubbish in lots of places, & come here for intelligent, thought provoking comment, not that. This site would be more attractive to “Team” members to reply to criticisms, hopefully, if the sniping was not allowed.
You are providing a valuable service; and deserve public recognition for that service.
I hope you have copyrighted an appropriate logo for WUWT it might have value in the future.
I can see marketing opportunities for labelled products, we would like the opportunity to compete with the flood of Greenpeace et al. inspired pro AGW propaganda logos.
What can WUWT do better :
Get wordpress to number the posts on a topic, making it easier to trace an argument.
It’s about time that WUWT invented some new math to deal with extreme numbers of hits – normal math just won’t cut it anymore…
what could WUWT do different or better? A small request (I hope). I prefer to read on paper but have to select print preview and subtract 6 from the last page number to remove the picture links from the right hand column. Any chance this can be fixed in the style sheet? I don’t have to do this with SteveM’s site.
Other than that, congratulations and thanks to you all. WUWT reminds me every day what is so attractive about science – rational explanations for the universe we live in. It’s so sad to see science turned into a politicized, rent seeking occupation.
You are an island of sanity in a crazy world and I thank you with all my heart.
Ee by gum, lad, tha’s doin’ a reet grand job ‘ere. Tha’s getten a reet gradely site, an’ we reckon tha’ll meck 30 million i’ no time. Keep it up.
Translation from Lancashire to English:
By Jove Sir, you are doing a frightfully fine job here. You have an awfully fine site, and we estimate that you will achieve 30 million very soon. Maintain your present direction.
(I hate to think what Lancashire dialect would sound like in an American accent. And how would you {snip} it?)
Keep up the great work!
Reply: Teur. we doa wee best despi’ t’ ‘orrible wukkin conditions, lack o’ pay, ‘n neya respect we suffa everee day. ~ charles t’ moderator
David Ball (17:23:34) : David Hagen, you have to stop with the peak oil BS (bad science) . It is sad and unprovable. Get over yourself. Paul Erlich was wrong, and so are you.
David, usually I agree with you. But this time I don’t, precisely for the reason that, if Peak Oil is bad science (which I don’t doubt at least in parts) I want the space to discern for myself and separate the good and bad details. This kind of space is what WUWT provides.
But if possible, I don’t want to look at Peak Oil issues until I see real Science being reinstated by the science organizations and publications – signalled by admissions of past errors of attitude in foreclosing debate and encouraging alarmism, and by specifically reaching out towards those they have scorned.
I’m here because I’m learning almost every day. I’m amused almost as often too. That’s a winning combination. I find this to be a very fair minded, civil, and voluminous discussion of complex issues. Thank you very much for creating it.
Mark
A hearty congratulations on reaching this amazing milestone. Long may you continue.