Climategate.com shuts down

From the Facebook page of the Climategate.com operator:

Climategate is closing down

I am very sorry to bring you the news today that climategate.com is shutting down.

It started out as a minor little “hour a day” hobby last December after I purchased the domain name, and it turned into a monster of a site, causing me to work on it every spare hour of my day, every day. I just could no longer justify the time spent with literally pennies to a few dollars in ad revenue coming in a day. I do very much appreciate the generous donations some people made along the way, which helped with the expensive dedicated server the huge traffic required.

I spent many hours the last two weeks trying to find a solution to keeping the site going, either putting it on autopilot somehow or making a decent revenue stream off of it. I just could not do it. Believe me, I really tried.

It wasn’t fair to my family that I had my face buried in my computer all day and night. It felt like I was on a treadmill and could not get off. And I also owed it to my family to earn some income somewhere instead of just working on “the cause” all the time.

So, that’s what happened. Again, I’m really sorry.

Thank you all for everything.”

“This domain name had a web site with 570 posts, 6000 comments, a PR4 rating and Alexa rank of about 70,000, when I parked it on 3/11/10. I started the site in December 09. Just got burned out with such a popular site and had to move on to other things. The entire WordPress site is still on my server and will be saved for a buyer if they are interested.

First $100,000 takes it.

================

Heh. He doesn’t know the meaning of hard work.

WUWT:

2,639 Posts 310,303 Comments

Alexa rank:

* Alexa Traffic Rank: 13,680

* United States Flag Traffic Rank in US: 6,654

* Sites Linking In: 3,114

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JonesII
Ray

Do like Al Gore… merge!

vigilantfish

The question is, how did the domain name get snapped up so quickly by apparent warmists as a renewable energy site?

dearieme

But what about the zillions that Exxon must pay him?????

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

Doh
Bluehost, Dreamhost and other providers can host a site with that kind of visitor numbers quite easily for the $7 a month they charge.

As someone who searched for climategate.com, I’m glad someone thought of the idea before me, and certainly you did a better job than I would have!
Sorry to hear you are giving up, what happened to all that big-oil money we are supposed to get?

1DandyTroll

Intelligent people always asks for help when they need help, or so I’ve been told.
Proper greedy people earn their own money, the foul greedy ones asks for it just like that (sry but that’s what it looks like).

dcardno

Hasn’t he been getting the cheques from BP and ExxonMobile, or the envelopes of cash from Halliburton?

I can’t stop laughing, but I have to say this, who asks for 100K for a site the seller him self says only makes bread crumbs and spare change?

RockyRoad

Your contribution was much appreciated!
(Perhaps this will help expose the lie that “deniers/realists/skeptics/dissidents” are on Big Oil’s payroll.)

Bernice

Very poor excuse. There was about one to two articles a day, the site could have been handed off to somebody that could have continued the site. I think there was a 100,000 reasons to beging the site in the first place and take advantage of the users building up the site. Greed.

Pascvaks

Take care of your family! The world is ‘usually’ capable of taking care of itself and keeping the crazzies in check. When one door closes, another door opens. GBY&Y

JinOH

$100,000 for a domain name in this economy?

DirkH

100,000 would be a good investment for George Soros; he could use the site to spread some helpful information about how evil CO2 is. Maybe have Joe Romm at the controls.

Just goes to show how much Anthony has put into his site and the huge contribution he has made to exposing this AGW fraud. If it wasnt for McIntyre and Watts we would still be years off exposing the bad science involved. Of couse, if it wasnt for Real Climate we would have progressed even more slowly with less laughs.

J_M

Apparently he didn’t get his big oil/coal check:)

Jo bob

$100,000, ..man!, and we say that the IPCC is a bunch of crouks.
175$ p/posting… looks like when Mr Watt is selling , he’s hitting the jackpot.
Jee, seeya …i’m off , starting my own climateblog this minute.

A C Osborn

I am sorry that any site stops, but family should come first.

Henry chance

Convicted felon George Soros handles transactions with many more zeroes than 100 grand. If the site retains a registration,it remains with it’s owner. I posted occasional comments. Joe Romm has a lot of posts with merely 2-3 comments. I suspect he works about 14 hour days. He is a control freak and deletes hundreds of comments.

Bob

Graham, the other guy who posted could have kept the site updated. Closing down the site and offering the content, user information & ip addresses and domain name to the highest alarmist bidder is cheap and nasty.

Mark Rose

I could run that on a Pentium II machine.
I have a site that does 1 million PHP scripts per day (and 10 million images) that I used to run on a single core Celeron. And it pushes about 50 to 60 GB/day. Cost to run? $69 US a month.
This guy is an incompetent system administrator if he can’t run that site on a $69/mn box.

someone spider the site quick, and put it up somewhere else. If he wants to sell it, it is not for the content – which is sad.

brick

when I looked at climategate.com in Holland I got a site in Dutch with windmills and Renewable energy on it!!!

North of 43 south of 44

Way too much for a site that would have a limited keyword space not already occupied by other sites.
Maybe worth about $1,000.

Doc_Navy

On a related topic, I just sent off a letter to USA Today about their article, “Questions about research slow climate change efforts” written by Brian Winter. Here’s the reprint. (it’s big.)
To: ‘accuracy@usatoday.com’
Subject: A little due diligence please.
Hello,
I am writing this in response to your article entitled “Questions about research slow climate change efforts” written by Brian Winter. I am assume this article relates to your front page article in the printed version of your paper that is on the stands today.
Understand that I am aware that “Climate Change” is a complicated subject, but gentlemen (and ladies), before you commit to print an article of this magnitude a little due diligence is required. The article above has so many “errors of omission” that anyone who is even vaguely educated on the subject of “Climate Change” or “AGW” can see the Pro-AGW tilt in the author’s writing. Below are some examples of your inaccurate reporting.
Regarding Dr. Michael Mann’s “life work” and “Climategate”, Your quote,
“it’s the fact that his life’s work — the effort to stop global warming — has been under siege since last fall. That’s when Mann suddenly found himself in the middle of the so-called “climategate” scandal, in which more than 1,000 e-mails among top climate scientists — including Mann — were obtained illegally by hackers and published on the Internet.”
First, no one actually KNOWS the method by which the “Climategate” emails came to the public attention. Stating that they were “obtained illegally by hackers” is complete and utter SPECULATION on the part of the author. There is just as much evidence, if not more, that the emails were leaked by an insider at East Anglia University or the CRU (thus making the whole thing subject to “Whistleblower laws”), and that put’s a completely different light on the whole defense of the “Climategate” emails being “illegally hacked”, doesn’t it?
Second, a more accurate description of Mann’s “Life work” would be his decade long fight to validate his THRICE debunked “Hockey stick” Paper, known in the Climate academia as MBH 98/99. This paper, which purports to prove that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” (1) Never existed, and (2) if they did, they were regional and insignificant; as well as trying to purport that recent global temperature rise is “Unprecedented” within the last THOUSAND years, was the ~**SHOWCASE**~ item in both the IPCC TAR (3rd Assessment report), and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie. This paper was initially debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick in “Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998)” and their results were summarily upheld by a Congressional Investigation known as “The Wegman Report” led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and National Research Council report “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years” by Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council. The IPCC quietly removed all references to MBH 98/99 from their 3rd assessment report afterward and subsequently is rarely ever cited in academia or scientific works. (Although, it still makes regular appearances in Pro-AGW propaganda.)
There have been a number of “independent” papers published in an effort to bolster MBH 98/99, but they all suffer from the SAME problems. 1. Most of these supporting papers were written by Co-Authors of MBH 98/99 therefore they aren’t really “independent”. 2. ALL of the supporting papers use the exact same bad data as MBH 98/99 and the same poor statistical methods that were suspect in the first place to produce the “Hockey stick” shape. In fact, two of the papers have become infamous for the unethical way they were published and their inclusion into the IPCC 4th AR IN VIOLATION of the IPCCs own policies. (Read about it here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html)
On a side note, a number of the findings of the Wegman Report that have been criticized by other AGW media mouthpieces (Specifically Realclimate.org) have been proven to be TRUE by the “Climategate” emails. In particular are the findings of:
-A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction is described of at least 43 authors with direct ties to Mann by virtue of having coauthored papers with him. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
-It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though its members rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data, and results was done haphazardly and begrudgingly.
Next, The “Climategate” emails not only show “some of the scientists sharing doubts”, and “questioning the work of other researchers and refusing to share data with the public”… They are prima facie evidence that CRIMINAL acts of FOIA avoidance and evasion were committed, up to and including the DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC FUNDED DATA rather than releasing it to those asking for it, and that completely unprofessional and UNETHICAL methods were used to obscure, censor, and “Hide” (their words, not mine) observed data that was in direct conflict with their purported findings of rapid global temperature rise. They also implicate Michael Mann in the commission of those same acts here in the US, we shall see what happens with the current (and still ongoing) investigation of Michael Mann at Penn State. Contrary to what the AGW spin machine has said, the investigation is still underway.
Also, the article fails to mention which IPCC report it is talking about when it says, “In the most notorious error, the IPCC report said global warming could cause glaciers in the Himalayas to melt by 2035. The purportedly impending disaster was cited repeatedly by environmental groups and politicians at the Copenhagen summit…” In the previous paragraph Michael Mann is talking about his work being included in the IPCC TAR (3rd assessment report) and Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, the very next paragraph the “notorious error” mentioned resides in the IPCC 4th AR. This distinction is important because the “most notorious error” in the IPCC TAR ~IS~ the inclusion of Michael Mann’s work… The “Hockey Stick”. In regards to the IPCC 4th AR, the article fails to mention WHY the Himalayan error is so “notorious”. It is “notorious” because it is documented that the IPCC Chairman, Dr Rajendra K Pachauri KNEW about this error for ~MONTHS~ prior to the Copenhagen summit, and not only did he not disclose it, he went on record and publicly ridiculed the scientists who brought it to his attention as “practitioners of Voodoo science.” This is in addition to the fact that -again- in VIOLATION of the IPCC’s own rules and standards, the 4th AR contains dozens of citations and references to non-scientific, non-peer reviewed, and activist organization sponsored papers in an effort to “make the science match the message.” All the while, as was proven to be the case in the “Climategate” emails, scientific papers that were skeptical of, or contained conclusions that were in opposition to the standard Pro-AGW/IPCC party line were being intentionally obstructed from being published and/or included in the IPCC 4th AR by “Top Climate Scientists” of which includes Jones and Mann.
As to the statements made by former senator Wirth, “It’s not a fair fight,” Wirth says. “The IPCC is just a tiny secretariat next to this giant denier machine…” let me make this extremely clear:
THERE IS ~NO~ SUCH THING AS A “MONOLITHIC”, “GIANT” or, “BIG OIL FUNDED” “DENIER MACHINE”. It simply does NOT exist, no matter how much the Pro-AGW supporters wish it did. Next time you hear someone like Joe Romm, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Stephen Schneider, Gavin Schmidt, or Al Gore talk about this “Denier machine”, ask them to get SPECIFIC. Who is this “Denier machine”? Exxon? The same company that last year gave $200 MILLION to Stanford University’s Climate Change program? (This would be 10x the amount of funds commonly quoted by AGW figureheads that “Skeptic” think tanks have supposedly received from Exxon over the last ~20 YEARS~.)
Finally, what “Climate data” is Michael Mann citing when you print his statement of, “there’s a better than 50-50 chance” that 2010 will be the hottest year ever. That, more than any political statement, could refocus the debate…”? He’s certainly not citing the World Meteorological Organization, or MetHadley, or NASA, or NOAA, or NSIDC because ALL of these organizations at one time or another, have publicly gone on record as saying that global temperatures will remain stable or even cool over the next 10-15 years, possibly more.
Due Dilligence, please.
V/r,
(Redacted)
Who knows if I’ll get a response… Prolly not.
Doc

Gail Combs

O/T Good news from another battle front. It seems a Wisconsin judge actually upheld an Amish Farmer’s Constitutional rights. Maybe American farmers will continue to be allowed to continue to farm and provide cheap food for all of us. However we expect a switch to another line of attack.
“Clark Co. Judge Rules in Favor of Amish in Premises ID Case
Wisconsin Ag Connection – 03/10/2010
A decision has finally been made in the highly anticipated case in which the State of Wisconsin was trying to sue an Amish man for not following Wisconsin’s Livestock Premise Registration law. On Tuesday, Clark County Circuit Court Judge Jon Counsell ruled that Emanuel Miller Jr. of Loyal does have a ‘religious right’ to be exempt from the law, which requires anyone who keeps, houses, or co-mingles livestock to register their premises with the state.”

The State of course will appeal the decision. http://nonais.org/2010/03/11/wi-judge-kills-premise-id/
:

David, UK

Awww, come on guys – are you saying for £100K, you *wouldn’t*?

Jeremy

@dearieme (07:45:14) :
But what about the zillions that Exxon must pay him?????
I am loling/rolling on the floor here… that was perfect.

Neo

So where are those “Big Oil” folks I keep hearing about.
Perhaps, Climategate.com can apply for NSF funding.

Jud

Folks – for those without a sarcasm subroutine I think he is joking about the 100k….

slayer

It was a great site and will be missed. I checked it every day. Good luck!

Well, that explains all the WIndmills of You Mind hooey I saw when I went there yesterday.
Thanks for the update, Anthony.

RockyRoad

Doc_Navy (08:44:07) :
On a related topic, I just sent off a letter to USA Today about…
————
Reply:
Great letter, Doc! I just wish USA would publish it. I’m afraid they probalby just circular-filed it.

Rich Day

hehe, why does google only give me climate guadalajuara when I type c..l..i..m…?
Who invented this internet thing anyways? Al Gore?

TerryS

1DandyTroll (07:50:49) :

Intelligent people always asks for help when they need help, or so I’ve been told.
Proper greedy people earn their own money, the foul greedy ones asks for it just like that (sry but that’s what it looks like).

The sites been running for 120 days, from his description he’s been putting in a lot of time and effort so lets assume its 4 hours a day 7 days a week (he has to also earn money from a proper job). That means he put in 3360 hours of effort into the site. If he’s selling it for $100,000 then that is less than $30 per hour and excludes any running costs. A professional IT contractor who works for themselves will charge anything from $60 to $200 per hour. The $100,000 price tag is cheap and represents a reasonable return for the effort he’s put in.

yaosxx

Really sorry to hear you close – thought it was a great site – so much on there in such a short time. Great work.

Pascvaks

Ref – Mark Rose (08:29:55) :
“I could run that on a Pentium II machine.
“I have a site that does 1 million PHP scripts per day (and 10 million images) that I used to run on a single core Celeron. And it pushes about 50 to 60 GB/day. Cost to run? $69 US a month.
“This guy is an incompetent system administrator if he can’t run that site on a $69/mn box.”
______________________
You sure know a lot about the ‘system’. It seems you could have run his ‘system’ for him and saved him a lot of time and money. Shame isn’t it? Life’s a beach.
Maybe you will help some other hero some day.

Steve

Anthony,
Please tell us you kept the domain?

Chuckle !!!
We know who the big dog is here !!!
Keep up the great work Anthony (and staff)

I guess that it’s insanity to talk about $100,000 if the website produces $0.50 a day or so and the revenue is guaranteed to drop as the keyword becomes less “current”.
If the person did it for the money, then the AGW movement is the most likely to buy such a domain, for propagandistic reasons. In that case, I would consider the guy who sold them the domain a traitor, and I would find it reasonable to see him or her on the same electric chair as Al Gore because it’s really the same kind of mentality – mentality of abusing the science for the money.

Steve

Scratch that- I didn’t read the rest of the article.

John Galt

@Doc_Navy (08:44:07) :

Finally, what “Climate data” is Michael Mann citing when you print his statement of, “there’s a better than 50-50 chance” that 2010 will be the hottest year ever…

It’s just like my chances of winning millions in the lottery. I either win or I don’t. That makes the odds 50/50, right? Either 2010 will be the hottest year ever or it won’t.
And you guys think Mann doesn’t understand statistics.

Ed

So, $100,000 for 3 months of “hard” work. Not a bad return.

TerryS (09:25:58),
The proper way to value a business is by its anticipated future revenue stream. The time invested is irrelevant.

No sympathy

No offence, but no one forced you to buy that domain name and run that site. If hosting is too much for you, then just host it on a blogger.com site just like wattsupwiththat.com so you don’t need to worry about traffic costs. Otherwise donate it to someone who will make good use of it to raise people’s awareness about the climate lies.

Chances are someone is going to pay him the asked for $100k and replace it with Pro-AGW “debunking”.
I seem to vaguely recall an anti-cult website that was sued into the dirt by the Church of Scientology that is now owned by them and, again if I recall correct, now explains to visitors how the CoS is not a cult.
Call my cynical, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Fenton Communications already has their checkbook out.

J.K.

I really don’t understand why this posting on WUWT was even highlighted, followed by Anthony’s commentary. First, it’s not great publicity for the “cause,” and it seems like a chance for WUWT to plug their own stats. Again. Seems like WUWT must be having a slow news day to gloat, yes, it comes across as gloating, over the demise of another skeptical website.

GoRight

Speaking of Alexa rankings and such, WUWT readers may be interested in the following two new articles on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeSmogBlog
Note that if you go to the Alexa site you can generate graphs to compare the stats of these two. Its funny to see, IMHO. You can also add in climateaudit.org and realclimate.org for the full picture.
If you have any interest in how Wikipedia’s coverage of the AGW debate comes to be, simply follow the talk page discussions for the above two blogs. They should give you a micro-view into the machinations that occur there.
There’s also a mini-debate happening on the talk page of Jimbo Wales (one of the co-founders of Wikipedia) concerning the treatment of the biographies of the climate change skeptics vs. the AGW disciples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_wales
When Anthony last posted about William Connolley’s biography on Wikipedia I got the idea to create a blog dedicated to helping the average Joe and Jane get some idea of how the Wikipedia pages got to be such a mess. You can find this at: http://pediawatch.wordpress.com/
A few of the regular Wikipedia editors and I will be making occasional comments there for those with a passing interest in how Wikipedia covers the whole Climate Change debate. This will likely be a low traffic blog so the best way to follow along would be to simply add it to your favorite news readers and occasionally some tidbit will pop up.

Scarface

Don’t know if i can trust the website i will be referring to, but apparantly he bought the domain-name in december for $10,099
http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/07/climategate-com-domain-name-sells/
I agree that family comes first, but for the cause of that website he could have made a different decesion when selling, for example ask the initial cost as the price.

John Galt

I think the domain is worth more if its active.