Jeff over at the Air Vent has made up a multi question reader poll that I think pretty well probes the effectiveness of Real Climate and the people who run it. Once the leader in the Climate Blogosphere, they have now diminished behind skeptic blogs, including this one. Even Rant-a-minute-Romm (ClimateProgress) does better than RC.
The graph above done by Willis Eschenbach shows the Alexa ranking of many popular climate blogs, including RC.
Marc Morano’s Climate Depot is on par with RealClimate, which must really bite, given his “Mad Magazine approach” to Climate News. I expect he’ll surpass RC soon.
Jeff’s poll examines several questions about the effectiveness of RC and the way they treat readers. I thought the question about attitude towards readers was particularly insightful.
To participate in the poll, visit The Air Vent
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh, man, you’re way out in front, dude.
Truth always wins out.
I’ve never tried posting a comment at RC… But I do like reading some of the comment streams. There’s one post in particular, about stratospheric cooling, in which some guy named “Gavin” kept trying to explain it and some other guy named “Dr. Roy Spencer” kept correcting him. RC’s expalnation of the ice core lag times is a hoot too!
I did try to post a comment on Romm’s POS once. No matter how much I toned down my rhetoric, it never made it through moderation.
If Dr. Dewpoint would get someone to fix up his site (icecap.us) layout and links, he’d go along way to improving readership.
Of course rant a minute Romm does better. You are leaving out a key factor. RealCimate doesn’t update as frequently, so there is no reason for visitors to go daily. You can go weekly, and you’re not likely to miss anything there.
I confess that I may have upped RC’s hit count since I go there now and then – kinda like watching a train derailment.
Another hockey stick graph – but you need to lay it on its side to better visualize it. This is a decline they’d surely like to hide.
Congrats on your success, too.
Anthony,
What about globalwarming.org or Heartland.org?
Just wondering.
Congrats.
Grant Foster won’t be happy with this, knowing his ego….
I took the poll, and I’m happy that a very high percentage agreed with my answers!
So, it’s not me. They really are obnoxious, condescending jerks as I’ve come to realize….
Thank you Anthony for all you do. Keep up the Great Work!!
pRadio
Overall, the sceptics and moderate site traffic far outstrips the AGW alarmist traffic. The alarmists view anyone showing even the slightest trace of skepticism as evil, stupid and contemptible. This instinctively rubs anyone outside their echo chamber the wrong way. Continued exposure to their views not infrequently leads to alienation. They themselves are, in a way, the strongest proponents for skepticism.
The biggest problem with RealClimate is that it’s preachy, sanctimonious, and boring as hell all at the same time. WUWT knows how to cover a large number of breaking stories while making the posts interesting and informative at the same time. I’d rather have my teeth drilled than have to wade another banal RC post or the host of sycophants that all jump up and cheer at the end.
Now if I want real science news I’ll come to WUWT, but Morano over at Climate Depot does know how to be entertaining! What cracks me up the most about his is they way he headlines anyone who critizes him, and the more venal the criticism, the more he likes it! That makes me smile every time.
By the way, Mike N. wrote: “You can go weekly, and you’re not likely to miss anything there.”
Or monthly – or never at all. And you’re still not likely to miss anything that was worthwhile.
do you like me?
[ ] yes
[ ] no
[ ] maybe
As about as worthwhile.
Well, another way to look at this is that the True Believers in the public are quite content to lie back, watch National Geographic specials on TV/read the NY Times etc., and bask in their knowledge that “there is a consensus,” “the science is settled” blah blah blah.
In other words, we skeptics (heretics in my case) have much more to say about this, defending sound science and criticizing erroneous, misleading, or even fraudulent science pushed by the other side.
Also, since the majority of the public now doubts AGW, maybe the interest in pro-AGW sites is waning? The public also weighs in on general interest blogs such as Huffington Report, Treehugger etc.
Well done, Anthony and mods, this is a valuable site and well worth continuing!
Benjamin P. says:
May 3, 2010 at 11:24 am
do you like me?
[ ] yes
[ ] no
[x] maybe
As about as worthwhile.
How about, just to increase the farce quotient, including Mike Tobis’ “Only In It for the Gold” blog in the Alexis stats?
i tried to post a poll at both the gaurdian and RC and it was moderated out, except i think someone at RC allowed it when i did a seperate poll for warmists. the gaurdian never allowed it. interestingly, i noticed the RC site had some icon declaring it a part of the ‘gaurdian environment network’. i wondered if gaurdians moderators moderate RC comments. but when i posed the question, alas, it didnt get posted. my poll simply asked ‘what is the ideal level of atmosperic CO2?’ the gaurdian really didn’t want that question to be posed. which if you wanted to make people believe it was a pollutant and the ideal level is therefore zero, i suppose you wouldn’t. [consensi were ~300ppm when linked from RC and ~800ppm when linked from here.]
Paper by Willis Eschenbach, he mentioned the link in the Air Vent thread:
http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Public/Svalbard.pdf
The paper starts with a description how he was thrown out of an RC thread and goes on to discuss the shortcomings of the original RC post given that he was no more able to discuss it with the authors.
The only reason Climate Progress is number two is because we go over there to laugh.
Well, I come here for entertainment and go to RC for science, I’m here most often.
wws says:
May 3, 2010 at 11:22 am
“The biggest problem with RealClimate is that it’s preachy, sanctimonious, and boring as hell all at the same time. WUWT knows how to cover a large number of breaking stories while making the posts interesting and informative at the same time.”
So scepticism is more about entertainment and emotional rewards
after all? I agree that rigorous Climate science is boring, but I seems
important to keep a cool head and be responsible.
Occasionally I visit RC, and sometimes the discussions are hilarious. The irony is that the hilarity comes from the earnestness of someone called Gavin. He reminds me of the madman by the harbourwho thinks that all the boats are his
Anthony, it’s great to see you up the top. You’re there because you’re open, genuine, truthful and a great science communicator. Yesterday someone mentioned your blog was a national treasure. I think that is an understatement – should be international treasure. I’m in New Zealand and I visit you everyday. Cheers, Robin.
Under communism there is no free speech. Both realclimate and climate progress delete posts that make claims that do not fit the warmist dogma. Real climate actually allowed hundreds of non warmist posts after climategate broke out. Joe romm will ban most posters after they post something that doesn’t feed his ego. Climate has such narrowminded inbreeding that if you tally up names, most topics have lss than 10 posts and most posts are probably the same dozen popular posters.
Most of Climateprogress guest posts are liberal politicians from Podesta/Soros funded Centerfor American Progress.
Climate depot is just a news aggrigator. No discussion just links to articles.
One serious problem with RealClimate is that lately it has been lucky to get a new posting in a week. No matter what the content being provided, that is an excellent recipe for Blogging oblivion.