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
Black text on a black background image? Is that really necessary?
REPLY: No, that isn’t what is being published. Could be a browser issue, can you send a screen shot? Thanks Anthony
RC is little more then an propaganda machine for the new religion of AGW. I doubt that anyone there even knows what a hypothesis is and wouldn’t recognize one that has been falsified if it bit them in the ass. While some, perhaps all, have degrees in some scientific discipline or another, I suspect they have traded deductive reasoning and the scientific method for faith.
My newest essay: “The Science Is Settled” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” at
http://retreadresources.com/blog
partly address this general question.
WUWT does pretty good, considering it is a “breathtakingly ignorant” “anti-science” blog.
If only we understood that taxes are the only way to keep Antarctica from collapsing -leading to heat, drought, flooding, avalanches, sea monsters, tens of metres of sea level rise, and millions of drowning Polar Bears washing up in our children’s playgrounds.
Controversial issues and breakthroughs in science increase traffic, consensus is always boring….
In fairness to the AGW blogs: the main stream media outlets are sufficient enough for the laymen who believe in AGW. They get all they need there. Conversely as a sceptic, I rely mostly on good blogs like WUWT for the other side of the story that is never published in the press.
“mikael pihlström says: So scepticism is more about entertainment and emotional rewards after all?”
Mikael, we are talking about what makes blogs worthwhile places that can attract large numbers of viewers and generate rewarding discussions. Blogs are *not* scientific journals, although they are good place for disseminating information about them.
Nobody is going to waste good time on any blog unless it not only gives them information but also does it in a way that is entertaining, visually appealing, and emotionally rewarding to the viewer on some level. That’s how good PR works, and Anthony here is very good at it. The guys at Real Climate are lousy at it, and that’s why the Alexa ratings are where they are.
Btw – that’s also why Joe Romm is where he is. Although I disagree with him on everything, he knows how to make people want to look at his page, and that’s the name of the game. So does Morano, even though he doesn’t do a single bit of original work – everything is copied and pasted from other blogs. Doesn’t matter, he knows how to do it in a way that’s appealing to his target audience.
Bottom line – Why do presentation, and eye appeal, and all the other hooks matter? Because if people don’t ever look, if they don’t have some reason supplied by the blogger to make them *want* to keep coming back, then the blog just sinks into obscurity and is of no more use than the average teen’s facebook page.
Good bloggers make use of this and develop popular sites – indifferent to clueless bloggers waste a lot of time writing things that will have no impact on anyone except a handful of sycophants and end up on the bottom of the Alexa rankings.
That’s why it’s important.
Enneagram says:
May 3, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Controversial issues and breakthroughs in science increase traffic, consensus is always boring….
Breakthroughs in science should preferably be published, not blogged around …
Advantage: RC
Icecap has to get out of yesterday’s news today mode of collecting stuff from other places if it wants to get ahead. I go there just to make sure I didn’t miss something, but that is about all. There is little original content. Its hard to run a blog with a lot of original content and having a recap of a number of other sites is not a bad thing. On occasion he does do some original stuff and I am grateful to him for it.
David Corcoran says:
May 3, 2010 at 11:19 am
“They themselves are, in a way, the strongest proponents for skepticism.”
—————-
Agreed!
Woo-hoo!! We’re Number 15,539! 😉
It really makes you wonder what topics the other 15,538 blogs cover. Pamela Anderson’s latest bust size? Whether whats-her-name should dump Jesse James (a guy I thought was shot dead 150 years ago)? What should I wear to my prom? Toe-jam? I guess real issues will always be down the list. :-/
REPLY: that’s not a ranking of blogs only, but of ALL websites on the net. -Anthony
I’m sorry. I can’t find this – “Real Climate” you speak of.
Where in the bloody hell is it again? On Mars did you say?
Oh never mind. I didn’t want to go there anyway.
No time. Way tooooo busy keeping up with the REAL experts here and the far more important things in life – like the pending disaster for Santa Claus….
wws says:
May 3, 2010 at 1:21 pm
“Mikael, we are talking about what makes blogs worthwhile places that can attract large numbers of viewers and generate rewarding discussions. Blogs are *not* scientific journals, although they are good place for disseminating information about them.”
No, not scientific journals, but they do claim to have important messages
on the ‘AGW or not’ issue. Attractivity is not unimportant, but if it means
to lower the standards to this degree…
Mojo
I had that problem on ” The SPPI Blog’ I just clicked somewhere off the page and it reverted to normal.
The strange this is not just how posts are held up for them to be pre-judged, but that are sometimes subtly, or unsubtly, altered before posting.
Here people can post idea or analysis, and although it is open season the tone tends not to sink into abuse or appeals to authority.
Actually, once the moderator added something (that I entirely approve of) to one of my posts here before letting it out into the wild. I commented on the new bird up there that must have had a special flippy-floppy ice detector, and he added a nose to smell rotten ice. Well done, and something I approve of. I have found the moderators on this site most generous and intellegent in the way they donate their time and effort. My thanks to them again.
mikael pihlström says:
May 3, 2010 at 1:25 pm
[…]
Breakthroughs in science should preferably be published, not blogged around …
Advantage: RC
Mikael, breaktroughs in science are published. It doesnt work otherwise. There’s positively no other way to do it. Blogs work a little like a “journal club” or commentary. No blog ever makes science. Some blogs are about science stuff, that’s all.
mikael pihlström says:
May 3, 2010 at 1:46 pm
wws says:
May 3, 2010 at 1:21 pm
No, not scientific journals, but they do claim to have important messages
on the ‘AGW or not’ issue. Attractivity is not unimportant, but if it means
to lower the standards to this degree…
Hm, I would recommend Bart’s “The Nature of Blogging” if you can spare the time. And while having a beer you don’t have to look “sciencey”, but you still can (and must, and will) discuss your points honestly. And without quarters, of course. You don’t get less critical when you relax.
Blogs serve to vent ideas about science and try concepts. Like, important messages about science. Like “about AGW or not” (of course I hope you don’t think it to be THAT simple!)
If you really are very demanding about standards, you should also set aside all science magazines (I won’t mention names) and aim for the journals only. Obviously, you must set aside all blogs. That’s fine, and you’ll miss a lot.
(I’ll remind you that peer-reviewed literature is not guaranteed as unfalsifiable, on the contrary, and obviously that is a major point; if someone told you that “peer-reviewed” means it’s “unsinkable”, then I can only tell you you’ve been lied to.)
Just be critical (I’m sure you are), think about things (I’m sure you do), and then you can read anything and make your mind by yourself (and review your decisions anytime), which is what is desirable. Well, nullius in verba, what.
As the traffic to sites such as this and Steve McIntyre’s at climateaudit increases, it would benefit the cause of science, skepticism and good decorum to keep vitriol to a minimum. The calm, open and polite view will be better accepted and is per se, more credible. Anthony and Steve of course set the standard for this and it behooves the rest of us to follow their example. There is enough weakness in the science that there is no need to focus on the person, except as a reference.
Just my opinion of course. I could be wrong. Often am.
Cheers
JE
JE you have not met Barrie Harrop. He has his own urban dictionary entry under Barrie Harrop and harrop. He is an infamous wsj comments section poster. But yes, I have found the debate here to be quite civilized and within the generalized rules of valid scientific debate. I again thank the moderators.
mikael pihlström says:
May 3, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Breakthroughs in science should preferably be published, not blogged around …
Advantage: RC
Since RC and WUWT are both blogs, I cannot follow your logic….
There are a few other good sites not on your list;
TomNelson – Alexa rank about 145,000
Climatechangefraud 215,000
Climate skeptic 243,000
And then there are others as part of major newsprint – Andrew Bolt, James Delingpole, etc
And the other thing of note is the Alexa ranking of 73 509 for real climate is their 3 month ranking. Their 1 month ranking is 99,912 and their current 7 day ranking is 132,950 so they are dropping like a lead balloon
Skeptical Science likewise is plummeting:
3 month 85,546
1 month 169,573
1 week 236,699
1 day 951,235
Guess more evidence interest in ‘global warming’ is falling to bits – even when you have Apple pushing your site on an I phone!
My guess is that if Scepical Science had a more honest name it would have a lower ranking.
@ralphieGM says:
May 3, 2010 at 10:54 am
I confess that I may have upped RC’s hit count since I go there now and then – kinda like watching a train derailment.
—————————————————————————————-
Bwahahahahaa! – ditto and ditto Al Gore’s blog
It’s pretty obvious the science has been politicised, so for me, to gain a deeper understanding of a particular issue I have to read both sides of the debate. RC presents such a skewed perspective it is beyond unproductive, questions don’t even get through moderation, so it becomes a pointless, futile endeavour, where intelligence is insulted.
WUWT does indeed present both sides of the argument, often highlighting the flaws. Even when a particular issue remains undetermined, at least I can see crux of it. Questions are always answered, indeed my question has often been asked and answered by others in the comments before I even get a chance to ask it (which is why I don’t post much).
I only ever visit RC these days when someone uses it as a reference, often it turns into a research mission via google, and other sites, to find stuff RC has swept under the carpet, before I can get a good understanding of the crux point.
RC presents politicised science, I find them irrelevant, though I’m sure they think they’re legends, if only in their own minds.