We're still having fun, and we're still the one

Wikio rankings for science blogs are out for July. I was concerned that time spent on my Australian tour and the reduction in posts might knock us out of the #1 slot.

This is testament to the people who kept the blog operating in my absence.

Special thanks the Charles, DBS, Tallbloke, Evan, Mike Lorrey, Steve Mosher, Steve Goddard, Willis Eschenbach, and many others for keeping the home fires burning.

And, my thanks to all the readers that spread links to other blog sites, provide tips,  and provide comments. – Anthony

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “We're still having fun, and we're still the one

  1. Congratulations Anthony!
    Her illustrious and most beloved Highness of Great Briton Queen Elizabeth is ratcheting up the man-made climate change meme at the UN. Battle stations, battle stations. Get ready to push the Internet ratings even higher as the global elite try to push their global governance carbon tax through again.
    My secret weapon; the extended solar minimum.

  2. Still #1!
    This – to put it bluntly – is. as. it. should. be.
    Congratulations, Anthony.

  3. No surprise about #1. The cream rises.
    But about #3. I noticed Climate Progress is not on the sidebar list of pro AGW views. Should it be there?
    It was interesting to compare their article on the Muir Russel investigation and the review that appeared here a bit ago. WUWT made more sense.
    REPLY: I’d considered a link to CP, but that blog regularly libels people, like AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi recently. Romm is too much of angry political ranter for me to consider linking to him at this point. Besides, he’d never return the favor in his own blogroll because CP is all about him, the books he’s written/ pushing, and his view of how the world should be, not anyone else’s. He’s also as touchy as Fulminate of Mercury, almost anything will set him off. In fact maybe he’s his own special mix; Fulminate of Romm. 😉 -A

  4. > the reduction in posts
    Umm, are you keeping count? I could do this better from home, but from work I see there were 71 posts in May and 140 in June. And 32 in the first 6 days of July. I’ll post some comment counts tonight.
    I think you’ve created a self-sustaining monster crushing all those who try to subvert the forces of good science. Or something like that.

  5. You’re welcome Anthony. After spending a few days helping out I don’t see how you do it.

  6. Congrats. Love this blog for the science, but I gotta mention that the thread yesterday on “NASA FAIL” was a complete embarrassment and a disaster. The best way to destroy the reputation of this blog (and with it the wide reader base) is to do more blatantly political hatchet jobs like that, and let the racist, right-wing anti-Obama commentary fill the space with their crapola. Glad you closed it, but the next step is to delete it and assure us that this kind of descent into political hackery won’t happen again. It’s lowered my opinion of Anthony a notch or two. Don’t let that continue. This blog is a valuable resource across the political spectrum and it’s only weakened by identifying itself with a particular political slant.
    [REPLY – I would have to say that NASA policy statements are of legitimate concern for this blog. I will also note that lack of agreement with presidential policy does not necessarily equate to racism. ~ Evan]

  7. One of the few science sites I have found worth visiting. The only one I visit regularly.

  8. conradg says:
    July 7, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    Congrats. Love this blog for the science, but I gotta mention that the thread yesterday on “NASA FAIL” was a complete embarrassment and a disaster.
    —————–Reply
    Face it–NASA is a complete embarrassment and a disaster. And the blame goes to one political party. Such is reality.
    So if you’re really interested in “science” yet skeptical of my estimation, I’d say let’s watch what happens. But from my current perspective, the view ain’t purty.

  9. The accolade is deserved, unreservedly!
    Anthony, you have created what is possibly the greatest bulwark against the AGW catastrophic propaganda.
    WELL DONE!!

  10. Romm is a straight up opinion political blog. There are very few people that don’t trip his temper.
    There is a lot to learn on this site about climate.

  11. conradg says:
    July 7, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    “[…] delete it and assure us that this kind of descent into political hackery won’t happen again. It’s lowered my opinion of Anthony a notch or two. Don’t let that continue. […]”
    Smells like a concern troll.

  12. I suspect if you plot your hit rates since inception you would get a hockey stick shape which is just cause for us to blame you for global warming as correlation = causation (doesn’t it?).
    Well done and it was a pleasure to hear and meet you in Adelaide (where we are suffering the longest run of overnight temps below 5C since the mid 1980’s).

  13. Joe Romm was prattling on about “Peak readership for anti-science blogs?” a couple weeks ago;
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/23/blacklist-peak-readership-for-denier-blogs/
    and how “webstats comparison sites (like Compete or Alexa) almost certainly miss a large fraction of my readers because I have chosen a subscriber-driven strategy.”
    It’s quite entertaining to watch the Warmists try to delude themselves into believing that things are going well for them…

  14. conradg,
    Equating being “anti-Obama” with being “right wing” is simply stupid.
    Equating being “anti-Obama” and/or “right wing” with being “racist” is a libel.

  15. conradg says:
    July 7, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    The political hackery is with an administration that is anti science and thinks that “feel good” is better than competence. I don’t care what party they’re from. The party with the elephant is just as incompetent.

  16. Webstats sites do, in fact, count all the hits on blogs that have to depend on aggressive subscriber-push marketing to generate hits, like CP.

  17. How exactly is this administration anti-science? Do you have any real evidence to support this? Or is it just another trolling line of ideological nonsense?
    As for anti-Obama views being right-wing, who here is stupid enough to believe otherwise? All leftist anti-Obama detractors raise your hands.
    As for racism, read the thread in question. It’s pretty disgusting.
    As for NASA being a disaster, that’s debatable, and there are points and criticisms to be made on either side of it, but how exactly would that be the result of one political party’s incompetence? Obama has been President for less than 18 months. For eight years previously, it was run by a Republican President who was probably voted for by these same anti-Obamists, and yet somehow he’s not responsible for the state of NASA. I call that pure political demagoguery.
    And no, the party with the elephant is way more incompetent, unfortunately, and they proved that over the last eight years. Obama is at least trying to boost the profile of science, as in this case, but even when he does, the right tries to put him down for it. Can’t win, apparently.

  18. Warm congratulations to Anthony and the WUWT team.
    Good to have a bit of good news.
    So far today we have had the Freedom of Information Commissioner deciding in favour of David Holland’s EIR request complaint about the UEA. That’s good news but I guess only Bishop Hill will pick it up (no link – too dfficult for an old guy learning how to comment using a Blackberry). And, of course, the complaint is over six months old so UEA gat away scott free again.
    Then we have Muir Russell, the Jackson Pollak of whitewash.
    Then we have Phil Jones being appointed Director of Research back at UEA.
    Then we learn that the BBC has decided to renew their weather forecasting contract with the MET office.
    And to round off the day, Phil Willis, the applier of the first coat of UEA whitewash, elevated to the House of Lords. Don’t know his title but Lord Willis of Whitewash should suit.
    You might think that this is news management at its best.
    Cynics!
    I’m sure it is just a series of marvellous co-incidences!
    Perhaps Global Warming causes co-incidences? Did anyone look at that?

  19. conradg says:
    July 7, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    “[…]party’s incompetence? Obama has been President for less than 18 months. For eight years previously, it was run by a Republican President who was probably voted for by these same anti-Obamists, and yet somehow he’s not responsible for the state of NASA. I call that pure political demagoguery. […]”
    First, complains about politicisation of blog.
    2nd, incites the same political argument on another thread.
    Threadjacking.

  20. I neglected to mention Willis Eschenbach in the first draft. That oversight has been remedied. My apologies.
    Still a bit foggy. The whole AU trip was a whirlwind. If I’ve left anyone else out, don’t be shy about speaking up.

  21. There’s other climate science blogs? Why?
    Congrats once again, Doc.
    ….. and all that make it real!

  22. conradg says:
    July 7, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    How exactly is this administration anti-science? Do you have any real evidence to support this? Or is it just another trolling line of ideological nonsense?
    ————–Reply:
    Since when does a particular religion get any special treatment when it comes to science? Or when does a particular race get any special treatment when it comes to ideology? Or votes? Do you really need specific examples? There’s the Internet you can use if you’re fact challenged.
    Sounds like you’re coming from an ideological perspective that is irrelevant and anti-scientific.
    BTW: I’m not a Republican. I’m an Independent, leaning scientific and engineering.

  23. Since nobody else on this thread has followed your lead, add my compliments to the moderators. An essential, but little recognised and thankless, task.

  24. Thank you Anthony, glad I could contribute beyond being just one of the mallcops.
    CP seems to have suffered a severe meltdown in readership in late May, according to Alexa.com (look at overall ranking, pageviews, pageviews per user, and time on site). CP readers are spending less time there and reading fewer pages per visit, and total readership is dropping. CP’s bounce percentage (the percent of viewers reading only one page) is more than twice that of WUWT.
    Now, despite Joe Romm’s claims to be focused on “subscriber driven traffic”, Alexa says he’s lying. In fact, the “search %” stats on Alexa say that CP consistently receives significantly more visits via search engine listings than WUWT, despite getting significantly less overall traffic than WUWT does.
    This is simply another example of Joe Romm ignoring the data and making up his own preconceived conclusions.
    What CP’s Alexa stats say, compared to WUWT, is that Joe Romm depends heavily on search engines to drive traffic to his site, but that in the last month and a half, most readers (85%) get turned off by what they read on CP in less than one page view, and given his dropping readership numbers, people tend to not come back to his site again. Wonder why…

  25. Congrats Anthony and all.
    Just curious, but when I decide to go to sleep and leave my computer up, in the middle of a thread, does all that time go to “time on site”? I may have been a large contribution. 🙂

  26. “Based on internet averages, climateprogress.com is visited more frequently by females who are in the age range 25-34, are graduate school educated and browse this site from work.”
    Dang, that’s my target demographic.

  27. Anthony Rules!
    As for anti-Obama views being right-wing, who here is stupid enough to believe otherwise? All leftist anti-Obama detractors raise your hands.
    False dichotomy. It’s the center he’s lost.
    (And he never even had 100% of self-described liberals, either, myself included.)

  28. TimM says:
    July 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm (Edit)
    ““Based on internet averages, climateprogress.com is visited more frequently by females who are in the age range 25-34, are graduate school educated and browse this site from work.”
    Dang, that’s my target demographic.”
    Whereas WUWT readers are generally over 40, male, graduate school educated, and browse from home.
    Thinking about the alexa stats more, I suspect that the pre-June traffic at CP was all college students doing research for papers (which explains the high percent of traffic from search). When they all went home for the summer, we then see CP’s real readership.
    Conversely, since WUWT has a far more diverse readership, we’ve not seen any post-semester slump.
    For WUWT to improve its search performance, we should look at how sites that reach AGW demographics are found, what their hot search terms are. The fact that we don’t have “climate” in the domain name or blog title is a negative, thats the top search term that readers of CP and RC find those sites with. Some of that page ranking has to do with the sorts of words that people link to direct people to those sites from elsewhere, as these sort of links affect search engine pagerank. For instance, if more of our readers linked to WUWT via text on their sites like “best climate blog ever” (and not in blogrolls), then WUWT search ranking when people search for “climate” would rise. (hint hint, wink wink)

  29. “First, complains about politicisation of blog.
    2nd, incites the same political argument on another thread.
    Threadjacking.”
    You know, even though I’m just responding to others, you’re right. I made my point to Anthony, and I think I’ll leave it at that for this thread. My best wishes for the success of this blog, which will only be helped by de-politicization.

  30. Question: How exactly do the Alexa and similar people “know” all those things about those who visit blogs? I’m sure that the vast majority of people who read blogs never leave comments or ask questions, so apart from an IP address, what information do they have that allows them to estimate demographic details like age, education, etc.? How, for example, would they know that this computer isn’t shared by me, my mother, my cousin, two teenagers, and an occasional visitor?
    /dr.bill

  31. Congratulations Anthony. I hope you were able to shine some light in the darkness.
    wrt the WUWT ranking all is as it should be.
    Condrag that is your opinion only and I think everyone will give it the attention it deserves which is none.
    We the people of the 4th district of SC have expelled a warmist in the primary.
    His replacement is pretty much a straight shooter and an honest guy. I hope he doesn’t succumb to Potomac fever. Based on my conversations with him I don’t think he will.

  32. dr. bill,
    Very good question. The simple answer is that it is a bit fuzzy.
    Alexa collects its data from browser toolbars that use Alexa data. For instance, Yahoo’s browser toolbar can report on your demographics based on what you’ve entered into your yahoo account ID, as well as what search terms you use and what sites you go to based on those search terms. So, it’s not based on IP address and no information is collected about the owner of your computer. Alexa has their own toolbar here, it stands to reason that their most accurate data is collected from that. So, its like the Neilsen Ratings System, rather than SWAG from thin data.
    Alexa is an Amazon.com company, so it also stands to reason that there is data shared between those two organizations, though I cannot say for sure what their respective privacy policies are, you should check with those websites for more info on that.
    Most people who have multiple users of the same computer, at least with Windoze based machines, have set up different user accounts for each user on the machine, so Alexa should know the difference between different users for anybody other than those who don’t set up such user accounts.
    Alexa says that for rankings below 100,000, their data is generally unreliable due to insufficient sample sizes, but anything above that becomes pretty accurate, with accuracy increasing as you approach #1 rank. So, for instance, given the respective ranks of WUWT and CP, it is at least twice as certain that more WUWT users are over 40, male, graduate students or degree holders, than that CP users are actually females in their 20’s and early thirties, and in grad school.
    My experience studying virtual world user demographics tells me that 28% of all internet users who claim to be female are actually males…

  33. I like WUWT and I applaud Anthony’s efforts and all the mods.
    (I realize the above note added nothing of real substance but I wanted to ensure WUWT got another hit to keep it #1).

  34. Thanks for the information Mike. So I guess it wouldn’t help their accuracy if the one studying Thermal Physics is a teenage girl, while her older brother is doing Art History, but their grandmother kicks them off the machine so that she can look at stuff on 4chan, or that all the visits to the fashion sites are generated by the cross-dressing cousin, that Dad is the one who reads all the cooking blogs, and none of them uses a toolbar. ☺ Sounds like a pretty fuzzy system indeed.
    /dr.bill

  35. [snip, sorry, even though your comment is reasonable I have to draw the line somewhere on Obama/racism discussions – no more by anyone for this thread – Anthony]

  36. Note, toolbars like Yahoo and Alexa do, in fact, report back to their creators on ALL of your browsing habits, not just what you search for with them. For this reason many privacy advocates consider them all to be malicious spyware.
    The examples you cite would be extreme outliers in any statistical pool…

  37. Congradulations Anthony and thanks for your hard work and the hard work of the Mods and guests.
    conradg says:
    July 7, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    Congrats. Love this blog for the science, but I gotta mention that the thread yesterday on “NASA FAIL” was a complete embarrassment and a disaster….
    [REPLY – I would have to say that NASA policy statements are of legitimate concern for this blog. I will also note that lack of agreement with presidential policy does not necessarily equate to racism. ~ Evan]
    ________________________________________
    Normally I would agree but in this instance Evan is correct. NASA is supposed to be the National Auronautics and Space Administration. To find its original purposed so badly scewed is a major talking point here since we have so much interest in the sun. It also shows how much science has become a political plaything.

  38. @ Anthony
    I understand clipping my comment. Controversial and off topic. I moderated a popular controversial blog for several years and know how much time, effort, and patience it takes to maintain decorum in the peanut gallery not to mention some semblance of everyone staying on topic.
    Congratulations on #1 to you and the rest of the WUWT team. It’s hard earned and well deserved.

  39. morgo,
    I just installed a Moon phase widget and noticed they have a Northern Hemisphere and a Southern Hemisphere setting. When I click on the S.H., the Moon is… upside down!
    Then I started thinking, if the Moon is upside down, then maybe the Sun is, too. …Maybe everything is upside down!
    Then I thought… what if the down under Moon is really right side up! That means our Moon is upside down… and our Sun… and everything… help!
    °
    OK, I think I’m better now. It was the same Moon after all. Close call there.
    And re: the Evan & Gail Combs NASA comments.

  40. Congratulations Anthony on an excellent BLOG!
    I like this particular BLOG site of the many that I visit because your thrust has been to carefully evaluate the quality of the temperature data and other scientific findings that relate to temperature. If the data are questionable, small changes based on a statistical correlation are unreliable. The climate BLOG sites on both sides of the global warming issue appear at times to be trying to “out science” each other with definitive statements based on selected pieces of information to prove that they are correct. However, until you came along the quality of the temperature data has been tacitly assumed to be free of any systematic errors as one might expect from temperature measuring equipment and specifically associated with the site. Worse, until you can along there did not seem to be any question about what the readings from the thermometric devises were measuring. Somehow in the heat of debate questioning the data was not a major concern.
    Of course your efforts and the many people that have evaluated the sites that are used to establish the temperature data base to evaluate global temperatures have found numerous concerns about temperature measuring sites. Of particular significance are the errors introduced due to urban heating effects and site changes with time. It would be interesting to create an error band on the temperature data that accounts for the systematic effects at a significant number of sites. Of course that would be a formidable task. As with the case of the BWI, what appears to be a site free from urban heating turns out to have unknown temperature effects that are not insignificant. Until there is significant evidence that the temperature measurements are not tainted by extraneous effects, I remain a skeptic. It appears to me that there currently is no reliable way to numerically estimate how much the temperature has changed without a carefully evaluation what the temperature readings at every site used to evaluate an average temperature increase..

  41. Number of comments for the past few months.
    Of course, not all comments are created equal, and increases in visitors leads to increases in duplicate comments and piling on, but there are also more good comments.
    At any rate, I can do this easily, ala:

    mysql> select sum(comments) from post where dt like '2010-07-%';
    +---------------+
    | sum(comments) |
    +---------------+
    |          3271 |
    +---------------+
    

    Looking at past years and this year:

    June 2007:    169
    June 2008:   5492
    June 2009: 12210
    Climategate - Late 2009:
    Oct: 17693
    Nov: 14815
    Dec: 31613
    2010:
    Jan: 24464
    Feb: 24556
    Mar: 23617
    Apr: 20767
    May: 10123
    Jun: 17202
    Jul:  3271
    
  42. Anthony – Good for you & your team of mods and regular contributors.
    You are still the new MSM in my view.
    John

  43. I once successfully posted a dissenting view on Joe Romn’s blog without getting flamed by J.R. The trick seems to be to couple your counterpoint to his argument with an ambiguous statement making it difficult for him to discern whether or not you agree with his world view. It seems to help that the source of his argument is someone else (shoddy) work.

  44. Congratulations to everyone that makes WUWT so popular.
    The heated NASA disaster thread reminded me of a trip to the deep south. It just concerns me that it appears there’s no way to get along, guess we all just go bankrupt now.
    No wonder Military Contractors keep seeing a world of business opportunities. I’ll leave it at that.

  45. World War II produced a period of false unity. In the decades since, we are merely reverting to the historical norm.

  46. mikelorrey says:
    July 7, 2010 at 4:00 pm
    The fact that we don’t have “climate” in the domain name or blog title is a negative, thats the top search term that readers of CP and RC find those sites with. Some of that page ranking has to do with the sorts of words that people link to direct people to those sites from elsewhere, as these sort of links affect search engine pagerank. For instance, if more of our readers linked to WUWT via text on their sites like “best climate blog ever” (and not in blogrolls), then WUWT search ranking when people search for “climate” would rise. (hint hint, wink wink)

    Mike, the link to WUWT on my blog has “The most popular climate site on the net” as the ‘alt’ tag (visible when you hover the link. Will that work or would it be better to set that as the link itself?
    I noticed Romm’s blog often gets less comments on threads than my own does! Though he puts up a lot more posts than I do.
    Quantity ain’t quality though. 😉
    Well done Anthony, and thanks to Charles for holding the fort while you were on the Australian tour.

  47. Congrats Anthony! And I have a huge crush on ~ctm. I predict that you will save America and the Western World. I am not joking. Talk Radio is now reporting your blog, and I can’t blame them, You are the best!

  48. Congratulations on being number one yet again.
    There are still many people who do not know of this blogs existence yet, there are many people out there who are potential readers and how can they be reached? I tell everyone I know and urge them to visit whenever they can but I was hoping we could come up with a ‘viral ad’ type awareness strategy/shoestring advertising strategy to draw more readers and contributers.
    My own idea consists of a downloadable visual, something like a badge with the website which we could spread around internet cafes etc, pretty sad I know! Perhaps others would have a better range of ideas?

  49. Man, I really love this find and delete feature in Mozilla, conradg. FYI, racism takes many faces, and one of them is the aristocratic assumption that people of color are incapable of defending themselves against criticisms. Get over yourself.

  50. Glad this place is so obviously influential and from the numbers successful!
    I feel bad however, I can’t devour everything that is posted (including replies) even though I spend an incredible amount of time here. So much information, so little time and comments to consume. Almost wish the pace would slow down. No wonder why in your “absence” the quality and status never declined. I’m overwhelmed.

  51. Someone more sagacious than I once said ” All it takes for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing” Thank you Anthony, you are indeed a good man.

  52. Anthony,
    The people who support you and the contributors of some of the postings are just looking for truth and correct science. You give us this by allowing the path of science to be unhindered through some of the many people who have a different views and might also have another piece to the puzzle that this planet and solar system’s highly complex systems are. Challenging the mind to areas that group science is far further than a single mind separated in individual institutions and being unbiased to one side or the other.
    Opionions are welcome to challenge the science and mind further.
    Thank you.
    Next Monday afternoon, I have a presentation to present to a college on efficiency of turbines, centrifugal force a verified energy and density changes and storing energy in density.
    5 years ago, I had no interest in science until I open my mind and followed the science’s path to it’s conclusion.
    I find most of science only followed science so far, never all the way.

  53. Occassionaly, it is difficult to imagine that there really are more sceptics on this planet than there are died in the wool, lemming fanatics. But it is still true (thank goodness). Unfortunately, the fanatics get the most press and air time because they are such wierd, colorful people, who do such amazing things with their minds and other body parts (especially their mouths on TV and fingers on keyboards via the web).
    You & The Gang are so respected for your balance and fairness (no Fox pun intended). The measure of your popularity with the unwashed ‘common folk’ is the best indicator of just how fair and balanced you are. In this day and age on the web, you’re rather unique. KUTGW

  54. Anthony, mods, Guest Posters and all who work to make this blog the success it is; Congratulations!
    The No 1 position is no doubt the culmination of another year of extremely hard work, but there is far more to WUWT than mere effort. I find it a compulsive daily read as it is part open university which extends my somewhat limited science education, part village pump discussion which allows me to express myself thoughtfully, plus working from a general sensitivity to encouraging civilised utterances and behaviour.

  55. conradg says:
    “And no, the party with the elephant is way more incompetent, unfortunately, and they proved that over the last eight years.”
    1. Two years later & still blaming Bush.
    2. Democrats had control of congress for the last two of those 8 years.
    3. The only real mistakes made by the GOP were when they were whimps and did not fight the Democrat policies effectively or were turn-coats and supported the left-wing in vain attempts to buy votes or suck up to the liberal media.
    4. The Democrats have been wrong for about the last 40 years about almost everything:
    – unilateral disamament & “star wars” and the Soviet Union
    – the Vietnam War & getting us in in the first place and then lacking the will to win
    -the surge in Iraq
    -forcing banks to give mortgage loans to people who could not afford them & creating quasi-government agencies to buy the bad loans which encouraged the banks to do even more and worse bad loans.
    – Great Society welfare programs which destroyed a generation or two and and most of our inner cities.
    The list goes on and on. The GOP has been wrong at least 60% of the time while the Democrats have a much more consistent record of wrongness, probably 95%. If the GOP would only give the working man and small business a fair shake, stop being such turn-coats and whimps, and clean up the theft on Wall Street they could improve their status immensely. It is too late for the Democrats as they no longer even exist and have become, in effect, the US Communist Party with the willing help of the mass media.

  56. Michael says:
    July 7, 2010 at 1:13 pm . . .
    Yup, I saw her live and I just groaned at her naivety. Prince Chuck could be expected to endorse this BS but I always thought better of Betty.
    ACGW is the yoke the UN wishes to put on us all, her subjects too.

  57. “How is Obama anti-science, what is the evidence?”
    He ignored the advice of a science panel with regard to a moratorium on deep water drilling and then issued a press release falsely claiming he acted in accord with the scientific advice. A member of the panel blew the whistle to set the record straight. This indicates that the President bows to pressure from advocacy groups more than he values objective scientific advice. One could fairly characterize that as anti-science, I think.

  58. Congratulations to the entire WUWT team. This is my favorite site for news, solar and climate science.
    mikelorrey says: “…most [CP] readers (85%) get turned off by what they read…and tend to not come back to his site again. Wonder why…”
    It’s the spittle. Poor Joe spends too much time reading his own stuff.

  59. You know, if this were a politics blog, I’d have a lot of fun answering all these arguments thrown my way, but as I acknowledged already this isn’t the purpose of this thread or this blog, and I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, so blessed be the peacemakers.

  60. One should note that it was not the skeptics who introduced politics to the Global Warming issue in the first place.
    Nor is it the skeptics who avoid debate, either scientific or political (they, in fact, embrace it).
    It wasn’t the skeptics who connived to silence those with whom they disagreed.
    The AGW advocates have sown the wind, and now complain about what they reap.
    And, yes, I confess I have found the last three years more pleasurable than I can possibly describe.

  61. conradg says:
    July 8, 2010 at 4:26 pm
    “You know, if this were a politics blog, I’d have a lot of fun answering all these arguments thrown my way, but as I acknowledged already this isn’t the purpose of this thread or this blog, and I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, so blessed be the peacemakers.”
    One always gets these types of answers when the lefties have no response to factual information.
    As for peacemakers, they were made by Colt and are, indeed, a blessed invention ensuring the equality of all who have one.
    “Beat you swords into plowshares and you will plow for those who do not.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  62. JimG,
    Meet me out back and I’ll give you a peacemaker of my mind. But I made a promise earlier not to play into this s9rt of thing here, so I won’t. If you can’t respect that, you’re probably not worth my time anyway.

  63. Conradg,
    Would not want a peacemaker of your mind, too small. I should have learned long ago that religous fervor cannot be changed with facts. Trying is a waste of time. I welcome any factual type of response to the specific points I raised regarding the past errors of the Democrats/left from anyone of any viewpoint.

  64. JimG,
    If you’re that determined to show me your “cocked” peacemaker, why don’t you suggest a neutral site/forum where we can take this? I’m very curious as to how children come to possess firearms.
    REPLY: Yes, you are both done with this discussion. Take it elsewhere. -Anthony

  65. BTW, Anthony, there’s a blog post by Matt Yglesias over at ThinkProgress that has a very strange graph of the modern temperature record. Could you take a look at it and see if you can figure out why the temp anomoly is so high? I know these guys are connected to Joe Romm and gang, but this seems a bit exaggerated even for them. It attributes the graph to NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA but I’ve never seen anything like it:
    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/the-jim-manzi-era/#comments
    Maybe this even deserves a blog post?

Comments are closed.