Guest post by WUWT moderator Mike Lorrey
One of the nice tools that alexa.com has is that it lets you compare multiple sites against each other. For those with competition of either economic or political nature, this is of high importance to gauge how well one is doing achieving one’s marketshare or mindshare goals, and how badly one’s competition is stumbling in delivering its message or attracting customers.
Today I did a four-way comparison between WUWT, Climate Progress and Real Climate, as well as Climateaudit.org, run by our good friend Steve McIntyre, going back through the entire traffic record that alexa has for these sites.
As you can see, there is a rather dramatic evolution over time.
Prior to the 2008 US Presidential election of Barack Obama, three of the four blogs were pretty well competitive (realclimate.org was always the least popular, indicating the general public got that this was an astroturfing site by climate alarmists who tolerated no dissent). Even though Steve McIntyre tended to be the most technical, he still attracted a competitive following. His television appearances and congressional testimony really helped his exposure even if the layman had difficulty avoiding the glaze-over on some of his blog content. After the election, when it became clear that climate change legislation was a top priority for this president, people clearly started educating themselves about it. Our Surfacestations.org project and the resulting report brought us additional attention in the major media. WUWT started clearly distinguishing itself as providing content that was understandable to the layman, did not talk down to the average bloke (like was typical at CP and RC) and did not regularly attack people based on their political leanings. Commentary from all directions was encouraged, with postings by non-skeptic scientists to provide a balanced view, and which only limited commentary when it came to personal attacks and off-topic thread hijacking (again, unlike CP and RC).
This resulted in our weblog award for 2008 as the number one science blog, beating out alarmist blogs, leading to much tooth gnashing by the warmist press.
Our popularity grew as we reported on the growing controversies over FOIA compliance, IPCC dissenting opinions, the dendro-wars, and the continuing spotlessness of the sun while arctic ice coverage recovered from its 2007 low, meeting our predictions and smashing the hopes of the AGW alarmists.
Then Climategate and the CRUtape Letters hit the blogosphere. The alexa stats clearly demonstrate who won the narrative with the public with a dramatic step change in the popularity of WUWT along with a crash of CP and RC after brief spurts. Similarly, climateaudit.org reached its highest ever rankings since the FOIA requests of Steve and friends were so central to the scandal. WUWT peaked several times into the top 10,000 websites globally.
As of this writing, WUWT is ranked #6 by Alexa in the world for Environmental websites, not just climate blog sites. We are higher ranked than the Environmental Working Group, WWF, National Wildlife Federation, Mother Earth News, The Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy and The Environmental Defense Fund. We rank just behind The Oil Drum, the primary Peak Oil website.
While things have settled down a bit since climategate broke, we are seeing a recent spurt of activity due in part to Anthony’s speaking tour, where he has spoken to packed and enthusiastic crowds. As we add more reference pages on different topics, we expect to see more traffic grow as these references become additional traffic generators in their own right.
We should reach our 50 millionth website hit some time this coming week, a major milestone in the development of this site. Stay tuned for the announcement.
This is the best blog on the Intertubes, IMO. 🙂
Yeah, Evan, both times. Pretty good, too.
==========
Keep up the good work, and thanks!
I refuse to visit Real Climate anymore. Too much censorship of posts, not to mention editing of posts. The latter in particular is highly unethical in my view. So no blog hits from me anymore, never, ever again.
bob says:
July 27, 2010 at 6:47 am
How often does WUWT link to peer reviewed journal articles as compared to RC?
The answer to that question will tell you which site does the better job of educating its visitors.
Like most Alarmist trolls, you are hung up on “peer reviewed”. It’s an easy cop-out, and just another way you people try to use Argument from Authority and Argument by Consensus, instead of actually examining the science. This shows in your and Enonym’s concept of going to RC to be educated. People come here to educate themselves. Learning has to be an active process, not a passive one. Otherwise, it is useless.
899 said at 7:34 am to:
tallbloke at 5:39 am
Anyone have a solar cooker I can borrow tonight?
Ric Werme at 5:32 am (Edit)
I always have trouble getting my solar cooker to work at night. Can’t think why…
Well, ya see? Yer not use’n enough CO2.
If you inject some CO2 into it, why the latent heat of the cake will be amplified by the CO2, and the cake will bake in no time flat!
No, no. More CO2 can ONLY be solution to a “climate” problem. This is clearly a weather problem and what is needed is more moisture (humidity) to hold the latent heat energy for a faster cooking time. Of course you’ll also need to add more baking powder, we don’t want the cake to come out of the cooker flat.
Oh, and the difference between WUWT and other weather/climate sites, is the same as the difference between a school and church or the difference between education and confirmation. And if you like being preached to, your probably not reading this….
Onward and upward, all.
It seems to me that the “conversion” from believer to sceptic occurs far more than the alternative. It would be very interesting to quantify the converts of each type and how many, if any, return to believing after having “seen the light”.
I imagine that these ratings go some way to confirming my views.
Perhaps some aspiring newspaper will commission a survey one day.
Well done WUWT!
I just hit the donate button and made a donation.
I value this site very highly as THE best source of objective information and analysis on climate and weather. I’ve been a regular visitor since ‘Climategate’ broke out and have greatly enjoyed the learning experience provided here. I think it’s important to know what’s happening to our planet and just as importantly, what is not happening.
Many thanks for your relentless commitment and objectivity.
Jack Simmons says:
July 27, 2010 at 8:42 am
You’re why ‘Enonym’ comes here.
Enonym:
“I would be careful to take the number of visitors as a quality indicator. As for my self, I vist WUWT a few times each day, while I visit RC a few times each month. The reason I visit WUWT is to get a laugh, while I visit RC to get educated. But as I said, that’s me. It’s probably different for a lot of people.”
One of the great things about this site is that you are allowed the freedom to speak your mind, even if the only things that come out of it are puerile cheap shots.
Congratulation to
Anthony and CREW. You have done an excellent job both here and at surface station.
I read this blog every day without fail.
When I first started reading several years ago to learn about AGW I recall Anthony wondering whether he should continue just as I was getting into it.
I am so glad you did continue – and now look – what a great achievement. I do hope you find all the hard work well worth it.
I cannot think of a better site.
I remember a time went Anthony was about to scrap this site. It was becoming too much with his family, his day job and surface station study.
So again, thank all of you.
REPLY: It’s still too much, but I have to see through. – Anthony
Thanks for clearing up that ranking scale thing. I thought I was upside down. Anyway, I went to that site “The oil drum”. Man, is that were all the communist go before they die? Some of there comments were so depressing and fatalistic. They were all agreeing with each other on how technology has brought us nothing but dependency and enslavement. A couple of people said that the internet was destroying the world. No doubt they thought the internet was a good idea until they read something on it that they didn’t agree with. Now its a bad thing. But they still use it along with all the other modern technologies. It’s a little hypocritical….
’tis because of the quality of the information and the civility of the discussion, I’d say. We’re a smart, well informed bunch over here at Watt’s Up…. 🙂
They were all agreeing with each other on how technology has brought us nothing but dependency and enslavement.
Maybe they should read Matt Ridley’s new book.
H. R. says
“I’m going to have to assume you missed the e-mails from the CRU leak (CRUtape Letters) that discussed peer review, eh?”
I don’t read the mail of others without their permission, thank you very much.
And to Rich Matarese:
The conspiracy forum is thisaway: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91
And for Bruce Cobb:
“instead of actually examining the science.”
That’s why I go there and elsewhere, to examine the science, which I can’t do very well here, well because there is very little.
But thanks for your comments
😉
Peakbear,
Boy, I am sure that in about ten years, you are going to be filthy rich based on your comprehensive knowledge of the extent of the Earth’s reserves, the future of political forces, and, most importantly, your keen insight into the direction of future technologies and the results of future basic scientific research!
Seriously, while there probably is a limit to the number of calories we can possibly get out of the supply of hydrocarbons on this planet, the idea that you, or anybody alive today has the faintest clue as to what that is is completely laughable.
Anthony and your helpers,
The qualities that make WUWT the best among sites on climate and environment also make it just about the best site on the internet. It is open, inviting, entertaining, cordial, collegial, highly informative, totally up to date, and has some of the best discussions on the internet. It is a site for sceptics but it holds sceptics within the bounds of science. It has great features such as the Sea Ice Page and other Sea Ice Features. At first I was bored by sea ice, but now I can’t wait to open the new reports. They are Way Cool! It has seen great contributions from folks such as Goddard and Eschenbach and others. I could go on and on. In sum, WUWT is an incredible, ongoing work, Mr. Watts. I thank you for your sacrifices and the great gifts of your knowledge, talent, and good humor.
Imapopulistnow says:
July 27, 2010 at 6:28 am
If global warming is as serious as they contend, then RC has performed a great disservice to the scientific community and public opinion. If actions should be taken and they are not, RC will have no one but itself to blame (although they will surely blame others).
RC should have engaged the skeptics and rationally discussed their concerns. Their failure or inability to do so makes one suspect they are driven by emotion and agenda rather than reason and truth.
I agree. If during research I came to the conclusion that (a) the world was going to end, (b) man’s activities were the cause, and (c) we could do something about it, the first thing I would do is present my “findings?”, all of them, to be scientific community and PLEAD with them to either confirm what I had concluded or to show me where I was wrong. I’d like to believe most scientists would behave in a similar manner. The last, and I mean last, thing I would do is share my data only with people who agreed with me. The next to last thing I would do is curtail potential criticism by riduculing differing opinions, both scientific and layman–scientific because I may be wrong (hopefully in this case) and my fears can be put to rest, layman because if I’m right, the general populace at some point will have to be convinced. In my opinion, the overwhelming response of the AGW alarmists is just the opposite: (a) they don’t share their data with “non-believers” and (b) they censor or verbally abuse anyone with a differing opinion.
On a sad note, Enonym has disproved a theorem of mine: Global Warming Alarmists Have No Sense Of Humor. Apparently he can laugh.
Anthony, Moderators, Guest Posters, and Commenters (even those who believe in AGW)–keep up the excellent work.
I am sure if the graph instead showed step change increases in temperature (much like Dr Spencer’s monthly graph) –you sceptics would cherry pick it to pieces and say it shows a downward trend since the last step change.
keep up the good work though, I enjoy coming for a read and a good laugh.
MJK
REPLY: It’s still too much, but I have to see through. – Anthony
————-
Anthony, how can we help reduce your workload?
John
How ’bout that! Hansen has a book out and the real scientists over at RC show that Hansen’s predictions back in ’88 are exactly on track…..Amazing!
I suppose I should leave a link for those eager to find out all about it…
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html