Step Changes in Science Blog Climate

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.

Alexa.com traffic rank comparison
Comparing traffic rank of four well known climate websites. Note the step changes in WUWT traffic rank.

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

206 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
July 29, 2010 9:09 am

Blog Stats
* 50,008,519 hits
Yay!

bob
July 29, 2010 10:29 am

Bruce Cobb posts:
“Trouble is, Bob, without context, your “facts” are meaningless. The real question is, where is your evidence that our 3% contribution to atmospheric C02 is having a significant, or indeed much of any impact on climate change? Go ahead and look, Bob.
If you find any, by all means report back. You’d be the first.
Climate is far from simple, but by far the biggest players are the sun, (the big Kahuna) and the oceans. Co2 plays only a minor bit part in climate, rising as a result of warming, and on average, some 800 years afterward. Some 110 k years ago, after about a 20 k year warm period called the Eemian interglacial, our climate shifted from much warmer conditions than today to ice age conditions in perhaps 400 years. Not only was C02 not able to stop it, it might as well have been a flea trying to stop an elephant.”
Bruce, did I say that the increase in CO2 was having a significant effect?
NO!
All I was providing was a hypothesis for how a doubling of CO2, which a poster had admitted could cause about a one C rise in temperature, could cause a further increase in temperature.
Which the basic properties of water provide.
Argue against what I post, not what you think I mean.
For Latimer Alder,
If you can’t manage an intellectual argument, then go ahead with the insults.

Latimer Alder
July 29, 2010 11:08 pm


‘For Latimer Alder,
If you can’t manage an intellectual argument, then go ahead with the insults.’
I can’t be bothered to engage with somebody who can’t get beyond ‘climate is simple’.
There are zillions of things we don’t know about climate. But one thing we can be sure of is that it isn’t simple. This who tell you that it is have very limited understanding and are ‘believers’ not ‘sceptics’. All scientists should be sceptics.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
July 30, 2010 7:50 am

Excerpts from: Enonym on July 29, 2010 at 6:19 am

I realize that this will disqualify me from participating in most discussions here, since this means that I’m part of a larger socialist conspiracy and I’m also one of these idiot “scientists” that can not see the wood for all the trees.

Heh. However, your one statement really merits consideration:

-Years working within research: 6

Given the large number of commentators here who are degreed professionals, and that many of them are well into the second half of their careers or even retired, this makes you quite the young pup in this pack. Only six years? You could have pulled that just working towards your doctorate degree.

Ralph Dwyer
July 30, 2010 10:58 am

Grats! to WUWT. The enlightened banter, complete with entertaining troll management, makes it worth at least a Benjamin. Now, to the tip jar!

Acceklyenek
September 6, 2010 12:04 pm

Hello guys, I urgently demand poop on MLA format… I can’t death my essay. Does anyone know? Cheer help…

1 7 8 9