Reader “Andrew” asks in comments:
Andrew Submitted on 2011/10/05 at 10:55 am
We can always check on hits to climate blogs/sites. I’ll bet there already down on ALL pro and con AGW/climate sites (maybe ask Anthony to provide data comparing all sites with say, same of a year ago). Interest in these sort of issues nearly always fade away, especially when there is nothing on note happening with the weather etc .
Happy to oblige. Here’s the current ranking and past numbers of skeptic/lukewarmer sites compared to the “premier” site, realclimate.org, run by “real climate scientists” and others.
Traffic rankings on October 5th, 2011:
Alexa Traffic Rank: Global Rank,181,105 Traffic Rank in US: 98,924
Sites Linking In: 4,036
Alexa Traffic Rank Global Rank 94,096 Rank in US 35,748
Sites Linking In 1,602
Alexa Traffic Rank Global Rank 144,262 Rank in US 37,218
Sites Linking In: 409
Alexa Traffic Rank Global Rank 100,778 Rank in US 43,144
Sites Linking In: 1,776
Alexa Traffic Rank: Global Rank 17,087 Traffic Rank in US: 7001
Sites Linking In: 4,093
And the summary graph for the past year:
As a side note, one thing I’m particularly amused at is the difference in rankings in New Zealand. You see, Gareth Renowden, a truffle farmer who runs the website hot-topic.co.nz who has in the past referred to WUWT as µWatts (microwatts) seems to think he’s reaching a lot of people, much like John Cook of Skeptical Science. The numbers are quite interesting, it seems I’m not the one with the traffic rank in six plus digits.
He seems to have the traffic numbers for the basis of that µWatts label inverted:
Now compare that to WUWT’s rank in New Zealand:
Hmm, WUWT is beating him at his own game in his own country, 490 to 8,788. I hate it when that happens. Or as he puts it- Savaged by a dead sheep. Indeed not. Of course Gareth may simply be confused over the fact that in the Alexa traffic rank scheme, lower numbers are better.
h/t to Charles The Moderator for the tabular summary.