Hello Everyone,
I wish to offer my sincere thanks for your assistance and willingness for the help and ideas in putting together a presentation and appear on the WUWT-TV event. Much of this came from reader’s ideas and insight.
We had a few technical glitches, we had a couple of embarrassing moments, and we had some great fun as well. The only criticisms that seemed to be pervasive was that it “wasn’t as well presented as Al Gore’s”.
Nothing could be truer, and nothing could be more illustrative of the disparity between the well funded “haves” and “have nots”. The next time somebody points to the meme “you skeptics are funded by big oil/big coal/ big something” all you need to do is point to this first effort, and that should shut them up because the entire WUWT effort was begged, borrowed, and donated from people “just like you” to borrow that PBS label.
In the process, I learned what to do and what not to do, and how to make the next effort better when we have to work on a limited budget. I think we won on the science content though.
Hilariously, we see still things like this coming from Gore during the event that tout that “big oil and “big coal” connection they imagine: http://realitydrop.org/about.
The video is priceless:
So, lessons learned, but we pulled it off, and I owe all of you a debt of gratitude. I’ll work to get YouTube recordings up next week. For now I need to rest a bit. Posting will be light this weekend.
Again, my sincerest thanks to all who contributed, participated, and watched. A special thanks to WUWT reader John Whitman who made two 300 mile round trip drives, battled a software learning curve, and spent over a week of his time working to bring us the “did you know” and Josh intermission slides. Thanks to Josh too.
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts, and Kenji
P.S. suggestions are welcome for how to use/improve this new medium.
PPS. It seems much of Mr. Gore’s traffic may have been bot driven, see this analysis left in comments:
==============================================================
Stephen Rasey
Submitted on 2012/11/16 at 2:54 pm
For fun, I was considering the proposition that each of the viewers of WUWT-TV and Gore-TV might belong to 1 of 2 populations:
X = population with a mean view time of 1 hr. (Watchers)
Y = population with a mean view time of T minutes. (Bots + thrashers)
Let T = average view time for the Y population.
Let TV = Total Views in 24 hours.
Let CV = Current Views average over 24 hr.
CV = X + Y
TV = 24* (X + Y*60/T)
Solution:
X = CV*(60/(60-T)) – TV*(T/(24*(60-T)))
Y = CV – X
TV(WUWT) = 16,690 (what I remembered seeing. I could be wrong.)
CV(WUWT) = 550 is my guess at an average in a range of 420-670 from personal observation. Until we have something better.
TV(Gore) = 15.7 million (from mfo 02:28 prev. thread) . I cannot confirm that, but Reg. Blank above reports about million at 2.25 hours, about 10% into it.
CV(Gore) = 9000 @ TV=300K, 1.5 hr;
= 11200 @ TV=500K, 1.9 hr.
= 12100 @ TV “close to a million” at 2.25 hr. from Reg. Blank above.
Shortly after this the CV counter was taken down. So we will have to guess this by exploring a range of possible values. An important constraint here is that the three observation points give a mean view time of only 3 minutes (approx.).
Frac_TV_X = Fraction of TV that can come from X population (1 hr mean) views.
Frac_TV_X = X*24/TV
First, WUWT-TV: (TV=16690, CV=550)
If T=0.16, X=550, Y=0.4, Frac_TV_X = 0.790
If T=1, X=548, Y=2, Frac_TV_X= 0.787
If T=10, X=521, Y=29, Frac_TV_X = 0.749
So 74-79% of the TV (total views) are coming from the population views with a mean 1 hr.
Now Gore-TV: (TV = 15.7 million)
If CV = 36000 (3 times highest known value)
If T=0.16; X=34347; Y=1653; Frac_TV_X=0.053
If T=1; X=25523; Y=10477; Frac_TV_X=0.039
If T=2; X=14684; Y=21316; Frac_TV_X=0.022
If T=3; X=3465; Y=32535; Frac_TV_X=0.005
T>4 is not possible.
If CV=24000, T=0.16; X=22315; Y=1685; Frac_TV_X=0.034
If CV=50000, T=0.16; X=48385; Y=1615; Frac_TV_X=0.074
If CV=100000, T=0.16; X=98518; Y=1482; Frac_TV_X=0.151
Note: T=0.16 represents a viewer that is opening the stream and shutting it down in a 10 second loop. With T=0.16, X = watchers, Y = ‘bots.’
Conclusion: X is tightly coupled with the estimate for CV. But the fraction of total views from 1-hr Watchers is illuminating. The Frac_TV_X (= 1hr people views / total views) is highest for high CV and low T. For CV = 36000 (3 time higher than any reported in the first two hours) only 5% of the total views were from “watchers”, 95% from bots. We have to use CV=100,000 (8 times higher than max observed), to reach a point where even 15% of total views could be from a population with a 1 hr mean view. At least 85% of total views were bots cycling every 10 seconds.
btw: Kenji was cute, but next time, for the sake of intellectual gravitas – get some cats.
🙂
I will echo the thoughts of others…
Thank you Anthony and guests. Stirling work.
DaveE.
As previously suggested, I have some interesting data (a work in progress) about the view counts. http://grostemps.wordpress.com
I want more.
More science. More analysis. More girls in bikinis.
Don’t let this be just a one-off.
Two words for you Anthony.
You Rock!!
Thanks everyone. I have no complaints – it was a great effort put on by people trying their level best. Certainly as good as the webinars I put on! The trolls were very interesting to watch – obviously trained in the art of diversion and thread-jacking. The remarks became more desperately cloying as no one took the bait. The presentations were of high quality and the enthusiasm was refreshing. It is not David and Goliath anymore. The science is solidifying against CO2 having much influence on our climate, less on the weather, and Mankind’s hand nowhere to be detected. Not how I though it was going to appear 20 years ago.
We live in interesting times.
Stephen Rasey;
Shortly after this the CV counter was taken down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No doubt to thwart the exact analysis you’ve done. I note also that at 18 million views, they would be double what ustream is reporting for the mars rover landing and the iPhone 5 launch:
http://www.ustream.tv/press
Now to be fair, mars rover would have to compete with TV. But the iPhone launch? Sorry, but those are hardcore internet users, and the public interest in iPhone 5 absolutely dwarfs the public interest in global warming…. err, climate disruption….. err, climate change…… err, dirty weather… err, whatever the term is this week.
18 million views on a single day on a network that only averages 2 million per day? That only got 9 million for the iPhone 5 launch? Doesn’t seem credible.
A big thanks to the presenters and yourself for such a great and successful effort!
Enhancing presentation and process skills is the easy part.
The legitament content is what counts, and it was in the house the whole time.
I saw more science in 5 minutes of WUWT-TV than I saw in 4 hours of the Gore extravaganza that I watched side by side with Watts…
and Gore had over 200 people who worked 6 months on his show.
Watts gets a big thumbs up! Gore gets a big thumbs down!
“Would be great to have a dvd set with the entire thing!”
Easy enough to do when the videos are available on YouTube. Simply download the videos using Video Downloader HD (it’s free) and then burn to DVD if you like. I have nothing to do with the software provider, by the way; I just happen to use it myself. It’s available here: http://www.afterdawn.com/software/audio_video/online_video_recorders/youtube_downloader_hd.cfm
The downloaded file will be free of any ads.
the parts that i watched were great. The production values were fine for me. I didn’t watch AlGore this year…but did watch a little the previous time. I remember that it was slick…and “important” sounding. Please…no need to go there.
i’ll enjoy watching them on youtube…Thank You…and Good Job
@Reg. Blank: If all you have is a change in the total view counter in increments of 0.1M(illion), then I think you need to first show a table of counter vs. time. Show us the raw data. At 700 views/sec, it should take about 2.5 minutes to flip the 0.1M counter. Show the time of the changes.
What I’m after is any sign of spikiness around the hour mark. Your graphs show remakable flatness in view rate (people entering the stream) over the hour 22:00 to 23:00. Is that real? if so, it is a sign of bots at work. Why should just as many people be tuning in at 22:13 as as 21:58? If it is people who want to tune in, we should see spikes in the view counter in the minutes before the hour and maybe half hour.
Watched and enjoyed.
I particularly enjoyed watching Dr Evans’ presentation. Short, undeniable and unequivocal.
It pays to constantly remind people of the actual predictions of Hansen etc and how they are all hogwash. It was good to put faces to names and, as always, it is great to see and hear that there are rational people out there.
Thank you Anthony et al
Last year Josh did a thing on the last Gorgathon with a polar bear tying the segments together. Maybe he can another but as a side-by-side WUWT-TV vs Gorgaphiles with Kenji tying the segments together?
(PS Thanks again to you and the presenters … and your family for their support to you.)
@Reg. Blank. Sorry, I didn’t see the Bonus Graph at the bottom with Total Views vs Time. That’s much smoother than I would anticipate for hourly program starts. Why, it’s almost like the person/thing starting the view didn’t care about content nor about being there at the start of the hour.
I thought it was outstanding too. By comparison, Rutan’s presentation was not smooth–too choppy–although his content was fine. Jo Nova should be given more time next go-round.
I see that http://www.realitydrop.org monitors the web for climate-related discussions and uses software to suggest ripostes to contrarians’ comments for warmists to drop into online conversations in real time. It’s like John Cook’s software bot, but more advanced. The concept is slick. Our side should do the same. (Get us a grant!)
I thought what I watched was terrific Anthony; and I agree with Alan Watt (and others) said about us owing you! You, and your guest hosts, put in a massive effort and we are the beneficiaries of that.
My biggest regret that unlike Pat, I had to sleep and do some chores away from the computer. When Utube has the missed shows, I’ll get to watch.
I didn’t really notice any ads, except the start up ads. But then, I have a low tolerance for commercials and quickly mute them; ’tis a great thing the one touch mute. For those extended break periods (none were really long), I used my slider and softened sound to a verifiable hum.
I couldn’t figure out what the trollie polecats were trying to do. Without context, their attempts to stifle WUWT-TV came across as irrational spouts and pouts. (Should I mention that pouts are fish? And that pouts love cold to freezing water? Unlike polecats…).
Anthony, you were working out the issues with speakers and microphones on the fly and you did a great job.
Perhaps next time establish a preferred technical approach and do a group test online? If certain pieces are unavailable to a presenter, perhaps we can borrow/beg them from supporters like Heartland?
The video box in the thread lost the most sound to me. After a frustrating half hour, I switched to Ustream (or whatever) and got all but occasional dropouts.
Given the stats, I would think that a lot of web crawlers are spanking their bots for wasting so much time at the boredgore gaspcast.
Although I only watched @ur momisugly 6 hours, it was extremely interesting (then again, you’re preaching to the choir). Sound cut off often. To bring it to the masses, it has to be quite a bit less technical though, with simpler graphs that are more readable. I love the technical stuff, just don’t think people like my wife will last more than a bit-minute listening to it.
At the start of the promotional video for Reality Drop above (which is very slickly done, BTW), this statement is made: “The science is settled. The data is clear. Not a single legitimate scientific body in the world disputes it. The global climate crisis is a reality. It’s happening now. And manmade carbon pollution is responsible.”
Not exactly. Here’s an excerpt from Monckton’s Rebuttal to a warmist Skeptic magazine article, at http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/moncktonskepticreplylong.pdf
@Stephen Fisher Rasey
I’ve added a link to an archive of the data here http://grostemps.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/raw-count-data/
> At 700 views/sec, it should take about 2.5 minutes to flip the 0.1M counter.
That’s about what I observed. I can’t overstate the possibility that this is an artifact of how Ustream collect or display the view count, or I had some weird internet thing going on, or my computer (which is ntp synchronised) has experienced some kind of peculiar time warp.
At 0.18 the Reality Drop promotional video says, “But big oil and big coal are spending big money to buy media access and spread doubt about climate change.”
Citation needed. Where are the big oil/coal ads appearing? The only ones I remember were from at least 15 years ago: the Mobile Corp. op-ed-type, sidebar-format, italicized ads. As for access, the only large media outlets that give contrarians a voice are WSJ and Forbes—and its online blog site provides equal access to the other side too. (E.g., Gleick, at one time.) And that access hasn’t been bought, presumably, but freely offered.
I was very glad this went on. I tried to watch but was in a Motel 6 and the lag was really bad–gave up after several hours. However, I did notice one thing of a technical nature. I was first on the stream on this site, then clicked the link to stream from the source thinking it might get better. Soon noticed a big echo and it took me about twenty minutes to realize that both your stream and the source stream were playing together. The link to the source did not open in a new window but opened on top of your page–so that should be be fixed next time too.
I will catch up when the You tube version comes out. Thanks!
Thanks for your great effort – the domestic feel of the show was a help, not a hindrance – lent verismilitude to the occasion.
I could only view one hour on this side of the Atlantic – at 24:00 GMT – Donna L – but what was good was to see the people themselves in their proper persona – namely you, Anthony, Donna, and a view glimpses earlier of Omnologos before the links gave out.
A triumph. Congratulations.
Roger Knights says:
November 16, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I see that http://www.realitydrop.org monitors the web for climate-related discussions and uses software to suggest ripostes to contrarians’ comments for warmists to drop into online conversations in real time. It’s like John Cook’s software bot, but more advanced. The concept is slick. Our side should do the same. (Get us a grant!)
How interesting ! I have an email contact who will send an answer to my gentle skeptic comment, and the answer is far better than this person is capable of.
I thought he ‘rang a friend’……this is more likely.