Weekend open thread – Attack of the Gorebots

I’m a little bit toasted from the effort to get WUWT-TV online, so I’m taking a rest. I did note with some humor though this gloating missive from Dana “scooter” Nuccitelli over at “Open Mind” about Gore’s event:

See Dana, the thing is (and this is lost on you and your friends) is that WUWT earned those views honestly.

We didn’t need an army of Gore viewbots to inflate the numbers: 


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)


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.


If Gore was so secure in his message, don’t you think he would not need to resort to such trickery? Given his budget in the millions -vs- mine in the few thousands, it should have been pretty easy to squish me like a bug.

It seems though, such stagecraft and padding because they fear their message needed a boost from some tricks has been the hallmark of the crowd you run with.

Oh, and I cleaned out Tips and Notes…it was clogged to the point of some readers not being able to open it anymore on weaker PC systems.

UPDATE: SunTV did a story on the Gore-a-thon with Tom Harris, and WUWT is mentioned. See the video here.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The important bit is what those numbers relate to. What other events had 16 million viewers? Can the Goreathon really have reached as many real people as those events?
Eg no trace of it in the NY Times…

Gore-bulls the clown and his crew
Thought their viewers would number too few
So with a whizzy PC
And a script from RC
They put some more bums on the pew

Open Thread – Question
Has there been any scientific experiment – you know the kind, where real scientists actually go out and do things and collect data – that relates, correlates, causates [sic] increased levels of atmospheric CO2 to atmospheric temperatures? Or is it the case that there are merely computer models programmed to yield predetermined results confirming existing opinions and bias.


Advertisers are not amused by viewerbot shenanigans.

Back to Maurizio’s scoop. It seems that the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), who organised the seminar for the BBC, have really infiltrated the latter much more than at first thought.
The IBT’s latest Annual Report for 2010/11 (and remember the seminar was in 2006) claims This year has been marked by some important lobbying successes for IBT including the introduction of a new international purpose as part of the Channel 4 remit, along similar lines to the BBC’s global purpose. The BBC Trust has agreed to amend the BBC2 licence as a result of lobbying by IBT.
We have continued to work in partnership with Channel 4 and the BBC, holding regular meetings to discuss how they plan to implement the international aspects of their remits. We have also worked with other broadcasters including Sky News.
The IBT are a self avowed lobby group and their member list includes the likes of OXFAM, WWF & UNICEF, Also Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief who have both been accused of funding terrorist groups.
I fail to see how the BBC can let this group influence its output while it has a duty to maintain its editorial independence
For more information, check here.


Al’s figures are as boated as everything else about him…

Video of yesterday’s prominence.
SDO was unable to capture the entire image due to it’s size. Lucky it was aimed elsewhere eh?


Lately I’ve taken to just repeating “No warming for the past 15 years,” and providing links to the GISS, HADCRUT, and UAH temperature graphs. I figure a simple message, often repeated, will sink in better than a de
tailed long argument. If we can just get people to look at the real data they will ultimately see for themselves.


I work in the streaming business and am familiar with detailed streaming statistics from most of the largest live streaming events [mods can verify my employment through the domain in my email address]. It would be quite easy for the Gore camp to release a detailed audit report from their streaming provider(s) containing no personally identifiable viewer information. Such reports exist so that advertisers can verify viewership and would show the make-up of the audience and stream characteristics including session time, peak bandwidth, reconnects, etc. There are a variety ways that report would clearly confirm or exclude an army of viewer bots. Anyone with any experience looking at such a report could immediately recognize the bulk of views are bogus. It’s easy to tell, thus if they are only sharing stream starts (the least useful stat) and not the meaningful statistics, they are being knowingly deceptive. If their audience was comprised of real viewers, there is no reason not to release that report.

While Al’s spew was viewed by 15,985,000 electrons & 15,000 humans, who promptly fell asleep, Anthony was helping to create a new medium as well as providing actual education, information & enlightenment. This will be one of those wars won by ragtag insurgent guerrillas armed with reality against professional armies of imperial domination equipped with deceit & deception.

> Oh, and I cleaned out Tips and Notes…it was clogged to the point of some readers not being able to open it anymore on weaker PC systems.
Hey, Anthony, I kinda stopped mentioning my old system (Suse 10.1) ’cause you’d laugh at it running Firefox V2.0.0.5 and tell me to upgrade. Not bad for a system I set up six years ago. I didn’t dare upgrade after a certain point lest I break all the weather and WUWT updates it’s been doing all that time.
However, I built a new system, with a variant on a recent Ubuntu called Snowlinux and it’s running Firefox 14.0.1. I may not get everything moved over by the end of the year, but I’m confident I can do without disruption to the ENSO meter or Cryosphere updates.
Intel 4 core Ivy Bridge CPU – I can handle Tips & Notes!


Political donations of Sue Halpern, Bill McKibben’s wife.

I was in the local supermarket earlier stocking up on wine and other essentials. I picked up a copy of “New Scientist” with the front cover embazoned with “It’s worse than we thought”. Yes AGW they were talking dirty snow in Greenland, Melting of the Arctic Ice cap and sea levels rising. No mention of the fact that there has been no Global Warming for years, that Antarctic ice has increased, or that if the Arctic ice does all melt it will not make a jot of difference to sea levels, since it floats on the sea!.
I put it back on the shelf, I was not going to part with any of my hard earned cash on this rubbish!

Kip Hansen

Is it possible that this was done to increase advertising revenues? And thus, if traceable, possibly represents–I hate to be so bold–criminal fraud?

On adjusting aneroid barometers – Hey Kadaka – on setting barometers – I didn’t answer your comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/29/latest-super-high-resolution-image-of-hurricane-sandy/#comment-1127952 because it was a couple days old when I saw it, but I thought I’d wait for an open thread and see if I remembered.
You asked:
> Checked the back, there’s a hole above the adjustment screw. How are these calibrated? Should I disturb it at all?
The easiest way to adjust a barometer is to wait until there’s a big ol’ high pressure system all around you, then check the pressure readings from your local TV weather segment if it’s any good. Or weather.com or wunderground.com. Basically, all the accurate stations should have an air pressure close to each other, except maybe in January if it’s really cold and then air density may make higher altitude barometers read low. Basically, from your source, get the “consensus” air pressure.
Then, take the barometer down, keep it vertical, and use a small flat bladed screwdriver to turn the adjusting screw. You likely won’t need to turn it more than a few degrees. Adjust things so your barometer has joined the consensus and put it back on the wall. Keep an eye on it, thermal effects and other whatnot may make it read off a bit when it reaches equilibrium again.


You have to consider how many WUWT viewers checked into the Goreathon just to see what it was like. Very doubtful many Goreites checked into WUWT.
I, for one, would nonetheless be much happier amongst an educated few than be counted as bragging rights to the scientific equivalent of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

Mark said:
“If their audience was comprised of real viewers, there is no reason not to release that report.”
Perhaps Anthony can release his report and challenge Gore to release his?

letter to Time magazine
\In the wake of Sandy, Michael Grunwald tells readers that scientists like me who studied the data from weather stations and come to the conclusion that there is no man made climate change, are just like Lance Armstrong. (Sandy ends the Silence, Time, Nov 19, 2012)
This is a very serious allegation, and I hope that Time Magazine will give at least one of these scientists an opportunity to respond.
I am concerned that the correct science is not coming over in the media and that the public is being lied to, to protect certain beliefs and interests.
First, can I just explain that Sandy was not due to or caused by “global warming”. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Remember from your schooldays that (more) clouds and (more) condensation are formed when water vapour cools(more)? It is the global cooling that is now causing some extra weather events.
You will see this soon also being confirmed by much harsher winters.
2nd, can I just point out that it has not been warming for about 16 years.
From my own dataset and others it can be shown that we cooled by at least –0.1 degree from the beginning of this century,
e.g. see here;
3rd\, there is ample evidence to suggest that 90 years ago the situation in the arctic was exactly the same as now
By 1950 all the molten arctic ice as reported lost in 1923 was frozen up again. My results show that in 2 or 3 decades from now, the lost ice on the arctic will also all be back.
Recent reports show that the Antarctic has already gained more ice.
My analysis of global maximum temperatures shows that we are now exactly as we were about 90 years ago:
The above graph clearly shows that global cooling has now started and will accelerate significantly.
So, please don’t worry about the carbon. Start worrying (a bit) about the coming common cold…
Lastly, I want to warn Time and its readers in the USA that they’d better be prepared.
New York: take some lessons from The Netherlands on how to stop flooding.
(you can verify my story by asking your tomatoes farmers in Anchorage about the reasons as to their failed crops? Lots more of those stories to come. It is not due to global warming)

Dr. Svalgaard went to Japan, on his sunspot business, I thought she should ask his hosts for the records of geomagnetic activity during the last years quake which led to an interesting, not to say fascinating correlation, :that anyone can reproduce (full instruction given)
Then prompted by Kev-in-UK I made an attempt to explain this yet one more ‘spurious’ correlation, here is my effort:
Hi Kevin
I don’t think anyone knows how natural variability works or what the extent of it is; if so than even less can be concluded for the AGW.
But let’s have a shot at it.
On the http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm illustrations map show tectonic fault (red line) and two major currents of the North Pacific, Kuroshio (warm current) and Oyashio (cold current). Relative strength of these currents determines if the N. Pacific and the lands of surrounding continents where lot of the glob temps come from, are warmer or colder. One could suggest that the tectonic movements have some effect on these currents.
So far so good.
Now, for the magnetic field. Its generation and changes of its intensity deep inside the Earth’s (outer) core are even bigger mystery than the climate change.
Movement of the tectonic plates (subduction see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/SubZone.jpg interferes with magma flow further down. These disturbances in the flow propagate slowly through the dense magma affecting thermal convection. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Outer_core_convection_rolls.jpg
which is assumed to be the generator of the magnetic field.
What about the 15 year delay?
In the last wiki link there are some cylinders depicted. This appear to be very complex subject, if so inclined look up article by a JPL-NASA scientist and an Oxford professor
which considers mechanical disturbances propagation between the Earth’s core and lithosphere at various latitudes.
1. Tectonic movements affect balance of the two major n. Pacific currents (Kuroshio warm and Oyashio cold) and in doing so changes temperature across N. Hemisphere.
2. The same tectonic movements affect magma flow, which propagates slowly further down, where magnetic field is generated, and changes in the MF are observed on the surface.
There are number of experts from many fields of science, which may disagree, offer different more plausible ideas, or declare correlation spurious and the whole charabanc a nonsense.
Anyone would like to have go?
Don’t expect many AGW’s attempts but I would ‘warmly’ welcome it.

In any case, we are in the era of pornography. A lot people view what titilates, whether it be sex, weather, crime, violence, food or whatever. There is little significance to how many people watch something other than that’s how many people watched it. It says nothing about the actual value of the content or anything else significant.


16,000 informed viewers vs. 16 million misinformed viewers. Watts making people smarter and Gore making people dumber. No contest.

Keith AB

Right and wrong.
We don’t cheat and lie. Everybody knows the truth, and it sets you free.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t watch a minute. I am, alas, still on dial-up and don’t participate in these things. I will, however, catch up at my leisure…..

I have found that since the Cook blog supporters are merely copying the IPCC script you only need to read the comments of one of them to know exactly what the others are saying. Convenient for independent thinkers to follow Cook’s non-skeptical approach to reality, I must say.
Dana Nucitelli is not the one Cook blog follower whose comments I read. NOTE: The one whose comments I read seems at the brink of starting on a really skeptical path.


4 points:
Many of the viewers they got must have been from sceptics.
Warmist media gave it a lot of free advertising – not so much for WUWT.
My guess is that once on Youtube WUWT video views will climb rapidly.
In science it only takes 1 person to be right for a theory to be put in the trash.

Just a day after the Goreathon, a new survey by Yahoo in New Zealand shows a mere 37% believe we Kiwis need do more to combat “Global Warming”
38% Don’t even believe in Global Warming
14% Think we are already doing enough (even after ETS was severely watered down last week)
11% Think it’s a lost cause anyhow
The poll is in early days however
link http://nz.news.yahoo.com/cloud/polls/popup/704d5e5c-dc49-38f6-99ad-0845c56f48e0/

Pamela Gray

Tisdale’s power point on ENSO parameters leads me to ask him if he has any thoughts about a short term forecast ? Watching the movement of warm pools in the past certainly uncovered predictable movement. Yes?


“Can the Goreathon really have reached as many real people …”
Of course not… all warmists lie, Albert Gore lies. Once a liar… always a liar. Surely everyone knows that beyond the shadow of a doubt by now. Heck, even the courts have ruled on poor Al, it’s all a stream of sleighed lies, many by omission, interlaced with scary naturally big number facts.

Nigel S

Gorethon had a sex poodle, WUWT-TV had Kenji; no contest.

I cancelled my subscription to New Scientist about a year ago, because I felt it had become superficial and unbalanced. However I bought this week’s edition because the front cover page was entitled “Climate Change – Five Years ago we feared the worse. But it’s looking even worse than that”
This unsigned editorial is headed “Don’r stay cool on warming”. There is also a colour pull-out “Energy Realities” promoting wind, solar sponsored by Norwegian Statoil attacking developing countries use of coal, plus a sponsored photo of a Siemens 300m wind turbine. There is only one balanced and reasonable article by Fred Pearce reporting a lowering risk of drought, but even this is “offset” by an article directly below by Michael Marshal stating “…but climate uncertainty is less cloudy”. The whole issue seems to have been driven by Michael le Page, a “feature” editor who as far as I can ascertain is actually a biologist seemingly unlikely to understand the complex physics involved in. Michael le Page wrote the leading article which for me is basically propaganda rather than offering reasoned argument. He even rubbishes Fred Peace’s article in the same issue who is someone I have always respect.
This is a classic example of New Scientist bias or perhaps perhaps that should really be “Post Modern New Scientist” . It confirms that my decision to cancel my subscription was correct.


I tried to link in down here, no go.
I’ll wait for the YouTube, watch it at my leisure.

View from the Solent

Christopher Brooker (a columnist in the Daily/Sunday Telegraph broadsheet in UK) picks up on 28gate http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBCs-dirty-little-secret-lands-it-in-a-new-scandal.html
Will be in tomorrow’s (Nov 18) edition.


The powers that be are dysfunctional if they beleive they can control the planet with fraud.
Global warming won’t work.

I found the WUWT broadcast to be full of halts, especially the sound, which made it problematic to watch. The content I did see was good.


Hmmm…. 16 million views….probably the same lot that have registered between 140 percent
and 170 percent of the voters in certain “swing” states and counties across the US.
Just another hockey stick…..
In any case, what counts is quality, not quantity. I suspect that a lot of bots were among that
16M, and, as noted in other posts/threads, hits were registered even when the “gore ible”
page was only another window on a gateway page….what a sham (and a shame)….
Keep up the great work, Anthony (and everyone else involved), and take a well-deserved rest!!!

john said (November 17, 2012 at 11:44 am)
“…Political donations of Sue Halpern, Bill McKibben’s wife…”
Wonder if there’s any relation to Josh Halpern (Rabett Run).
Might explain his political leanings (part of the CAGW believers group).

crap. Korean Pop does better

clivebest says:
November 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm
“Climate Change – Five Years ago we feared the worse. But it’s looking even worse than that”
translation. our grants are at risk.

Mark said (November 17, 2012 at 11:31 am)
“…It would be quite easy for the Gore camp to release a detailed audit report from their streaming provider(s) containing no personally identifiable viewer information. Such reports exist so that advertisers can verify viewership and would show the make-up of the audience and stream characteristics including session time, peak bandwidth, reconnects, etc…”
Too bad we can’t go to UStream and ask for those details. Or, failing that, find out some of the people who advertised on Gore-TV, and have them look into the possibility that the numbers are inflated. Have them check. See what their “click-through” rate was.
That alone may be enough to have advertisers question their involvement. Imagine – you advertise on an event that had 16 million viewers, and only 2 or 3 viewers click on the ads. Really effective advertising, eh?

Gail Combs.

DJ says: @ November 17, 2012 at 11:55 am
…. I, for one, would nonetheless be much happier amongst an educated few than be counted as bragging rights to the scientific equivalent of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
Agreed just as long as we don’t all end up in a UN re-education camp run by the North Koreans. So far it seems they are just content to kill off the wise old folks using the Liverpool Care Pathway or ‘Fuel Poverty’ and export it to the USA.


I didn’t bother with the Gore-A-Thon..but I did watch approximately 5 hours of WUWT-TV. Accolades to all who made it possible.


gore’s viewer numbers are no doubt as fake as his science.

Mark Ro

Ric Werme says:
November 17, 2012 at 11:53 am
On adjusting aneroid barometers – Hey Kadaka – on setting barometers
Back in the day we went to the airport because elevation is key. Hang out for 45 minutes to an hour and then set accordingly. That was the place and altitude that gave the numbers. If your fishing for Bass that can be key 😉

Given that an increase of 50ppm CO2 in the atmosphere can cause a catastrophic tipping point I reckon 16000 viewers should be sufficient to topple the rotten edifice of CAGW. (Of course I’m taking ‘forcings’ and ‘feedback loops’ into consideration here!)

Dodgy Geezer

Wouldn’t it be fun…..
…. to commission an independent poll to find out who actually watched either of the transmissions, and whether they were skeptics or not?
I believe that these polls need not cost a huge amount – there are lots of polling companies competing for the business…

Today, November 17 2012, is the anniversary of the November 17 2009 CG1 unauthorized release of UEA CRU documents and emails.
: )
A lot of controversial water under that bridge . . . . . n’est ce pas? I will quietly toast a scotch in memoriam.


Have I read this right? Gore supposedly had 16 millions views in 24 hours – thats 11000 per minute!
Now, correct me if I am wrong – but a Viral youtube video may get a million views in a day – and thats if its a VIRAL sensation! Does anyone really think a boreathon has done 16 times better than that?


John Whitman says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I’ll join you!