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)
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.
=============================================================
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.
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
Andi
link http://nz.news.yahoo.com/cloud/polls/popup/704d5e5c-dc49-38f6-99ad-0845c56f48e0/
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.
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.
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).
16Million.
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?
DJ says: @ur momisugly 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.
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 😉
Having dipped a toe into the world of blogging, I’ll post links to my first two climate-related posts:
How will we meet the Climate Change Act emissions targets? MPs respond to their constituents
UK Industrial GHG emissions fall 46 per cent since 1990 – how did they do that?
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!)
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.
John
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?
in support of my post above I googled and found this
http://singularityhub.com/2012/03/12/most-viral-video-of-all-time-kony-video-released-7-days-ago-now-has-70-million-views/
John Whitman says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I’ll join you!
cheers!