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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


What of the significant role of BBC’s reporter Harrabin in the effort to ban coverage of skeptical scientists in BBC’s worldwide news coverage?
At CA I posted the below in response to some general support there of Harrabin as a journalist because some of his articles on climategate were considered fair.
No overall positive view of Harrabin from me. He has participated, in a central role, in the censorship of the independent and open science dialog.
John
Anthony Watts wrote:
“We didn’t need an army of Gore viewbots to inflate the numbers:”
The point on the shorter duration of the average visitor to the Gore video is very valid and noteworthy in itself, but I highly doubt they were bots, though, for several reasons.
The Gore video was highlighted by the website on their front page (which has multiple videos on unrelated topics with millions of views). That would lead to a huge number of casual internet browsers clicking through to it. Upon seeing the basic idea in a few seconds and how it was essentially what they have heard from the media many times before (and not super entertaining either), most would leave.
On multiple forums, I have observed that the percentage of all viewers of a thread who will click on almost any link for more information is usually on the order of 2% or less, as seen in hitcounters. Most internet browsers in general have short attention spans, so to speak, if the topic is not of exceptional interest to them.
Similar can be seen even in hit counts for Wikipedia articles: the “Effects of Global Warming” article has only 14% as many monthly views as the “Global Warming” article, even though someone really believing in CAGW and naive enough to trust Wikipedia propaganda on the topic would in theory want to read more.
As yet another example, according to Alexa.com , the average time a (human) internet browser spends on the CAGW-movement skepticalscience.com upon reaching the site is 2 minutes 40 seconds.
Notice how similar such is to the Gore video result of how “an important constraint here is that the three observation points give a mean view time of only 3 minutes (approx.).” That’s probably not a figure for bots. That’s easily a figure for humans.
Watching or reading anything for tens of minutes, let alone hours, is the exception, not the norm, for general web browsers. (That visitors to the WUWT broadcast more often did so is good, exceptionally so).
In my opinion, the Gore-alarmist crowd has proven that the science does not exist to support cAGW since they continually refuse open, public debate against informed opponents. They continually attempt (mostly successful I might add) to keep any skepticism out of the main-stream press and they control who gets published in the “scientific” journals. If they had the facts or theory on their side they would welcome the opportunity to debate just as any scientist welcomes making fun of anyone who claims the earth does not revolve around our star. If it truly were an “open and shut case” they would be issuing challenges left and right to the skeptics and lukewarmers alike.
They also prove they are wrong when they support or look the other way as the data sets are continually “adjusted” to make their side look somewhat credible. They do things that would have gotten me kicked out of school back in the 70s. What has happened to our standards?
The WUWT show was credible and done by volunteers while the Gore-the-data-thon was done by people making a fortune trying to scare people.
Dana is simply mad that the Skeptical Science “Crusher crew” plans got exposed,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html
And everyone knows that Cook is an unqualified cartoonist,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
So why are the the videos Al is using via Vimeo showing such low numbers in their stats? Numeracy was never Als best subject…
Ruth Dixon says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:21 pm
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
http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/how-will-we-meet-emissions-targets/
UK Industrial GHG emissions fall 46 per cent since 1990 – how did they do that?
http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/industrial-ghg-emissions-fall-46-per-cent/
All UK readers need to visit Ruth’s blog posts. This is first rate research.
John Whitman says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm
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.
_________________________
Yes that does deserve a toast. I will join you with a glass of white wine. I normally do not drink except for a good German white very occasionally but this is certainly the occasion. So a toast to the brave individual who gave us the key to the lock on the cage door the UN/IPCC keeps trying to slam shut on us. May you live long and free.
Reference in regards to Alexa.com – they don’t have the numbers up yet for the Gore-a-thon time frame, but it will be interesting to see how the numbers work out for that period.
These are numbers they CAN’T fudge, and will show if they peak out at the 16M numbers (and we need to see the “time-on-site” numbers, too).
UStream.tv has been averaging a little over 3 minutes per viewer, while Climaterealityproject.org had an averaging a little over 2 minutes per viewer. Only goes up to the 14th, though.
WUWT? About 4-5 minutes per viewer.
So we’ll look in again when they get the “climate-a-thon” numbers. See who peeks out then.
If 16 million actually watched that, I will s**t twice and die….
= = = = = =
Gail Combs,
I’ll drink to that.
Nostrovia!
The enlightenment yet lives . . . . even in what appears to be the twilight of reason.
John
EDIT / addition to recent prior comment:
For some reason I was thinking of it as 6 million instead of 16 million when writing, and I forgot to include that the human browser hypothesis would include a given viewer being counted multiple times by page refreshes and/or clicking through multiple sub-videos.
Checking ustream.tv now, though, actually I am finding some serious weirdness. The view count is simply gone on the main video page now, which is abnormal as other videos on ustream.tv show a count. Whether such was deliberately hidden by Gore’s group or removed by ustream.tv from being thought invalid (botted?) by ustream.tv, either way is striking. Meanwhile, at http://www.ustream.tv/climatereality I am seeing on the right a link to hour 24 of it with literally only “2.7k views” (only 2700 views, not millions) shown next to it. That might be for essentially a switch to the recorded non-live version for viewers afterwards, but it is still strikingly low.
Well, I see I could strongly argue against myself there: The bot hypothesis could be more likely part of it than I thought.
The general points in my prior comment, on how most human browsers will pass through quickly, are still true though.
In any case, certainly the number seriously watching the Gore video for more than a rapid click-through was not millions.
/// Somewhat Twisted Thinking Department ///
STOP the presses and call out the Climate Scientists!!!
Increasing CO2 may have led to the extinction of Twinkies !!!!!!
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/20115859/hostess-going-out-of-business-nearly-18000-to-be-laid-off
We must cut CO2 emissions now to save Twinkies !!!!
;-))
If I hadn’t heard about the Gore-a-thon here, I would never have known about it. I don’t know anyone who watched it.
Ric Werme
Nov 17 2012 @ur momisugly 11:53
I have an old hand held Aneroid barometer that I check using continuously updated airport weather information information including QNH. You need a VHF receiver and it works across Australia; broadcasts are from military and civilian airports. It works best if you are located near to them in distance and altitude.
I’m just getting to the end of the classic Two Years Before The Mast and came across this: “. . . left us in lat 22 N, lon 51 W, directly under the tropic of Cancer. . . . It was hurricane month, too, and we were just in the track of the tremendous hurricane of 1830, which swept the North Atlantic, destroying almost everything before it.”
Sounds bad. Anything known about this great-great-great-grandmother of Sandy?
Any blame attached to coal (just getting under way, I believe, as a fuel source for ships and trains)?
I wonder if Sue is related somehow to the rabid Rabett?
pat says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm
gore’s viewer numbers are no doubt as fake as his science.
============================================================
He’ll claim victory. After all, his numbers surpassed what he said is the temperature of the Earth’s core … and he really can claim to be a Nobel Lariat!
(…give a Mann enough rope…)
A bit off topic …… but …….
A telegraph article was linked in this thread about “28gate”. I love to read the comments in articles that expose “alarmism” for the fraud that it is. Every so often you find something that rings like a bell. This is from a poster on the telegraph, not me. I have never heard anyone put the whole CAGM movement in perspective like this. Especially the first paragraph.
Katabasis
Today 03:08 PM
“If we survive, future historians will look back on this period as one of absolute collective insanity, much as many of us now look back on the German people of the 1930s and wonder in astonishment how they let it all happen.
My concerns about ‘survival’ have nothing to do with putative claims about a supposedly catastrophic warming, still lacking in firm evidence.
It is because of the kind of work promoted by one of the very attendees at the ‘gang of 28’ meeting – Mike Hulme – one of the “scientists” who is a leading promoter of ‘post-normal’ science and philosophy. This insidious successor to post-modernism; taking and embedding the very worst of post-modernism (which did, to be fair have some good points to make regarding subjectivity) and embedded it firmly within a culture I simply cannot recognise – it is as far from rationality as one could imagine. It is the promotion of ends over means and value over fact. Utterly alien to the enlightenment values that supposedly drove the West to its dizzy heights.
Now so many of us, myself included, have to write under a pseudonym to express our doubts. Vilified at every corner, usually by complete no-nothings who wouldn’t understand the difference between an argument from authority and an argument from their a**es, called “science deniers” and worse, and even having our careers put at risk for raising perfectly reasonable concerns about some of the most outrageous and astonishing claims made on the thinnest of evidence.
The weaknesses and falsifications in the official catastrophic doctrine are now so numerous it actually feels – frighteningly – like we really are existing in a dystopian fiction as so many people still rush to defend the official narrative at all costs, and no matter how many colossal holes are poked in it.
We’re rushing headlong into an age of complete unreason, an endarkenment that will kill our civilisation more surely than a very gentle – and primarily benevolent – rise in temperature that bears no relation whatsoever to the catastrophic claims made for it.”
Sorry to bore you with off topic stuff.
TR
I know I posted it. It was a quote from the Telegraph comments on a 28 gate article. Maybe it’s lost in the ether, …. or more likely the spam folder.
: X (angry emoticon)
The warmists’ strongest argument is the one from consensus, which marginalizes dissenters as a lunatic fringe in the public mind. Our side needs an effective counter. A list of the names and affiliations-and-honors of 100 dissenting scientists would do the trick, especially if posted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has made a good start, as it currently has a list of 35 names:
Currently Wikipedia lists 35 names, down from 42 in an earlier version, which included three deceased scientists. I bet twice as many notable names could be added, many from outside the Anglosphere. I suggest that WUWT start a “Notable Dissenting Scientists Nomination Project” thread with the aim of adding them to Wikipedia’s list. Wikipedia will require a citation to each nominee’s published or posted skeptical statement, but someone other than the nominator could track it down.
Probably many names could be added by contacting notable scientists who have signed petitions or made online comments but who have not gone more formally on the record with their own quotations. They could be asked to make a post to the nomination thread (which should be accessable permanently via a tab atop each thread) stating their position in their own words. (An earlier version of Wikipedia’s article, which I captured to my disk, included short quotations from each scientist. I could restore these quotes to WUWT’s list.)
Once our side compiles enough names, two things should be done:
1. The names of prominent and/or outspoken dissenting scientists should be added to Wikipedia’s entry. (If we attempt to add every natural science PhD in the Oregon Petition, it will amount to over a thousand names, so Wikipedia might freak out and drop the whole entry. I think we should aim for no more than 100.) Here are my nominations to get it started—I think that 30 more names could be added by WUWTers within a couple of days:
R.G. Brown at Duke
David Evans
_____ Loehle
James Lovelock
Leif Svalgard (sp?)
2. A link to WUWT’s list should be added to Wikipedia’s entry, prefaced by a remark to the effect that “A longer list, containing the names of less prominent and/or less outspoken dissenting scientists, and including short comments from them and from the scientists listed above, can be found HERE [link].”
Let’s then see what feeble and/or outrageous excuse Connolley’s Crew uses to delete it–which we can then publicize.
Here are the names and affiliations as currently listed in Wikipedia, which I’ve organized in alphabetical order for nominators’ convenience:
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [50]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[51]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[52]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49]
*******
Anthony: If you like what I’ve proposed, you could post the above as an article, after suitable editing.
Ric Wearme says:
November 17, 2012 at 11:40 am
==============================
Ric how often is the ENSO meter updated? I notice that the NINO3.4 SST is rapidly heading south but the meter is still sitting at about 0.5 – after having read a lot of Bob Tisdale I like to glance at the ENSO meter on WUWT on my way to the Ice Extent data below.
You folks are doing a stirling job – wish I could help in some way (other than the tip jar). The WUWT – TV was great and I look forward to all the content that I slept through in Australia like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and others being put up on youTube or suchlike. But I did manage to catch Burt Rutan – how cool was that :-)?
WUWT-TV was history in the making – up there with Neil Armstrong in my opinion!
Don’t spruce it up Anthony… as others have said the authenticity is priceless (not to mention the commentry from the UCS rep – go Kenji)!
As Germany closes its nuclear power stations coal use goes up. You really can’t make this stuff up.
James from Arding says:
November 17, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Ric Werme says:
November 17, 2012 at 11:40 am
==============================
The source data I use gets updated Monday AM. (About 0700 EST, I added stuff to check it, but haven’t had time to watch closely.) My starting point is the awkard and not very interesting http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=31&month=oct&year=2012&fday=14&fmonth=nov&fyear=2012&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
I’ll likely settle on 0900 EST (1400 UT) Monday. It can take a while to get past some web caches, Attempting reloads may not help.
View from the Solent –
posted the new Christopher Booker article on 28Gate. it is a shame the MSM outside the UK – CAGW gatekeepers one and all – are choosing to ignore this BBC scandal, because it is so far-reaching and, given BBC’s enormous influence worldwide, the public has the right to know about it, in detail.
tony newbery should have been contacted by MSM in and outside the UK. the Beeb should have been asked the hard questions.
how monolithic is the MSM? 28Gate has provided the answer. somehow, we need to keep the story alive.
@Tom, Worc, MA, USA says: November 17, 2012 at 8:37 pm
“”A bit off topic …… but …….””
It is an open thread. I agree with the comment. I feel this is an evolutionary thing.
The cost of producing food has rocketed world wide as well as the massive land grabs to produce inedable bio fuel.
Also the closure of nuclear power stations and forced dependancy on wind and PV which will be inoperable under coming heavy winter conditions.
Some of us are preparing for the coming cold. Most are not. What will be will be.