I regularly get angry emails from people who are convinced that I’m single-handedly destroying the world with my opinion which is supposedly funded by “big oil” and the Koch brothers. Of course, having nothing else, that’s all part of the huge lie people like Dr. Mann likes to push, like this bit of libel over the weekend:
I’m dealing with Dr. Mann’s libel separately, but for the record I’ve never gotten a dime from the Koch brothers, or “big oil”, nor am I a “denier for hire”, and Dr. Mann knows this because he backed down from a similar claim in the past when challenged on it. Now, knowing that, he’s demonstrated malice, fulfilling one of the tests for libel.
That aside, and along the same lines, I recently got an email that included this claim:
“…your pathetic little attempt at pushing climate denialism isn’t working. Places like Real Climate and Skeptical Science are putting your little enterprise to shame.”
So, I thought I’d check and run some numbers to see if I’m shamed or not. Climateers often talk about their climate change cause being a “communications problem”. The numbers I’ve found seem to support that. Witness the new divergence problem:
These are rankings from Alexa.com Lower numbers are better, for example, Google is ranked #1.
It seems that it’s not just globally strong for WUWT, but in the USA too. WUWT is about 8 times more popular in the USA than “Skeptical Science” (SkS), and about 15 times more popular than Real Climate (RC). See the Rank in Country column three:
Look at the bounce rate under Engagement Metrics. Note that over 2/3rds of visitors to SkS don’t engage further. Note also the time on site. WUWT readers spend three times more reading than SkS and almost 9 times more than at RC.
Hmm, well since the email was sent anonymously (as most of the rants are), and I don’t know where the person was located, maybe they were talking about Australia where SkS is located? Maybe that’s where they are kicking our butt? Note column three, Rank in Country (AU):
Eh, guess not- the ratio holds. RC doesn’t even have enough traffic in AU to do a comparison.
Even with Dana Nuccitelli’s signing on with the Guardian and making sure that every time he bashes me and/or WUWT in his column he uses a [nofollow] tag or web citation link to prevent web traffic, it seems that he hasn’t succeeded in keeping WUWT down nor in significantly growing his audience on “Skeptical Science” in the USA or Australia.
Maybe it’s in the UK, where the Guardian is located. Surely SkS is beating me there with all that mass media driven Guardian backed firepower? Note column three, Rank in Country (GB):
Apparently not.
Let’s expand the comparison a bit. My subscription to Alexa allows me to run up to 10 comparisons. I identified what I think to be the most widely read websites on climate that aren’t mixed in with part of a larger organization, making tracking their stats impossible. This of course precludes places like “Climate Progress”, which are part of the larger “Think Progress” or the Guardian, which has many other departments.
While I wish I could run more than 10 on the same graph, here’s what I learned, again lower numbers are better:
Surprisingly, not only is WUWT leading the pack by a significant margin, it has now surpassed the newspaper “Grist” which has become something of a climate centric enterprise. They also have a paid staff.
Note also Al Gore’s “Climate Reality Project”, which is dead last. It appears that Gore’s million$ don’t translate into traffic. That’s some “reality drop” for him.
That bump that Climate Depot got in late July was from being featured on “The Drudge Report” by the way. Good show Marc Morano.
The metrics are also telling:
So to whoever wrote that email, thanks. It made me look deeper.
Truly, it looks like the climateers have a communications problem. People don’t seem to be engaging them like they used to. Personally I think people are seeing through it all, and angry, irrational, rants from people like Mike Mann don’t seem to be helping his cause at all. I can understand their cognitive dissonance though, because in the world where they exist, where everything is grant/funding driven, surely some former TV weather guy in Chico California and his collection of “flying monkeys” (in SkS parlance) can’t possibly be doing what he’s doing without some massive “big oil” funding behind it. Right? Surely the Koch brothers must be secretly paying for it, like Mann thinks. The truth is, WUWT exists on donations, some advertising revenue sharing managed by wordpress.com, and stamina. I couldn’t live on it, but I’m sure that won’t stop people like Dr. Mann from imagining all sorts of nefarious schemes, like his hilarious Christmas calendar episode.
I think that if I was not a broadcaster, I wouldn’t have the stamina to keep WUWT on the air. As a broadcaster, I learned long ago that dead air peppered with occasional feature rants doesn’t keep viewers coming back. It might work for awhile, but eventually people tire of it. That’s the lesson here. We can be thankful that we have so many examples of climate ugliness in the realm of the Climateers, because they drive people to the other side.
But most of all, thanks to my readers and volunteer moderators and contributors, because without all of you, WUWT wouldn’t be where it is.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Okay — sorry for that link being back to the opening Search Cases page (the link stays the same even though your search is displayed on the screen).
1. In the Name boxes, type: STEYN, MARK — file date: 10/12/12
2. Click on “Search”
3. Click on “Case Details” and scroll down on screen that appears
Joe, go look up “issue” and “evidence” — when you understand the difference, come back.
Further, you obviously either do little reading of WUWT posts or you have an impaired memory. Nearly every DAY, A-th-y posts articles containing the CAGW “science,” which, in turn, real scientists debate on the accompanying WUWT thread. You come off as ignorant of the site or as deliberately disingenuous. Cure for the first: start reading; for the second: silence.
If you are genuinely worried about the other non-scientist readers of WUWT not being able to understand, post the evidence for the other side yourself. Otherwise, don’t worry. The other readers will take care of their own need for information.
You sound like a typical liberal: forever treating adults like they are children in need of a nanny.
Somehow, I think you really don’t care whether non-science readers of WUWT understand… .
Joe,
Funny the unwashed masses seem to have come to terms with most credible fields of science and technology, but this AGW seems to allude everyone but the most select few scienfific geniuses… Yeah, and Algore and Rachel Maddow
Nice to know, Anthony. Nice to know…
Does Alexa allow you to assess any semblance of “unique visitors” to a site on any sort of frequency? It would be very funny to see if all the page visits to SkS and RC are actually from a very small group of people who drop in repeatedly all day and evening long.
Evidence of name calling and attempts to change the subject is a sign that the warmists are losing the ‘climate wars’. The politicians, media, and the public will eventually abandon the warmists. There are other issues to spend money on. There is no extreme AGW problem to solve. The developed countries are deeply in debt there are no surplus funds to waste on green scams that do not work.
The so called skeptics do not need to name call. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is on the whole beneficial to the biosphere, lukewarm warming with most of the warming occurring at higher latitudes which will and have resulted in the biosphere expanding. The biosphere is significantly more productive biosphere due to the affect of the increase in atmospheric CO2 on C3 plants. The central environmental issue is preservation of habitat not the increase in CO2.
As science – observations, logic, and reason – is on the side of the called skeptics (the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the forcing, negative feedback; planetary cloud cover increases or decreases in the tropics rather than amplify forcing change, positive feedback) and trillions of dollars have been wasted on green scams that do not work, the so called ‘skeptics’ can present the issues and new observations, without spin or propaganda.
“Nearly every DAY, A-th-y posts articles containing the CAGW “science,” which, in turn, real scientists debate on the accompanying WUWT thread.’
Do you think most people here read and understand those papers. Or do they simply accept the author’s interpretation of those findings?
For people like Joe who claim that you have to be a, presumably, trained scientist to understand science, scientific methodology, practices, data, experiment, observation and results. There are dozens of people who were not trained scientists at all and yet made some of the most important scientific and technological discoveries in human history.
Joe:
At October 15, 2013 at 9:20 pm you ask;
I do not play golf and have never taken a golf swing in my life. But I can see when a golfer takes a swing, hits the ball, then misses the green.
So called ‘climate science’ is trivially simple in comparison to real sciences. Many here have much more knowledge and experience of real sciences than is needed to understand ‘climate science’ papers. Several of that many would point out if “the author’s interpretation of those findings” were erroneous: indeed, on the very rare occasions when that has happened there have been competitions to be first and best in pointing it out.
When most people are told “there is the ball and there is the green which the ball missed” then most people can see the truth of the matter.
Richard
Patrick:
At October 16, 2013 at 12:14 am you say
Of course you are right. And in support of your point I copy to here something I recently wrote in another WUWT thread.
Absence of credentials provides evidence of nothing. However, it is more likely that a credentialed person will provide quality work than an uncredentialed person. Which is NOT to say that every uncredentialed person is incapable of quality work.
This is demonstrated by the following one of countless examples.
Two brothers who sold bicycles were self-taught in engineering principles and scientific experimental study and methodology. They had no academic qualifications but used the expertise they had gained for themselves to make a seminal discovery which is the foundation of all aeronautics. They examined their ideas with experiments they devised and designed using wind tunnels they devised and designed. Then they demonstrated their findings with a full-scale working model. Finally, they published their work in a magazine about bee keeping.
The value, importance and quality of their work is not demonstrated by their lack of formal education, their lack of credentials, the lack of peer review for their work, and/or where they published that work.
The value, importance and quality of their work is demonstrated by, for example, the AirbusA310.
Richard
“richardscourtney says:
October 16, 2013 at 3:54 am
The value, importance and quality of their work is demonstrated by, for example, the AirbusA310.”
A mere toy! How about the A380? But better, a little known fact about Einstein, he with a mate (Name eludes me), developed an electromagnetic pump that made ammonia based domestic refrigerators safer. Were they trained in said field? But then Freon appliances came on-stream. Yes, our points are completely valid and disproves the claims of the likes of “Joe” etc.
– – – – – – – – –
Joe,
Several points.
First, WUWT and numerous other sites are effective science educational experiences for anyone, including some professionals.
Second, science thinking is not distinguishable from formal reasoning. Homo Sapiens has the capacity to reason.
Third, each person chooses to use their natural reasoning capacity or not. If they choose to use it they choose what to use it on and with what priority. Science has its subjects and priorities.
Fourth, debate is crucial to freedom, especially in science. This is debate.
Fifth, this isn’t the restricted environment of academia. It is a clearly more open marketplace of ideas. A lot of open trading going on.
Joe, you add value here and you make me appreciate the increase in the interest in science that occurs here. The next generation of scientists being created here can improve on the past.
John
Hey Joe. I’m a simple WUWT reader. Some of the science gets past me (statistics mostly)
Here’s from grade school:
The Scientific Method: A theory is profferred. If this theory can be proved wrong, It must be retracted and re-formed to include the knowledge gained in the earlier dis-proval or it is rejected out-of-hand.
CAGW theory (as it is embodied in climate models) was dis-proved when nobody could find the “Tropospheric Warm Zone” (a critical prediction of the models).
Where is the re-worked theory?
No one reworked anything. Shrill claims of “The Science is Settled” came instead.
Even grade school science has been abandoned by the warmistas.
“We can be thankful that we have so many examples of climate ugliness in the realm of the Climateers, because they drive people to the other side.”
eheh
Brilliant stuff Anthony and WUWT and thank you for all you do.
Richard Courtney and Patrick, your Airbus examples do mightily confirm the efforts of the Wright Bros., however…. (ahem) I think that the Boeing 747 (and 707 and 727 and 757) does them even prouder. GO, BOEING! #(:))
Forget your Airbus and your Boeing. I made the best application of heavier than air flight back when I was a kid. I haven’t done it again in years.
Take a short piece of thin walled PVC that is less than .5 inches in diameter. Seal one end. (I dipped it into 5 minute epoxy.)
Take a balsa wood airplane. (I used a bi-wing model.)
Attach the tube to the bottom of the plane.
Test fly to be sure it is balanced and flies level or climbs. (You don’t want it to dive!)
Break the stick part off of a bottle rocket ……
(We really need to reform the voting laws in the US. Imagine laws that for years let a kid vote!)
LOL, Gunga Din — I was the bottle rocket queen (until age 25…. er, no, I still haven’t grown up, just got tired of trying to tie all their little fuses together and that seemed like a good number to end on)! You were an inventive fellow with a lot of common sense — JUST what we need in voters (seriously). If only they were not so easily bought off with candy and free video games… .
Keep up the good work, Anthony. Your British audience is very grateful.
You seem to think that science is a popularity contest. It is not. The number of hits on your website is completely irrelavent. You can be very popular and very wrong. The fact is that greenhouse gases (CO2 and Methane) are increasing in the atmosphere and that is causing the climate to warm. The CO2 seems to be primarily human generated, the methane seems to be generated as cold reservoirs warm. All the rest of the arguments are where or what or how the heat is being expressed. These details are important in the short term, but the long term results are the same. The only real effect that climate change denial is having is to cause delay in addressing the issue. Which leads to a hotter future.
D. Dimas says:
Your perception is wrong. Nobody here thinks so. Science is, in fact, very unpopular. It is difficult to do and its results are often disappointing.
Excellent comment.
If I may be so bold, I encourage you to read this article on WattsUpWithThat in its entirety if you haven’t already: “Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’”
That goes for everybody. WUWT provides a lot of good articles, but this is among the very best.
D.Dimas says:
“The fact is that greenhouse gases (CO2 and Methane) are increasing in the atmosphere and that is causing the climate to warm.”
I don’t think you will find anybody here that doesn’t agree with your first point and most people here probably agree, in general, with your second claim.
“All the rest of the arguments are where or what or how the heat is being expressed.”
And that is where your thought process jumps the tracks and enters the world of ‘the consesus’ and leaves the world of logic.
The ‘rest of the argument’ is how much effect the increase in GHG’s has on the climate. How much direct temperature increase they cause and how much feedback the rest of the climate system has. The IPCC claims that the feedback is strongly positive and doubles or triples the direct effect of GHG’s, yet the real world data doesn’t agree with the IPCC models’ ouput. And it seems new climate mechanisms and feedback loops are being discovered every year.
If a 3rd-grader claimed to understand quantum mechanics I would doubt their claim as it would be unusual for them to understand all the mechanisms involved. So why do you believe the IPCC when they ADMIT they don’t understand, or even know, all the mechanisms involved in the climate system?
I was just reading my notes from John Ridpath’s lecture “The Philosophical Origins of Marxism”.
Michael Mann’s behaviour is consistent with Marxism. Notable aspects:
– deterministic thus end is inevitable, together with
– struggle with ownership
– contradictions are good (somewhat like the old Greek philosophy that believed that strife was necessary else the world would cease existing – Greeks were looking for the essential thing that made the world, they cycled through change, fire, etc in theorizing)
– processes matter, not entities
– history determines peoples desires
Note denial of the mind, including free will – that and the first two items above supports notion that Anthony cannot be doing this on his own, he must have big money behind him.
But the world is full of the negative mentality of conspiracy theorists, and people who deny that the problem is their own thinking thus behaviour. Often they are skilled at blaming others, skilled in making fallacious arguments.
Michael Mann seems increasingly like an angry loose cannon. That’s consistent with another John Ridpath lecture in which he observes that people without a sound means to knowledge, from a basic foundation, often get angry as they realize their way isn’t working but don’t know how to do better. I suggest they can’t give up their past, they are emotionally attached to it, emotions are one of their means to knowledge.