Yesterday the IPCC announced they’d found a new leader to replace the oversexed Rajendra Pachauri, who is currently embroiled in a sexual harassment case in India.
The new guy is a Korean economist named Hoesung Lee. I will say this, I like his stance on adaptation. From the IPCC press release (bold mine):
“The IPCC remains deeply committed to providing policymakers with the highest quality scientific assessment of climate change, but we can do more.” “The next phase of our work will see us increase our understanding of regional impacts, especially in developing countries, and improve the way we communicate our findings to the public. Above all, we need to provide more information about the options that exist for preventing and adapting to climate change. I look forward to working with my IPCC colleagues to reach these goals and I thank them for their support.”
His background is rather mundane, except for this small detail in his curriculum vitae:
So, he worked for Exxon and wants to push adaptation rather than shutting down whole economies to prevent any further CO2 emissions? I’m sure the usual suspects will be calling for his removal any minute now with impassioned scream of the “d-word” and “fossil fuel shill” and all the other hoary labels applied to climate skeptics (or as the AP call us, doubters) who might at one time gotten a job, research grant, or a free car wash at their local Exxon station.
Meanwhile, my “big oil check” that I’m supposedly getting is still long overdue.
Meanwhile, in a recent interview he gave to the Carbon Brief, (h/t to Bishop Hill) I spotted this little nugget quote from Lee that is worth noting:
On the “hiatus”: “I think that trying to read too much from 10-year temperature changes is more or less like trying to extract too much information from, should I say, daily fluctuations of stock prices.”
Gosh, if only somebody had said this to Dr. James Hansen in 1988, perhaps he and Senator Wirth wouldn’t have had to fiddle with the air-conditioning balance in the hearing room. Readers might recall that in the mid to late 70’s, scientists were talking about global cooling due to the drops in temperature during that decade. A decade later, Hansen is citing temperature increases before the Senate.
This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007:
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]
Ah, yes, Democrats at work. But to quote Senator Harry Reid, “we won, didn’t we’
In the end, with almost all politicians (either side), it’s always about winning and pleasing the money suppliers, not the voter or their wants or needs.
You know there was a recent Princeton study that showed that over 90% of the policies passed over the last 30 years have been to no benifit to the public…I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, representative democracy is a misnomer and is nothing less than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
This is for Dog. There is nothing wrong with representative democracy. The US doesn’t have that. We have elections decided by the voting machines that do not print records of votes. There is a reason for not having that done. That reason is because the outcome of the voting totals were decided prior to the casting of votes, and the vote that is recorded does not necessarily reflect the vote that is being cast. This has been going on since at least the Bush years, and probably before that.
There is a lot of money spent in campaigning for public office – far more than can be justified by the desire “to serve the nation.” The ridiculous cost of a presidential campaign only points out the simple fact that only the moneyed can and will be served, for they “bought” their candidates, both of which are in general interchangeable as far as what they will do, though not what they promise. As a perfect example, look at Obama’s record. There is little that is different from what he has done that would not have been done had McCain the insane been elected in 2008. We are still stuck in wars all over the world, trying to start new ones, and confronting nations that can put us back to the stone age. It would have been the same under either one.
He seems so smug and pleased with himself.
I wonder whether those (particularly the elderly) this coming winter who are unable to properly heat their homes due to the high cost of energy will be ‘sharing the warmth’. this winter, there will be many premature deaths caused by fuel poverty. In the UK this has been estimates to run into tens of thousands each of these past 5 or so years.
Yeah, but think of all those modeled, calculated, theoretical lives that are going to be saved by the theoretical 0.001 degree drop in temperature that will theoretically occur from the carbon pollution restrictions that were pulled out from the top of a hat.
I wonder if he was on board when Exxon scientists had first confirmed AGW.
Anyone who believes the Guardian is a credible source needs professional help.
Turns out, there are actually people who believe WUwT is a credible source. Who would think?
Yes, a quarter of a billion unique hits so far, and a couple million reader comments — lots of them from well known scientists, engineers, PhD’s, etc.
And then there’s you…
(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. Deleted. -mod)
Neither are your comments.
But those folks have more credibility than you and traffy put together — doubled and squared.
(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. Deleted. -mod)
Tanking? Got a credible source, or is that your WAG?
Here are the stats.
(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. Deleted. -mod)
Alexa is not Wolfram Alpha. Alexa admits:
This site’s metrics are estimated.
It doesn’t compare sites; there are more all the time competing for eyeballs. And why select only six months of the year?
FYI, WUWT site traffic has not fallen off. So, let’s compare this with any alarmist blog you like. Put in any you want, in place of realclimate or SkS. Then get back to us.
(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. Deleted. -mod)
I see that you’ve avoided my questions. OK, I understand, they’re uncomfortable for you.
To correct your assumptions:
WUWT hasn’t ‘tanked’ at all. Quite the opposite. It certainly isn’t ‘dropping off’, as you want to believe. And you seem happy in that belief. Why are you so anxious to badmouth the place where you choose to comment?
Also, would you believe it’s possible that Alexa just might be a tad unfriendly toward skeptics of the global warming scare? Do you believe them, just because you want to? If so, you probably believe the UN/IPCC, Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, and that the Climategate emails were fabricated.
FYI: this site began in 2008, and got 6 million unique hits in that partial year. In 2009 it got 23 million. It went up steadily, and last year (2014) was much higher than any previous year, with 43.7 million uniques. How is that “dropping off”? Is that like, ‘colder winters are caused by global warming’?
Really, Steve, what’s your problem? This is the “Best Science & Technology” site on the internet. If you don’t like it, no one is forcing you to visit or comment here. (And, I might add, you started this ping-pong match. I still don’t understand why, since I’ve never made an unfriendly comment to you before.)
(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. Deleted. -mod)
Since you repeatedly ignore my questions, there’s no need to continue this.
I’ve explained the facts, but all I get is your usual response to them.
You say “the data does not lie”, but all you have is Alexa’s opinion, which they admit is nothing but a guess. That isn’t data, Stevie. I get my data from WordPress, which is straight from the horse’s mouth. I can give you the numbers right down to the single digits: in 2014 WUWT got 44,713,164 unique views. No other climate blog comes close.
But you prefer Alexa’s WAG. Why are you so desperate to believe that WUWT has declining traffic? I’ve proven that’s wrong, but you just can’t admit it. That indicates you have some sort of problem. This is the internet’s best climate site, traffic is steadily increasing every year, and all your Alexa misinformation can’t change that.
If you decide to answer the questions I’ve asked, I’ll respond. As for your misinformation, ignorance is bliss and I’m sure you’re very happy believing that WUWT is “tanking”. Alexa is leading you around by an invisible ring in your nose. Try being skeptical for once.
(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. Deleted. -mod)
You completely ignored Ric Werme’s and my information, deflecting into what is no more than your opinion.
Facts & numbers, vs opinions and assertions. It’s no surprise you lost this argument.
I don’t know how Alexa gets its data. Perhaps Steve Jones can go into details. I track page views in my Guide to WUWT Monthly Tables of Contents, if you take a look, I think you’ll see most days are at a rather stable 100,000 views per day, lower on Saturdays.
Data for a few Sept 30ths:
2015 Sep 30 246,321,893
2014 Sep 30 203,458,476
2013 Sep 30 162,096,816
43 million, 41 million. Seems pretty steady to me. And more than 100,000 per day.
It used to be that WUWT was comparable to realclimate.org. Those days are long past.
Perhaps you should ask Alexa.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/15/smells-fishy-alexas-data-blunder-hits-drudge-wuwt-mostly-favors-leftist-news-sites-over-conservative-news-sites/ says in part:
As many WUWT readers know, I have been using alexa.com for quite sometime to gauge the performance of WUWT. Reader “Pat” brought this recent strange disparity to my attention. When you see things like the Drudge report plummet and MSNBC soar, you know immediately that something isn’t right:
Those who run watchdog news websites are scratching their heads and trying to make sense of the latest data released by a California company that measures website traffic.
According to data for July through September, almost every major website – from WND to the Drudge Report and Breitbart – saw its rankings drop on Alexa.com while pro-government sites mostly went up.
Werme and dbstealey
If you run “ghostery” you’ll see the nine individual tracking cookies/beacons wordpress.com is transmitting to your browser. One of them is “Amazon Associates”.
Now, go to the Alexa site.
Note at the top it says “An Amazon.com company”
Deflecting again, I see. Since this is the hill you’ve chosen to die on, I’m happy to oblige:
Ric Werme has shown that WUWT is steadily increasing its traffic year over year. Another 41 million unique views between September 2013 and ’14, and 43 million more added between 2014 and 2015. That’s for just one month.
You keep trying to improbably claim that WUWT is “tanking”, when the numbers show a clear upward trend. It appears that reality doesn’t impose on your beliefs. Either that, or you have an unstated agenda.
So, what wins this argument? Actual numbers? Or your opinion?
Alexa’s questionable numbers have been discussed here before; Ric linked to the discussion. But you prefer to blindly give undeserved credibility to an outfit that appears to be promoting a false narrative, rather than accepting real world WordPress numbers. And as Alexa admits, their traffic numbers are just a guess. But WordPress counts every unique click.
You add that you don’t like unique views, even though everyone else uses that metric. You just don’t like what the numbers are telling you. But one thing you cannot credibly argue is the number of reader comments here. No other climate site comes close (and BTW, thanx for doing your part).
Finally, you keep avoiding this question, but it’s still there: What’s your problem?
I understand now Mr dbstealy. You don’t have a clue how the Internet works Don’t know what a tracking cookie is? Don’t know what a beacon is? The big Internet companies know so much about you with all the clever metrics they’ve put out there, it’s scary really.
Keep touting your hit counters. Meanwhile, Google, Facebook, etc will continue to track your every click. Yes, and Amazon too, the parent company of Alexa. Keep believing that Alexa’s data is just a “guess”. Too funny.
Remember, no matter what the hit count this site has, you can’t compare it to any other site. Your “Wolfram” link was funny, you appealed to Alexa data to make a comparison.
That’s where Alexa comes in. Their metrics allow you to compare sites. Raw hit counts don’t mean anything when you are trying to compare the impact/popularity of a site.
Oh, and to answer your question, there is no problem that I’m aware of.
No – that’s page views over a full year. Over 100,000 a day, 3-4 million a month. We’re getting close to that quarter billion mark!
I have Web Developer on my Firefox, it only shows cookies owned by .amazon-adsystem.com which is owned by Amazon Technologies, Inc., of Reno NV. And some from doubleclick.net that reference amazon-adsystem.com. My guess is that Alexa isn’t getting advertising data from Amazon Technologies yet. It would certainly screw up Alexa’s comparisons between sites, and it would help explain why Alexa’s counts look so low.
Please find something more productive to do with your time.
“I don’t know how Alexa gets its data”
I showed you one way.
” My guess is that Alexa isn’t getting advertising data from Amazon Technologies yet”
Keep on guessing there, meanwhile, Amazon knows more about you from your historical behavior than you can “guess.” or even imagine.
Thanks, Ric, you’re right. I saw was ‘Sept.’ and assumed before checking your link.
I understand now Mr dbstealy.
No, you don’t. You still don’t get it. You lost this argument when you said traffic to WUWT is “tanking”. Maybe in your bubble, but not in the real world.
Show us a climate site that has traffic of a quarter billion hits, and well over 1.5 million reader comments in only 8 years.
Take your time, I’ll wait while you search the internet. ☺
Now Mr Dbstealey says: “when you said traffic to WUWT is “tanking” ”
I did NOT say that.
Re read the comment I originally made, ….I asked “why is this site’s ratings tanking?”
I specifically mentioned ” the site’s rank”
Now, you can boast about your hit counter, but that’s deflecting. My question to you is why this site’s RANK is dropping. You cited the Wolfram link which has Alexa data in it. That Alexa data is showing the RANK of this site dropping off.
Please address the falling RANK which is done by comparing one site to others, not by looking a a hit counter.
Oh, and BTW, http://www.noaa.gov gets a lot more traffic than this site does.
I already answered your ‘ratings’ question.
“It doesn’t compare sites; there are more all the time competing for eyeballs.”
You didn’t dispute it, so why are you going back to it now, unless you think the number of internet users and sites has remained static? Alexa’s ratings are artificial while reader comments and clicks counted by WordPress are measured data.
I also asked:
“…why select only six months of the year?”
The clear impression I get from your comments is that you want to denigrate this site. Why else would anyone use a word like “tanking”? That’s clearly derogatory.
No credible reason for it, either. That’s like the bogus alarmist argument that the OISM Petition co-signers must be compared with the universe of all scientists and engineers. Nonsense. The only credible comparison is with the scientists and engineers who dispute that statement.
Likewise in comparing WUWT: the only credible comparison is with other climate sites. And by that metric, WUWT is leaving them in the dust. Including NOAA. How many comments has that site gotten?
1) ” Alexa’s ratings are artificial ” …….you posted Wolfram’s data……why did you accept that if you think Alexa data is artificial ? Alexa’s ratings are based on real live data. That little Amazon Associates cookie your browser gets from WP is how they count.
2) “why select only six months of the year?” get your eyes checked there buddy, the graph is a full year. Oh, and if you want more data than a full year, you’re going to have to pony up some cash, because Alexa doesn’t give their data away for free.
3) “Tanking” is not derogatory. Take another look at the Alexa graphic. Note the vertical axis is not linear, it’s logarithmic. In one year’s time the site went from a global rank of 10,000 to below 25,000 today. That’s a serious drop.
4) “No credible reason for it” …….OK, so just admit you don’t know…..nobody will think of you less if you admit your lack of understanding. However, you could just chalk it up to “natural variation”….right?
5) See my reference to http://www.noaa.gov regarding site comparisons.
Stevie, ‘tanking’ is obviously derogatory, despite your protestations to the contrary. Your comment #3 builds on that.
Your reason for wanting to denigrate the spectacular success of WUWT is there, it’s just unstated. As in: an unstated agenda. You refuse to compare the traffic from this site with traffic from any other climate blog (and I should point out that many schools and professional organizations, not to mention plenty of media outlets, use the noaa site, so that’s an apples/oranges comparison).
I regularly ask for a comparison to any other climate blog, but you always deflect to something else.
It’s easy to see hostility in your comments. For some reason you want to belittle this site, but the numbers won’t allow it. So you just say it’s “tanking”, and then preposterously claim that isn’t derogatory.
Also, may I remind you that I never said a bad word about you or any comment you ever made, until you went on the attack? There’s an unstated reason for that, too. And I think they’re both connected.
“I regularly ask for a comparison to any other climate blog,”
You provided one, from Wolfram.
From you, Stevie. Another comparison from you. I keep asking, but you never answer. Find a climate blog that equals or exceeds WUWT’s traffic numbers. Post it here. If you can.
See my post at 3:50 pm for the answer.
That’s no answer. You are trying to claim that WUWT is having problems.
And you still can’t find another climate blog that’s doing half as well.
Whether or not any other site is doing as well at this one has little to do with whether or not this site is having problems. If a company has a bad quarter and its stock value drops, you won’t hear the CEO deny that its value dropped because no other company is doing as well. He’ll say the company yes the company is having problems, but it is still doing well.
I don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge this site’s ranking has dropped dramatically in the last year. There’s no denying that it has. You don’t have to think that’s a problem. You can dismiss the rankings all together if you’d like (though that’d be odd given you used the same ranking source yourself). But still, it’s clear this site’s ranking has dropped dramatically.
All I know is that year over year this site has been getting more traffic. Spin it any way you want, but that’s what WordPress reports. And as stated, Alexa admits they’re only giving their opinion.
Brandon S says:
I don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge this site’s ranking has dropped dramatically in the last year.
Because as it turns out, “ranking” is a subjective opinion. And I don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge the numbers posted by WordPress. Instead, you put your blind faith in Alexa. That seems pretty credulous to me, if not outright naive.
Ric Werme posted these exact numbers…
2015 Sep 30 246,321,893
2014 Sep 30 203,458,476
2013 Sep 30 162,096,816
…While Alexa admits that their ‘ranking’ is only their opinion.
And it looks like neither one of you has read this link:
“…When you see things like the Drudge report plummet and MSNBC soar, you know immediately that something isn’t right:.. Those who run watchdog news websites are scratching their heads… almost every major website – from WND to the Drudge Report and Breitbart – saw its rankings drop on Alexa.com while pro-government sites mostly went up.”
And World Net Daily reported this:
…WND reached out to Alexa through email, phone and Facebook to ask if the company’s methodology has in any way changed, but did not get a response…
When we see how blatantly government bureaucrats at NASA/GISS, NOAA and others have manipulated and “adjusted” the data, often lying outright, when we see the Climategate scoundrels bragging about controlling and “redefining” the peer review process, and now when we see Alexa suddenly showing MSNBC outranking DRUDGE (as if!), and the government’s climate scare blogs going up in their ranking, while skeptical sites are supposedly declining… then if the critics of WUWT posting here believe Alexa, they do not have a skeptical bone in their bodies. How can anyone not be skeptical of chicanery by Alexa??
You can believe what you want to believe; Alexa’s opinion, or WordPress’ published data. But they can’t both be right.
Ric Werme is credible. Alexa is not.
You directed people to the exact same data source! You’re complaining people are relying on a data source you yourself directed them to use. You haven’t even gone, “Oops, I was wrong to use it myself.” Do you realize how silly that is?
Side note, how do you expect me “to acknowledge the numbers posted by WordPress” when I can’t see those numbers? It’s not like I have admin access to this site or anything. The only things I can go off are whatever occasional screenshots someone might happen to post. Before you complain people don’t acknowledge a set of numbers, maybe you should actually provide those numbers to them?
Well… you apparently weren’t, since you were happy to rely on Alexa’s data when you linked people to it to make a comparison.
But leaving that aside, I’m not sure what you’re trying to suggest or say here. What are “the government’s climate scare blogs”? Which ones are going up in ranks? And which skeptical sites are supposedly going down in ranks? As far as I’ve seen, the only one anyone mentioned was this one.
More importantly, what do you think is happening? Do you think government bureaucrats are collaborating with Alexa to manipulate results or what?
I hope you realize Alexa’s results are generated via data. It’s not like some guy is sitting there going, “Hmm, I wonder which site is best.” Calling their rankings “opinion” is just silly.
And so is saying both sets of results can’t be right. The two results measure different things. They can both accurately measure what they set out to measure and give results which “disagree.”
That was your pal linking to Alexa. What I wrote stands. Alexa isn’t credible; WordPress is because WP uses actual data, not their opinion.
Side note, how do you expect me “to acknowledge the numbers posted by WordPress” when I can’t see those numbers? It’s not like I have admin access to this site or anything. The only things I can go off are whatever occasional screenshots someone might happen to post.
So Anthony, me, and Ric W are making things up? I guess traffic is slow over at your bog and you’re trying to generate controversy, eh? Good luck with that.
Sorry, pal. You’re on the losing side of this argument.
No. You just apparently link to things without bothering to look at where they get their information from. As Steve Jones pointed out to you, the Wolfram site you linked to says its data comes from Alexa. You conveniently failed to address that point, but the fact you ignored it doesn’t make it disappear.
No. I never said anything like that. I just said you shouldn’t expect people to acknowledge numbers they can’t see. Anyone remotely interested in the ideals of skepticism would agree people shouldn’t be expected to automatically believe things they can’t see.
Good lord, you’re pathetic. If I were looking for publicity, I’d at least be talking about my site or linking to it. The fact you attack anyone who disagrees with you in even the slightest manner is just absurd. It shows you’re every bit as tribalistic as the climate scientists this site was created to criticize.
Enjoy your hypocrisy man.
Brandon me boi, as usual you have it backward:
The fact you attack anyone who disagrees with you in even the slightest manner…
I note that you jumped into the conversation with an attack on your part. When I want your opinion I’ll visit your blog.
Alexa has no numbers, they just have is an opinion, too. They admit it right on their link. You keep avoiding that admission.
WordPress has numbers. Ric posted some of them, and they support the point I keep making: that WUWT isn’t ‘tanking’ except in the opinion of some folks.
Don’t you wish your blog was tanking like that? ☺
Hold it right there. You just said I had things backward before, claiming I was wrong to say you directed people to use numbers from Alexa. You now say I have things backwards “as usual,” but fail to address the fact I was right in saying you directed people to use numbers from Alexa. Instead, you say:
You’re criticizing Alexa while adamantly avoiding addressing the fact you directed people to a link which uses Alexa’s data!
If it means having people like you as contributors, no. I’d rather not be associated with rampant dishonesty.
Brandon, dbstealy will never acknowledge that he got caught using Alexa data as evidence (in his Wolfram link) and subsequently rejecting the validity of Alexa data, which his own link uses.
Brandon & Stevie…
…both keep trying to re-frame the argument by misrepresenting what I referred to — one point was right under my comment to Brandon, showing his projection. And Stevie is still trying to make Alexa’s case for them, when I’ve been posting WordPress numbers all along. Neither one of them is answering the points I’ve raised.
So now they’re talking to each other, instead of answering my points, which is fine with me. They can’t argue WordPress numbers. If they don’t answer, I can’t show them where they’re wrong. As for me, I reject Alexa’s site tanking/ranking, which Alexa admits is a mere opinion.
“by misrepresenting what I referred to ”
No misrepresentation at all.
You posted a link to Wolfram.
Wolfram uses Alexa data
Stevie, you see only what you want to see. My central argument is with your description of WUWT “tanking”, which is based on Alexa’s opinion. I understand that you can’t accept what Alexa posted, right on their own page.
Here’s what you don’t get:
2013: 162 Million
2014: 203 Million
2015: 246 Million
You call that “tanking”. And then you said that label isn’t derogatory!
Wrong both times.
You two are arguing Alexa’s opinion. I’m arguing WordPress numbers.
No contest. ☺ ☺ ☺
1) If you think Alexa’s numbers are “opinion” why did you post the Wolfram link?
2) Hit counts are not RANKS Please try to stay on topic. We discussing a site’s RANK
3) Based on Alexa data “tanking” is an appropriate term.
Ah, Stevie, still avoiding my central argument: WordPress numbers.
I don’t blame you. WordPress numbers demolish Alexa’s ‘tanking-ranking’.
So keep arguing Alexa — you know, the same folks who refuse to respond to questions about their methodology. After all, they’ve got your opinion to interpret their opinion for them. All I’ve got are rising numbers year over year.
No contest. ☺ ☺ ☺
You keep avoiding the FACT that you acknowledged the validity of Alexa when you posted you link to Wolfram.
Why can’t you understand that WordPress numbers don’t measure RANK?
WordPress numbers don’t demolish ranking, it’s a case of apples and oranges.
Better search the web for something better then Wolfram.
Try explain why the WordPress numbers show that WUWT is “tanking”. Because WordPress is the only metric that matters. This is their platform; they know every click and comment.
Stick with WordPress numbers, you’ll get back on the right track.
This site’s metrics are estimated.
Know what “estimated” means? It’s their opinion. Their ‘guesstimate’.
Now, answer a question for a change: why the hostility toward WUWT? Because you could have used a lot of different words besides “tanking”. That’s an emo-word and it indicates that you wish it was true. “Tanking” is your word. Not mine. Not Alexa’s. Yours.
See, Stevie, you don’t have a shred of skepticism toward Alexa. Not one little tiny bit. You are desperate to believe everything they post. And you do — even after you got chapter and verse posted from World Net Daily, from Anthony, and from me and others.
Alexa is not to be trusted because they refuse to explain how sites like DRUDGE are suddenly rated lower than CNN. Anyone who believes that is totally credulous. It follows that anyone who believes Alexa is credulous, too. You want to believe them.
So, why the hostility? Be honest.
1) “Try explain why the WordPress numbers show that WUWT is “tanking”.
Hit counters don’t measure a sites RANK Why can’t you understand that?
Obviously you don’t know what a tracking cookie is, so I won’t burden you with technical details above your pay grade with how the Amazon Associates measure traffic on this site.
Now, you need to address the Wolfram issue. You posted the Wolfram link that uses Alexa data. If you don’t trust Alexa data, you will have to admit you don’t have a clue as to which web blog mentioned in that link is the most popular.
2) “Stick with WordPress numbers”
This site’s hit counter doesn’t give you a clue what the site’s RANK is. Please tell us how you use the hit count to determine a site’s RANK.
3) “Alexa is not to be trusted”
Do you trust Wolfram? You posted Wolfram’s link. Besides, why should we trust the WordPress widget? What’s the timeout value on stored IP’s? How do we know it’s working correctly? The knife cuts both ways there Stealy.
4) “So, why the hostility?”
Why are you projecting? You think I’m hostile because I’m pointing out a fact to you that you find upsetting? Why do you have trouble acknowledging reality? Why don’t you go and visit Google, and see how much of a drop off they have measured for this site?
Steven Jones, why are you so hung up over WUWT’s rank? If 100 sites popped up to support each of the republican candidates for president, that would create some 20,000 new sites (well, it seems there are enough candidates!), all which could rank higher than WUWT.
Or perhaps Alexa has found a bunch of other busy blogs. I just don’t know, and I don’t really care. I see WUWT as a comprehensive source of information to an interested readership, and WUWT has been doing that for years, much to the annoyance of its detractors.
The most amazing thing to me about WUWT’s reach was the boost it got from Climategate. In an instant, readership soared:
Climategate, perhaps in concert with the failed UN COP in Copenhagen or the sight of Air Force One returning a day early in the start of the first Washington blizzard, brought a huge number of “just plain folks” to WUWT. I expected readership to decline with interest in Climategate, but it never did, or at least not too far. I fully credit Anthony for that. By looking for an audience similar to that which watched his weather forecasts, and combined with just the right level of moderation, he has created a climate blog and order of magnitude more popular than any other.
As a result, WUWT has become a clearing house with references to other great (but far less read!) blogs, and also a favorite place for guest posts.
It’s a pity you find it so galling. Perhaps you’d be happier at realclimate, or with Sou, or SkS, or some other site I don’t read regularly. Your jealousy is showing.
Ric Werme posted these exact numbers…
2015 Sep 30 246,321,893
2014 Sep 30 203,458,476
2013 Sep 30 162,096,816
Okay, okay, here’s more:
Sorry, I don’t have daily data before some point in time It’s something I have to log every day. At least it’s automated!
Getting excited over 10 of millions of views. Definitely pre-Climategate thinking. 🙂
Ric, first of all, thank you for posting a graphic from Alexa. I assume Mr Stealey will get on your case about that because he doesn’t think Alexa’s data is any good…..unless of course he posts a link with Alexa data.
Secondly, the “Climategate” thing is in the past. My concern is the drop off in rank in the past year as Alexa shows. And I will not speak to the reputation this blog has.
Thirdly with regard to your posting of “page view” data.
Please view this link: https://en.support.wordpress.com/stats/
Pay close attention to where it states: “The two main units of traffic measurement are views and unique visitors. A view is counted when a visitor loads or reloads a page. A visitor is counted when we see a user or browser for the first time in a given period (day, week, month).”
Hitting the “reload” button on your browser increments the counters you have posted. The fact that reloads count makes the “hit counter” a very poor metric. If the data you displayed was a visitor count (as gathered by WordPress) it would have more meaning.
Ric Werme says:
It’s a pity you find it so galling. Perhaps you’d be happier at realclimate, or with Sou, or SkS, or some other site I don’t read regularly. Your jealousy is showing.
Stevie still keeps trying to denigrate WUWT:
“…I will not speak to the reputation this blog has.”
What “reputation” is that, Stevie?
Ric is right, you would be comfortably at home commenting at blogs like Hotwhopper and SkS — pseudo-science blogs that are ‘green’ with jealousy over the immense success of WUWT. You’re clearly not happy here.
Steve, you’re just not intelligent enough to do what you keep trying to do: paint skeptics into a corner. This isn’t about Alexa, or Wolfram, or about WUWT, really. This is about an unhappy, disgruntled commenter who is despertately trying to claim that this site is doing badly. But the numbers prove you’re flat wrong.
Finally, I note that you never make the comparison I’ve repeatedly requested: between WUWT’s traffic, and any alarmist blog you can name. You hide out from answering questions like that… but that still gives us the answer, doesn’t it?
I won’t even say, “Nice try, Stevie.” Because it’s obvious that you failed again.
Stealey….look at Ric’s graphic……straight from Alexa, just like your Wolfram link.
It’s obvious you either didn’t read, or didn’t understand what I wrote in my last comment.
Read it. There’s a question there. What’s your answer?
“But the numbers prove you’re flat wrong.”
Nope, hit counters aren’t RANK
Oh, and you know full well what the reputation is, no need to ask me about it.
No, I don’t know what WUWT’s reputation is, other than excellent. Since you made that comment, why don’t you tell us?
But if you avoid answering that question like you’ve avoided all the other questions, we know you’re once again trying to denigrate a spectacularly popular site.
See, the issue is you, Stevie (or is it ‘David’?). We know how much traffic this “BEST SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY” site is getting, and that traffic is steadily rising.
But you keep looking for a way to denigrate WUWT. Just because you’ve failed doesn’t take the spotlight off what you’re trying to do.
“What “reputation” is that, Stevie? ”
You answered your own question.
Steve, I’m pretty much a straight-shooter. Word games aren’t my thing, and I’m not a mind reader. I wear my heart on my sleeve. So I ask you again:
What “reputation” is that…?
As far as I know, Anthony and WUWT has the best reputation on the internet regarding ‘climate’ issues. And by far the highest traffic, which is steadily rising.
So what “reputation” were you referring to when you made your comment? Tell us straight. Because I would only be guessing, like Alexa.
> Steve Jones
> October 11, 2015 at 2:46 pm
> Stealey….look at Ric’s graphic……straight from Alexa, just like your Wolfram link
Alexa was was once a useful service. That graphic is from March 2010, when it was still useful and still interesting to compare WUWT to other blogs. We discovered Alexa had lost its way in October 2014 (the “Smells fishy” post), I don’t think Anthony has posted anything from Alexa since or quite a while before, as there hadn’t been much reason to check Alexa for some time. We know that WUWT pretty much wins any comparison with any other climate blog.
Did you notice that graphic didn’t display site rank, but the sites’ reach? Perhaps you can console yourself that 99.99% of people on the Internet don’t read WUWT. You can also infer that 99.99% don’t consider CAGW a serious enough risk to warrant keeping up with it on the ‘net.
Steve, your confirmation bias is showing. I think you were so happy to see me post that Alexa graphic, you set aside your scientific skepticism in your rush to show it to dbstealey. Please, calm down, take your time, then post.
> The fact that reloads count makes the “hit counter” a very poor metric.
As far as I know, that’s always been true. While it’s something to keep in mind, I don’t think affects comparisons of WP data over time. While I don’t have have any data to support this, I believe that most readers visit once or twice a day – or less, and probably don’t reload pages. The three of us, obviously, are responsible for a lot of reloads of this post but I doubt we (and the other addicts) skew things much. There have been some DoS attacks on WUWT, but WordPress seems to absorb those pretty well, I suspect they don’t involve loading pages or WP suppresses those counts, as I’ve never seen a big spike that isn’t associated with breaking news.
One thing I do is run a program every day that fetches each post less than two weeks old to fish out the number of comments on it. That goes into my “Guide to WUWT” pages. However, the program that does all that accesses just the URL for the post and none of the references to images, nor any cookies, so there’s a decent chance those accesses aren’t counted anyway. I haven’t been curious enough to look into that.
Poke around my Guide sometime. One thing that’s changed over time is how long a post is active, it’s gotten quite a bit shorter over the years. I think a lot of the more vocal commenters are trying to get their comments in quickly so that other people will see them, especially since WUWT no longer has unthreaded comments.
So Ric, since the hit counter is a deceptive metric, what do you use to evaluate the site’s ranking(s)?
Steve Jones asks:
…what do you use to evaluate the site’s ranking(s)?
Sorry to butt in here. But I keep pointing out that the best metric is probably the number of reader comments. Multiple clicks can come from one user. But it would be very tedious and time consuming to try and skew the number of comments.
Some folks try to do it by underhanded techniques of course, such as using another commenter’s identity. But there are very few of those. So the best metric IMHO is the number of comments. And as with every other metric, WUWT demolishes the competition.
“Sorry to butt in here.”
Please don’t, I asked Ric, since he’s knows more about web traffic issues than you.
I gave my opinion. And I agree that Ric knows more than I do about internet traffic. A lot more, probably.
But I know a few things about web traffic:
• I know that WUWT’s traffic has been rising year over year, and by quite a bit
• I know that no other climate alarmist blog comes anywhere close to the traffic here
• I know that you are looking for something to point to that’s derogatory
• I know that so far, you’ve failed; alarmist blogs would kill for WUWT’s traffic numbers
• And I know that you hide out from answering my uncomfortable questions.
So when you say, “Please don’t”, it looks like you’re asking me to take the spotlight off of what you’re trying to do.
That’s not happening, Steve. Deal with it however you want. This is an excellent site, and when you try to tear it down you’re going to get pushback…
I did say “Please”
Now you are being rude.
It’s not rude to tell another commenter to butt out?
You could learn something from other readers’ comments, if you wanted to. I might mention something that Ric overlooked. So I don’t think I’ll butt out. But thanx for asking.
I did not “tell” you …..I asked you, in a polite manner.
Why are you so hostile?
I asked you, in a polite manner.
Then I’ll politely decline. ☺
You’ve been impotently trying to box me into a corner, but I’ll remind for the third time that you that you started this. I had never written a bad word about you. But you jumped in and began commenting in a very unfriendly manner — as I pointed out at the time. And now when I respond, you want me to just go away. Ain’t happenin’ Stevie. Deal with it.
I also reminded you of my personal philosophy:
Treat me good, I’ll treat you better. Treat me bad, I’ll treat you worse. Basic game theory.
Now that we’ve established once again who began the hostilities, I’d like to repeat this question: why are you trying to denigrate this great site? You can see your attacks aren’t working. They’re totally lame. So at this point you’re just fixated on trying to find something that will stick. Isn’t that right… David.
“You’ve been impotently trying to box me into a corner”
No sir, you boxed yourself into the corner when you posted Alexa’s data in your Wolfram link.
I’m not trying to denigrate this site, I’m just asking why this site’s ranking has tanked. You have demonstrated clearly that you don’t have a clue about web metrics. You also reject the data that is provided by the recognized leader in the field of web metrics. You see, Alexa is the leader because their data is the industry’s BEST. You repeatedly claim that this this site is the best climate blog, however for an additional example, if you use Google to search the term “climate blog” the entry for this site is way at the bottom, with several notable sites that get a better page rank. Too bad you reject any/all data that infringes on your preconceived notion of “reality.” Rejecting data because it doesn’t support your imagined reality is your biggest problem. If you choose to reject Alexa, that is your choice, but there is no other company that has a comparable revenue stream from customers that pay cold hard cash for their web metrics. In the free market of web metrics Alexa is the leader, and don’t you believe in the judgement of the marketplace?
…’scuse me, I suppose I should say ‘Steve’:
Your comments are directly contradicted by Ric Werme, who has been tracking WUWT traffic for years. You are also contradicted by World Net Daily, by Anthony, by me, and by numerous other commenters posting under the linked ‘Alexa’ article from last year. (From your comments I doubt that you’ve read them or the article.)
It’s obvious that Alexa has an axe to grind. Otherwise, they would transparently post their methodology. But no, that’s a secret. I suspect that if they posted their new ranking method, WND, DRUDGE, and many other sites would easily rip it to shreds. That’s the reason they hide it. As for Google, their motto of “Don’t Be Evil” was so preposterous that they’ve quietly dropped it. They are corrupt. But you cite them as another unbiased authority. As if.
Next, you always tuck tail and run whenever I challenge you to show us an alarmist blog that comes anywhere close to the traffic here. That’s because there are no such blogs. They don’t exist. But that’s what the argument comes down to: this is the best climate site by far, and you don’t like it.
This is the Gold Standard of climate sites; the winner of the internet’s “Best Science” site for the past 3 years running, and the winner in other categories. Yet you need to denigrate it by impuning its “reputation”, and by presuming that Alexa is unbiased — meaning that everyone else must be fabricating things, including WordPress. But your false narrative is refuted by the fact that Anthony’s internet traffic has been steadily rising. You’re fooling no one but yourself, and when you’re called on your bias, you backpeddle. Your climbdown fools no one; your comments are plainly hostile. Supporters of WUWT would never post your comments.
Implying that WUWT has a bad reputation makes you sound like Sou. Alexa refuses to give its methodology, and states on its website that its ‘ranking’ amounts to its opinion. Your baseless assertions that Alexa is right, so everyone else has to be wrong are all you’ve got. I’ve pointed out several times that the most relevant metric of true internet traffic is the number of reader comments. Your response… *crickets*. Name another climate blog that has more than a million and a half reader comments posted, in only 8 years. You can’t. No one else comes close.
Finally, you’re still impotently trying to paint me into a corner, but you’re just not smart enough to pull that off, ‘Steve’. Your arguments amount to nothing more than opinions and assertions, versus the numbers we have been posting. No contest there. Numbers always trump opinions.
> So Ric, since the hit counter is a deceptive metric, what do you use to evaluate the site’s ranking(s)?
I don’t really care about site rankings. We’re not going beat out Taylor Swift fans, NE Patriots fans, NE Patriot haters, Red Sox Nation, etc. so why worry about them? You seem seem to have latched on to Alexa’s rankings, that’s two strikes against you.
I wish all skeptic sites well, and I don’t worry about the warmist sites because none of them seem to be doing all that well.
Well said. The only worthwhile comparison in this case is WUWT vs other climate sites, especially thinly-traffficked alarmist blogs. Those don’t get much traffic because they’re preaching to the choir. But Anthony encourages all scientific points of view, and that’s what readers like. They can make up their own minds after the dust settles.
As for “rankings”, until and unless Alexa discloses its methodology — which so fa they have refused to do — their ‘site ranking’ is not credible. It is intended to provide talking points to people like Steve Jones.
As we’ve seen, Jones has no verifiable numbers, only Alexa’s stated opinion. In contrast, we have been posting WordPress numbers, which accurately record every click, and the number of reader comments. Those numbers contradict Jones’ opinion that WUWT’s ranking is “tanking”.
Alexa is playing the same game by claiming that blogs like CNN — which is steadily losing viewers — has surpassed DRUDGE. The same shenanigans happen with sites like WND vs MSNBC, etc.
It is obvious that Alexa has been bought and paid for, no differntly than the IPCC, and NASA/GISS, and HadCRUT, and many other sources that refuse to disclose their methods, raw data, methodologies, and metadata.
Science has been thoroughly corrupted, as we saw in the Climategat I, II, and III email dumps, and in the Harry_Read_Me file. Government science is now almost as corrupt as it was under Russia’s Lysenko. Only the naive and credulous, and those with a personal agenda like Steve Jones, are still trying to convince us that we should trust Alexa, which refuses to provide transparency. “Trust them” no longer works; they cannot be trusted without verification of their claims.
Steve Jones has hopelessly lost this argument. His animosity toward WUWT is never explained, but it is crystal clear to anyone reading his comments. Thus, Jones has forfeited any credibility that he might have had. He is an apologist for the dwindling alarmist clique, and his arguments no longer hold water. They amount to nothing more than his personal opinion because they are based on assertions, not on verifiable numbers.
Of course Exxon has had scientists looking at the AGW theories. They also developed the best record of natural climate change, the Vail curve or Exxon curve used in sequence stratigraphy which documents hundreds of global sea level fluctuations.
When you see what the world has done without our help, you worry less about our small contribution.
According to that Guardian article, Alyssa Bernstein, director of the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University, told the Guardian: “What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,”
But her original source, Lenny Bernstein (no relation), who was an engineer for Exxon at the time, actually wrote this in his email: “Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.”
Note the dishonesty of Alyssa Bernstein’s claim: She says Exxon knew the reality of human-caused climate change in 1981. Her source, Lenny Bernstein, says that Exxon understood the possibility of AGW but legitimately questioned the science.
If the science of AGW can be legitimately challenged, the AGW case is not made. Alyssa Bernstein’s AGW “reality” did not exist in 1981. Exxon’s position is entirely defensible — to anyone but a ideological fanatic.
To be fair, her scientific AGW reality didn’t exist in 1988, either, when Jim Hansen testified; nor does it exist today.
Lenny Bernstein’s email is worth reading in its entirety. He discusses how environmental groups needed a villain to power their political case. Eventually they chose Exxon because it wouldn’t disappear; chosen despite the fact that it acted with enlightened self-interest. If anything, Lenny Berstein’s email — touted both by the Guardian and by Alyssa Bernstein as proving Exxon’s historic culpability — proves rather that Exxon is innocent of their charge.
The Guardian article manufactured a false indictment, employing Alyssa Bernstein’s false testimony.
I wonder if Rajendra Pachauri was on board when IPCC “scientists had first confirmed AGW.” Oh noes, Pachi had his fingers in both pies.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri
On the 20th April 2002 Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri was elected Chairman of the IPCC.
In 2005 Pachauri set up a residual oil extraction technology company called Glorioil. It advised and gave technical assistance to oil companies on extracting residual oil from fields which would otherwise have been abandoned. Pachauri is no longer linked with the now defunct firm now re-named Glori Energy based in Houston, Texas.
2007 – “Glorioil delivers state of the art bio-technology solutions to improve and increase recovery from mature oil wells. Operating from our new state of the art 20,000 sf headquarters in Houston, TX, GloriOil is ready to discuss and apply this breakthrough technology to increase recovery from your mature assets today.”
Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC until Feb. 2015]
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
Texts to a young Indian girl.
YOU ARE OUT!
Exxon and the climate change hypocrites. Big oil money for me but not for thee. Do as I say, and not as I do and all that jazz.
See my fossil fuel funded climate change and green bodies. Exxon appears 5 times among other fossil fuel companies.
Don’t forget Dana Nuccitelli of the Guardian who works for the oil services company TETRA TECH. Dana is a Guardian environmental contributor and has worked for Tetra Tech oil and gas services company since June 2006. In June 2012 it was announced that Tetra Tech had acquired Rooney Engineering. “REI has worked on projects across the United States, including in Alaska and the Gulf Coast, but many of the firm’s current clients are strategically located in the Bakken and Niobrara shale oil regions.”
trafamadore, the Guardian article you linked to says that Exxon ‘funded’ sceptics for 27 more years after 1981. That is an acknowledgment that they have now stopped?
Now back to Pachauri. I should also add that Pachauri worked for various fossil fuel powered entities before becoming head of the IPCC too. So no surprise about this new appointment.
“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
Notice the neat little trick in the guardian report? How they add on their own little statement, “or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change” and imply it is what Bernstein said? That is outside the quotes from Bernstein, who is reporting that the gas reserve was 70% CO2. At no point does Bernstein, on behalf of Exxon say that CO2 is causing “climate change”, or global warming as it used to be known, before cold became hot. He is saying that they were aware of the noises being made in some circles about CO2, he did not confirm AGW. In any event the CO2 in the gas field was not anthropogenic.
The science (if there is any in the IPCC) will get worse because Hoesung Lee is going to promote more diverse voices rather than better scientists.
“I believe it’s very important that for the next round of assessment, we should be able to increase the intellectual contributions from developing countries,” he said. “And also improving gender balance in our author teams is very, very important” (from BBC).
Perhaps then we should all support Trafamadore’s attempt to unseat him (see above) before he takes over.
When he says he’s including gender balance in their author teams I certainly hope he’s not so prejudiced as to simply restrict that to men and women, and disregard the voices of the LGBT community along with cross dressers, fetishists, and sex change operation recipients.
sarc/just in case
Where your from, and what type of plumbing you were born with is more important than if you actually know what you are talking about?
Yes! Of course! Don’t you know that diversity, gender equality, politically correct speech, and CO2 taxes are the solution to everything?
Take Noah, for example. He really got into the diversity thing all the way down to “two of every kind,” and look how that worked out for us years and years down the road ;o)
Oh wait. Noah could have ‘accidentally’ left out the raccoons and I think suburbanites (and their garbage cans) everywhere would probably be better off, but then what would Daniel Boone have done for a hat?
Here’s an ‘intellectual contribution from a developing country’ (The Cook Islands):
Yes, the political scamming has been going on for decades – because the scammers have taken over more and more of the oversight/integrity functions that used to be the hallmarks of real science
We have been told that the IPCC is the world’s peak scientific body. And yet, once again, it appoints a chairman who is not qualified in the formal or natural sciences.
With so many expert scientists in the world involved in climatology, why can’t the IPCC find just one of them to be its chairman? Why?
Oooops … silly me! I forgot … the IPCC is a political body (intergovernmental panel). It does not need an eminently qualified climatologist as its chairman to give it scientific objectivity and proper direction.
It is NOT a scientific body; it is a POLITICAL body.
Reminds me of those “individuals” who keep screaming that the politicians who run the various “scientific” organizations accept AGW, so why can’t we?
“the IPCC is the world’s peak scientific body.”
OMG! We’ve hit peak science! Doom! Disaster! Panic! Flee! Flea!
OM effin G!
New IPCC chair was an economist for EXXON!
Once again demonstrating that you could not make this stuff up if you tried.
I will try to comment more when my head stops spinning around and I can catch my breathe from laughing.
We know what’s going on but it’s such a broad complex subject that it’s difficult to get the main point across. That’s been my experience. The Dr. Shukla example has good possibilities. Contacted my Congressman who happens to sit on the relevant committees asking for an investigation. You can hear the false howls of McCarthyism now but we can push through that to daylight.
“Above all, we need to provide more information about the options that exist for preventing and adapting to climate change.”
C’mon guys, we are going to have to adapt to a changing climate regardless of what is causing the change.
“Options that exist for preventing”…
that sounds more ominous to me.
““Options that exist for preventing”… ”
Aww… c’mon, JohnWho. It’s just geoengineering. It wouldn’t cost much and what could possibly go wrong? Think of the children, fer cryin’ out loud.
(do I really need /sarc?)
Come on now. Mr. Lee worked for EXXON 40 years ago, but for the past 20 years, has been an IPCCer. Surely there was a conversion experience afoot somewhere in the last 20 years.
(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. -mod)
Ok, so this lost me in the first, blatently incorrect sentence. Beyond that there is nothing here but innuendo.
Explain that to all of Mr Soon’s tormentors.
yes Exxon for 3 years and then turfed out?. Looks as if he cannot stay in one place and has to keep moving. It seems to me that many of these types always end up at the UN.
Maurice Strong appeared to be one of this type. He started the UN IPCC.
For more hilarity, check out this youtube video of the “press conference” announcing the new chairman.
It shows Hoesung Lee and the IPCC’s Head of Communications (who does not communicate his name). After a short introductory statement from Lee, the communications man asks (at about 06:30) “So are there any questions from journalists in the room?”. This is met with a silence so stony that one wonders whether there is anyone else in the room at all. He then asks “Do we have any questions yet from outside the room”. Again, there is silence, so apparently not. So the HoC asks his own question. At about 08:40 the process is repeated.
You want questions… here are some pertinent ones.
You should include this link to more questions and answers.
He is Vice Chair of the IPCC. All along I thought Pachauri was Chairman of Vice.
Talking heads, empty room, except a belgian weather lady asking for support as people always ask the weather experts first. It is unbelievable.
In the first few seconds you can hear the echos in the room, that changes as the vid goes along at 8: 30 it is apparent the volume has been lowered and the talk soon is a conversation between 2 people talking in an empty room. ( although there seems to be one other person with a blueish top that appears a few times scuttling about ( maybe scuttling a “press” conference.)
The other thing that gave me a laugh was the question if there were “questions from journalists”
In this debate there haven’t been “journalists” for decades.
Sorry to say, Anthony, that you are somehow convinced there is ‘good’ in the warmists. It is BS and you fall for it.
” Above all, we need to provide more information about the options that exist for preventing and adapting to climate change.” Concentrate on the word ‘preventing’; that is all you need to know.
I think Anthony is right – let us wait and see. UN is a body appointed by the world’s governments. It is actually quite likely that the years of criticism from the sceptics of the science behind IPCC have been taken notice of. Many governments will be privately wondering but still too scared to stick their necks out and touch the holy dogma of global warming – this may be the time.
Well, if as it appears, you DO NOT believe there is some good in warmest, the only solution left is to capitulate or jail/re-educate/RICO/exterminate the whole group.
That is, more or less, what warmest are proposing for “doubters” (of which I am one), and we rightly excoriate that fascist response to what should be a scientific discussion.
There may be a very few remaining that believe in CAGW. Most, like the Uni’s are simply in it for the funding, along with those that receive grants. View the world around us; look at even the recent 20 year history of governments and corporations. Enron is an example – the top dogs had millions, but greed takes over and they lied to their own employees to keep buying stock so they could sell. I should not have to say anything on Gov’t corruption.
I don’t want retribution; all I want is valid scientific effort without gov’t intervention via political agenda. But this will not happen. World history reveals only one course, and that is crash and burn.
Everyone who is “NOT GOOD” should be jail/re-educate/RICO/exterminated?
Is that really the position you want to take?
I second that motion. Political correctness be damned.
“I don’t want retribution”
I do want retribution. The western world has turned into thin-skinned politically correct wussies. That disease needs to be cured.
Speaking of UN Vice…….
Also on Maurice Strong 8 years ago;
He was/is a smooth talking con man IMO.
Who employed Mr. Lee from 1981-1985 and again in 2002? His resume has unexplained gaps which always are a point of concern to potential employers.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the forum-spamming shills for Big Green have only just begun to squeal about this so-called ‘suppressed report’ from Exxon way back in 1981/2 which supposedly confirmed the validity of their precious ‘Catastrophic AGW’ conjecture.
Presumably, they’re just squealing about it now in readiness to then say “well, you see, Professor Lee was in the inner circle and he knew all about the veracity of CAGW and when he blew the whistle Big Oil kicked him out”. Typical hand-waving and clown dancing antics from the swivel-eyed lunatics.
You’ve got this all wrong. When he tendered his resignation he was shouting,
“You have not heard the last of Hoesung Lee. I will be back and I will ruin this company!”
It looks like he is making good on his threat.
All of the policies regarding CO2 and ‘climate change’ aka Global Warming are tools to achieve the deindustrialization of the West and the US in particular. Meanwhile, China is laughing all the way to the bank. The West is getting bankrupted by these CO2-policies and nobody is protesting in the streets.
Deindustrialization is a real problem:
Global Warming advocates are the biggest threat of our times. The new Dark Ages are coming soon, unless their ‘science’ finally gets debunked.
The newly elected Chairman of the IPCC, a Korean named Mr. Hoesung Lee, has been actively involved with preparation of significant parts of the IPCC’s SAR, TAR, AR4 and AR5.
He is not a physical scientist. He is an economist.
First, I think picking an Asian (Mr Lee is Korean) for IPCC chairman was to be important because it was likely perceived that the Asia countries of Japan and China are strategically critical to getting a climate agreement this December in Paris. So it was probably thought that Japan and China may feel more represented and included now with an Asian IPCC Chairman. I think this strategy has no downside for the IPCC.
Second, picking an economist signals that the IPCC has determined the science is settled sufficiently enough that the next stage of IPCC focus must be on economic calculation and principles which are to be the top priority now. This kind of approach by the IPCC is problematical in that the science on climate has never been more unsettled. I think the public will just increase its disrespect for past ‘science’ problems in the IPCC process (past and present) with the appointment of an economist to IPCC chairman.
Third, he is considered to be an IPCC insider in every respect, so there is little risk of upsetting the IPCC status quo and mindset. This shows no commitment to resolving IPCC process failures and ideology.
Excellent but scary observations. Especially this one:
“Second, picking an economist signals that the IPCC has determined the science is settled sufficiently enough that the next stage of IPCC focus must be on economic calculation and principles which are to be the top priority now.”.
My first reaction was slightly different. I suggest they know they have to create the impression that the science is settled and that it is time to concentrate on the economics by picking an economist
4 eyes on October 7, 2015 at 3:00 pm
– – – – – –
Your logic is reasonable.
AndyE on October 7, 2015 at 2:16 pm
– – – – – – –
I agree with you. Heck, I doubt the IPCC even needs a chairman. The IPCC moves are called by the non-transparent IPCC (intellectual / ideological) Bureau anyway.
NOTE: Hell, after Pachauri the IPCC can’t blink without looking bias.
John Whitman. With horror you state, “He is not a physical scientist. He is an economist”. But do we need a scientist of any colour (climatologists, geologist or whatever) for that job?? Individual scientists often come with their individual biases which can not easily be dislodged. You are more likely to get the right decisions from intelligent lay folks without biases
Sorry, I inadvertently posted my reply to you above at John Whitman on October 7, 2015 at 3:46 pm .
asybot on October 7, 2015 at 1:19 pm
– – – – – –
Thanks. As to scary, perhaps so. But I think the CAGW crowd and IPCC are really really naïve if they think the move to economist as chair encourages the skeptical public.
He is also a fellow countryman of Ban Ki Moon
I wonder if that fact worked against him?
CB: Can you just clarify what exactly you mean there by “externalities”?
HL: An externality? It is like the pollution cost. My action affects other persons’ welfare, but I do not pay for these disadvantages that I impose on other people’s welfare. Those are externalities. Climate change is a typical example of externalities and the way to correct the externality problem is to have a price on certain activities that cause those externalities.
The “price” (social cost) of carbon is a nonsense, because pollution travels across borders free of all tariffs. For example, Canada could impose a duty of $30/ton on Chinese rice entering Canada, but Canada cannot impose a tarrif of $30/ton on Chinese CO2 entering Canada.
For example, someone in China is burning coal. This causes me living in Canada a disadvantage. How does the money someone pays to pollute in China get to me in Canada suffering from the pollution?
It is all fine a good to talk about putting a price on coal. Say for example $30\ton for coal pollution in China. The Chinese government collects this, but how does that money ever find its way to my pocket in Canada?
From my point of view, it never will. Rather, I’m going to be paying $30\ton to the Canadian government for coal pollution in Canada and none of the money I pay will every get to the pockets of people in China that are at a disadvantage from my pollution.
Now people might say – the average Canadian creates more CO2 than the average Chinese, so Canadians should pay more. But that is only part of the story. There are a whole lot more Chinese than Canadians, so in total China is creating much more pollution than Canada, so more money should be flowing from China to Canada than from Canada to China.
But the Chinese are never going to agree to send more money to Canada simply because they are creating more CO2 than Canada. So in the end governments are going to be collecting all this money, and none of it will actually be going to the people in other countries that are at a disadvantage from the pollution.
The whole concept of externalities is BS.
Note the Hyundai connection. They are a heavy industry company like many far eastern majors.
‘So, he worked for Exxon and wants to push adaptation rather than shutting down whole economies to prevent any further CO2 emissions? ‘ Don’t bet on it. Mark my words. He won’t be pushing adaptation, he’ll be pushing “Climate Justice”.
Above all, we need to provide more information about the options that exist for preventing and adapting to climate change.
Perhaps Christopher Monckton might have been a better choice. Him having put a great deal more thought than most into the alternative option outlined above.
Now that would be a headline.
We all have been lucky that the candidate of Belgium, Jean-Pascal Van Ypersele, also Vice-chairman of the IPCC, was not elected. He made several reports for Greenpeace and other Green groups and was at the base of a last-minute refusal to host a skeptics meeting at the Free University of Brussels. The meeting was with Fred Singer and Klaas Johnson and did go on in private.
Van Ypersele did loose a debate with a skeptic for the Luxembourg commercial station RTL4. SInce then he refuses every debate with skeptics and only want to be interviewed alone, apart from an open debate.
Van Ypersele was very disappointed that he wasn’t elected in an interview for the radio today. He more or less blamed South Korea for extreme lobbying. He now returns to his job as professor of climate science and environment at the UCL (Université Catholique de Louvain).
Maybe a letter from several of his colleagues to the government to not support his candidature because of his way of acting in the case of skeptics meeting and his activism may have helped…
The lady who asked support near the end of the interview also is a notorious activist here and does the weather talk on a commercial TV station. Jill Peeters has no idea where she is talking about but she is as green as can be. She blames “pollution” by traffic to CO2. She reported locally at the heavy rainfall and floods in SW England last year as all caused by global warming,..
I think she was at the interview in Dubrovnik in the hope that J-P Van Ypersele would have been elected…
For the rest, I found the whole interview rather somnolent. I have not much hope that something will change in the IPCC, but maybe with this man a little less activism and a little more realism? Wait and see…
It gets worse …
Perhaps this guy will talk a bit with Bjorn Lomborg….
This guy is a full-blown insider – no way will he rock the boat. What the IPCC needed was a clear-out and the appointment of a complete outsider as Chairman would be the first step. I don’t expect anything will change with this guy at the top.
When a Warmenista says “adaptation”, he really just means the shakedown of Developed countries via the “Green Climate Fund”.
As anyone with half a brain knows, the best way for mankind to adapt to whatever happens with climate (especially cooling) is by having vibrant, healthy economies, which are made possible by relatively cheap, reliable energy, something which the Warmenista oppose. So when they say “adapt”, what they mean is actually the opposite.
I’ve always been weary over when energy corporations join the IPCC scam.
Hello Ayn Rand.
“Readers might recall that in the mid to late 70’s, scientists were talking about global cooling due to the drops in temperature during that decade.”
James Hansen was one of them. Then he switched to global warming. Never let a good weather event go to waste.
Holy cow! I didn’t even hear a camera click! No chairs shuffling, no jackets rustling, no feet shifting, nothing. You don’t suppose this turned out to be one of those empty chamber talks you see on TV when some elected official is talking animatedly through a carefully prepared speech to a Washington DC, entirely empty room? I love it when they look sweepingly left and right, apparently in an effort to make it look like the room is filled with attentive, on the edge of their chairs, listeners. Do you suppose the chairs themselves were spellbound? I wonder how much CO2 was spewed into the air to get to this extravagant, air-filled press conference all the way from China.
Don’t expect significant change under Lee. I know first hand that the Korean people as a whole bought into the climate Kool-Aid and are inclined to go with what they are told. This has to do with things buried deep deep into the Korean psyche that also result in a “work ’til you die” survival mentality. And being oppressed and conquered under Chinese and Japanese rule. Sacrifice for the people blah blah blah. Lee’s background is academic…. he worked in Exxon’s econ department for a couple of years, that’s all. He has been immersed in IPCC for many years and they wouldn’t appoint him if he was going to shift gears away from the precautionary consensus mindset.