A MUST READ – WUWT Housekeeping: ongoing issues, updates, fixes, and polls

NOTE: This will be a top post until Monday, new stories follow below. A couple of Saturdays ago, I posted an “Open Thread” with a question about “What could we do better”? You responded, and I’ve listened. In the meantime, WordPress.com has thrown us all a curve-ball with a new software update that I really don’t like because it has now made running WUWT harder.  So, I have a few caveats that I need you to be aware of, and I want to ask a question of my readers that will help me determine the future of this blog.

1. Personal:

I have some personal issues (including my hearing and health) going on in my life during the past year that have prevented me from spending as much time researching, writing posts, and keeping up with comments on WUWT as I used to. Regulars may have noticed this. This is all slowly getting resolved, but it takes time. For those that read about my new hearing aids and the great boost they gave me over a year ago, that benefit has faded, and I’m fighting a pattern recognition problem that I didn’t have as badly before. I’ll expound on the whys of this in a future post.

2. Image fetching for reference pages got broken by an update I had no control over:

Some readers may or may not know that I am hosted at wordpress.com using their highly resilient and automatically backed up cloud based infrastructure. Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and Judith Curry’s website also take advantage of this platform and it has worked very well. WUWT has been on it since October of 2007. During this time there have been dozens of updates to the software automatically deployed by WordPress that have been mostly positive, until now.  A few weeks ago, they deployed a new update that forced https: on all sites hosted at wordpress.com . In theory, this is a good thing, in practice, it broke just about every reference page (especially the sea ice page) at WUWT because the update causes all images fetched with http rather than https protocol to become cached. This made the images in the reference appear as if they didn’t update. The only solution is to click directly on them. Some might ask, why don’t I simply change all the http image fetch requests to https? That seems like an easy and obvious fix, except when you discover that a number of the government websites used in our reference pages don’t support https, and the images won’t display when called by that fetching protocol. Here is an example: https://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/global.gif

I placed a trouble ticket into wordpress.com support for this issue and here is what they say:

Hi Anthony,

I’ve received a reply from our software department and here’s the conclusion:

We won’t disable the https on your site because it’s a bad practice and may introduce security holes. However, we can stop caching the images on your site, but then your visitors will get the warning about mixed content because as I explained earlier, some of your images are from http (unsecured) sites and your site is https (secured). Let me know if you are okay with this.

Cheers,

Rasto L. – Happiness Engineer

WordPress.com | http://support.wordpress.com

I have told them to turn off caching images, and that I’d fix the pages that had mixed http/https and I’m waiting for confirmation. It’s been three days, and I’ve received no notice, but they may have made the switch already. I’d greatly appreciate it if readers would check out our multitude of reference pages shown below and report back in comments.

3. Sea ice images got broken by a satellite failure:

At about the same time wordpress initiated their https switchover that caused our images in reference pages to stop updating in your browser, the DMSP F17 satellite had a sensor failure that caused the loss of sea-ice data for several organizations, including NSIDC, Cryosphere Today, and others. WUWT has had several posts on the issue, yet some people still write to me wondering why images aren’t correct. The most comical aberration presented by this satellite instrument failure comes from Cryosphere Today:

cryospehere-today-seaice.anomaly.arctic

A more perfect example of a climate “hockey stick” could not possibly be generated, and it is just as bogus a presentation as the original:

Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large[1]

NSIDC reports that they are updating their images based on DMSP F18 data, and that it is provisional pending calibration. Other sea-ice agencies have not been so quick to respond.

Patience while the problem gets resolved will be appreciated.

4. Our comment system got broken by the same wordpress update I had no control over:

As mentioned in point 2, in April wordpress.com threw out a major update on https, and this same update also changed the way comments get moderated.

It used to be that comments that were flagged by our banned word list (expletives, hot button words, etc.) would simply be held for moderation. The person who wrote the comment could still see the comment, and that it hadn’t been approved yet, but now with this new update, those flagged comments that need the attention of a moderator to determine if it violates WUWT site policy simply get sent to the trashbin, and disappear from the view of the commenter. This might give the impression to some whose comments disappear that we are engaging in wholesale censorship, we aren’t. But again, this change was out of my control when it was implemented by wordpress.com. I sent in a trouble ticket and this was the response from the Akismet service that handles spam filtering and the moderation system for wordpress.com:

Hi Anthony,

Unfortunately, there’s no way to change what happens to comments that match the blacklist. However, have you considered using the Comment Moderation list instead? It’s on the same settings screen as the blacklist, and comments that match the Moderation list will be left in Pending Approval status instead of being approved or moved to the spam or trash. Then, you wouldn’t need to monitor the spam or trash, and you could just focus on the moderation queue.

Chris F.

Akismet

I’m in the process of working on this today and tomorrow, so hopefully the issue will be resolved. That said, there’s another much bigger problem, see point #5 below.

5. Some commenters have simply gotten out of control.

WUWT is the most viewed and most commented on website in the world related to climate. As of this writing, there are 273,124,092 views and 1,782,475 comments. Obviously, there’s no way I could read all of those comments, there simply isn’t enough time in my life. Early on in WUWT history I did read each and every comment, now it’s an impossibility. WUWT used to be entirely moderated, and every comment required approval, but the task was tedious and mostly thankless, and we lost some very good people who volunteered to help me manage this crushing load by attrition and by death.

Due to WUWT being a high traffic blog and in the top 10 of wordpress.com blogs worldwide on a daily basis, it is a prime target for spammers. This adds to the load, but the recent change by wordpress.com mentioned in item 4 may actually help solve this issue while creating a new one.

In August 2014, I announced a change to WUWT that I thought would improve it on several fronts. Format was a big change, the way comments were dealt with was another. I wrote then:

Also, some comments may be held for moderation, as we’ve recently added some words to that filter. Some people who have been known to post wildly off-topic, long rants, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate comments will get the inspection of a moderator. Also, first time commenters will be held in moderation, and after the first comment is approved, you are whitelisted.

The vast majority of regular commenters are also whitelisted, but occasionally somebody may trigger moderation. One of the surest ways for your comment to be held is to put a whole bunch of links in it, which mimic commercial spam. Right now we have it set to 4 links as the maximum. If you have a comment that requires more than that, try to break it up into two comments, or just accept that your comment will be held for moderation.

In retrospect, the whitelisting thing was a bad idea, because it allowed some unscrupulous types, as well as people with no sense of decorum or decency, to post a single innocuous comment, which gets approved by a moderator and putting them on the whitelist, to then post comments where they aren’t flagged for moderation at all. As a result, the quality of commentary has eroded, and I’ve had to ban several people who only come here to spew invective, hate, and rants.

Because WUWT often gets linked on Drudge, Instapundit, and other political traffic drivers (because after all climate has become mostly political now) we’ve had an influx of people (from both sides) that don’t understand anything about the issues, but simply regurgitate talking points. This gets tedious, fast.

Some are here for nefarious purposes. We’ve had a couple of people who have taken sockpuppeting beyond what even Doug Cotton does  which caused Dr. Roy Spencer to stop accepting comments on his website. No this is even worse; we have two people assuming the persona of another poster. We have clearly identified who these people are (because in your zeal to denigrate, you made mistakes), and we’ve been documenting your behavior for months. if you are reading this (and you know who you are), let this be notice that you’ll be seeing some legal paperwork appear soon, because frankly I’m tired of both of you and your illegal actions, and the people you have impersonated using their full names are furious. I don’t blame them. You deserve some payback and you are going to get it.

It just goes to show how pathetic some people are when it comes to a disagreement of opinion. The AGW proponents use illegal and nefarious tactics like this rather than open and honest debate. Then, they wonder why they are viewed with contempt.

After Dr. Spencer stopped accepting comments, I considered the idea as well. If I didn’t have to deal with comments, I could accomplish a lot more. OTOH, many of the comments are quite useful. I wanted to see what readers thought, so I ran a poll with his commentary:

Indeed, and the amount of energy expended by me and others is great. We walk a very fine line here, trying to balance giving a legitimate forum to open and honest people, while ferreting out and limiting people who simply want to disrupt the conversation via sockpuppetry. It is a lot of work. If I didn’t have volunteer moderators for WUWT, I probably would have gone the way of Spencer long ago. Since we routinely process a thousand or more comments a day here, many of which are from sockpuppeters and posers (you know who you are with special attention to K-man) It would certainly give me more time to research and write articles. It’s certainly less effort.

Here are the results:

suspend-comments-poll

 

There are a few ways that I’m going to deal with this on the short-term. First, you are going to start seeing notices like this image below appear on threads. It is going to be a fair warning to those that aren’t following site policy.

housekeeping-place-clean-sign

We have serial offenders on both sides, they’ll get equal treatment. If the thread gets unruly after that, I’ll simply close it. I have better things to do than moderate idiotic food fights.

Second, for the long-term, in the not too distant future, I’m going to implement changes to the way comments are moderated. To that end, I ask readers the following questions:

  • In the first option, requiring registration will mean that your real name and email will have to be verified. It is a lot of work up-front, but it weeds out sockpuppets and posers for good. Successful blogs like “Little Green Footballs” use this technique. The downside is that it limits open debate on the spur of the moment and tends toward a closed community.
  • The second option, requiring that all comments be held for moderation is what WUWT used to do from 2006 to 2014, but it is a huge amount of work. I’ll need more volunteer moderators to pull this off.
  • The third option, running a detailed filter, would send known disruptors, sockpuppets, and comments with expletives, banned words (like chemtrails, bigfoot, etc) directly to the trash were they won’t be recovered. Steve McIntyre does a version of this on Climate Audit, though he gets a small fraction of the comments we get. He never bothers to recover those comments, but instead concentrates his limited time on content.
  • The fourth option, turning off comments altogether solves the time and effort problem completely, prevents disruption, and allows focus on content exclusively. The downside is that the free exchange of ideas, some of which are very useful, dies with it.

6. What do you think? I can make articles on WUWT “peer-reviewed” before publication.

For technical articles, I have a way where I can invite peer review from both sides of the debate before an article gets published. Links to the unpublished article would be sent to people who have offered to be reviewers (possibly due to a solicitation announcement first) and the article can be checked for accuracy, depth, and citations prior to publication. As we all know, Internet peer review is some of the harshest form of review, but often the best, because it doesn’t invite “pal review” like we’ve seen in climate science circles.

This would be a first, not just for WUWT, but for any climate or science blog as far as I know.

7. WUWT’s ten-year anniversary is coming up

 

I have been doing this non-stop since November 2006, I’d like to take a real vacation to recharge. Even when I have traveled, I keep up the blog. I need a break, but I’m not prepared to go on a one year sabbatical to fix “burn out” like Dave Roberts did.

I’ll need help in the form of guest posters, moderators, etc, and maybe even a little financial help to get me on my way. Willis and I have been talking about a trip to Russia to investigate the cause of the great Red Spot in the surface temperature record.He could blog while we are on the trip like he does when he travels . Thoughts welcome.

8. Hosting – wordpress.com is quickly becoming restrictive

I have danced around this question for years, but the recent changes at wordpress.com that have caused problems cause me to take a good hard look again. I may want to go to a subscription/donor model to make this happen, since getting the features I want for the kind of traffic this blog produces would be several hundred dollars a month. That would mean I’d have the freedom from code restrictions that wordpress.com imposes (they only allow certain features), and could offer features readers have been asking for years, such as comment editing, better threading/numbered threading. Interactive graphs, made with JavaScript etc and much more. It will allow growth, but it will also require more of my time to manage it.

To that end, I thought I’d ask this question:

 

9. Thank you

I realize many of you have become as frustrated as I have with the state of things in the climate debate, and I hope that WUWT can continue to contribute to it in a meaningful way. I owe a debt of gratitude to readers, moderators, and guest essayists. You have my sincerest thanks. Comments about all of these changes and proposed changes are welcome. – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

433 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PiperPaul
May 21, 2016 5:26 pm

Shadow banning raises the possibility that people will stop bothering to comment.

Science or Fiction
May 21, 2016 5:41 pm

I think your blog readers need to see more of the silliness – I miss silly opponents, bring them on.

JohnWho
May 21, 2016 5:42 pm

Geez – as busy as Anthony is, I wonder if he’ll have the time to read all of these comments?
Anthony, to save you some time, don’t read this one.
/grin

JimB
May 21, 2016 5:50 pm

How about an annual fee? As an adjunct to registration. Doesn’t have to be much, maybe $10? It would encourage the regulars, discourage the trolls.

Science or Fiction
May 21, 2016 5:52 pm

Ask for help – ask for the money you need – the work load on you is tremendous – I guess many will be willing to help you out with running the blog – let the blog get much bigger than you.

Tom in Florida
May 21, 2016 5:53 pm

I think a registration fee is in order. At that time the real name and email of the registrant would be verified and would include an attached blog name if one is not inclined to use their real name. Those that do not register can read but not comment. An annual renewal at a price that gets lower each year until the 4th year renewal at which time there are no further charges. A failure to renew any year would start the process over from the beginning. It would make accounting much easier than monthly payments. As an example, if one is willing to pay $5 a month, perhaps the initial registration fee could be $60, with a $40 renewal the first year and $20 the 3rd year. If $60 is too much at once for some people, they only need to put away a few dollars a month until they get their $60. If this blog is that important to people then they will do it.
I don’t know if that is enough money for your but you know where the fee needs to be.

Tom in Florida
May 21, 2016 5:54 pm

$40 renewal is for the 2nd year.

F. Ross
May 21, 2016 6:05 pm

Anthony,
As a daily reader, occasional commenter, from almost the beginning of your blog may I suggest you take the well earned vacation. After full R&R and if your health and inclination permit you to resume blogging, that would be a great help to those seeking the truth in climate science.
I would be fully in favor of commenter registration ( with verified pseudonyms for those who wish ) and fully in favor of peer review. A nominal fee to comment would not be out of the question. Inline ads might be a viable alternative to a fee system.
Most of all, though, your health and well being comes before blogging.
Mnay thanks for all your efforts over the years,
F. Ross

Science or Fiction
May 21, 2016 6:11 pm

The reasons why I prefer to remain anonymous are that:
– I will not officially oppose my employer
– I´m afraid of getting targeted by totalitarians
– United Nations have succeeded in stigmatizing their opponents
I´m proud of every word I write – except from my most glaring mistakes.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Science or Fiction
May 21, 2016 7:09 pm

“I´m afraid of getting targeted by totalitarians”
See my comment about president of “cap21” politician/lawyer Corinne Lepage, a wannabee “climate skeptics” list maker, who is considered a “centrist” or “moderate” by the French medias, and frequently invited as a neutral “expert” on TV.
“I´m proud of every word I write – except from my most glaring mistakes.”
We know that warmistas with the silliest ideas can use their real names and appear in public, and never get called out and ridiculed by journalists. The “science guy” can even say on TV that the IPCC received a science Nobel prize. Apparently it’s OK.
I am currently watching on TV “séance de l’assemblée nationale” (on screen information says “COP21 : La ratification de l’accord de Paris – 17 mai 2015[sic]”):
– Bernard Deflesselles, MP of “LR” = “Les Républicains” (the alleged conservative party in France) can say that “warming might raise the level of the oceans of one [centigrade?] degree“; but Official transcript of course doesn’t say “one degree” but “one meter”. (Apparently nobody in the assembly was listening – usually MPs are very vocal when something silly or outrageous is said.)
– According to Noël Mamère (of “EELV” (formerly “Les Verts”) = the green party), some countries are “victimes de l’extractivité[sic] de leurs ressources” (no, the word “extractivité” doesn’t exist in French) = “victims of the extractivity[sic] of their ressources” (and I am not making this up, see VOD 02:37:08). The transcript fails to reproduce this nonsense (I wonder why): the official transcript says “ils subissent l’extraction de leurs ressources” = “they undergo the extraction of their resources“.
So during their speeches, two MP read (no impro!) complete nonsense, and it was erased in the official transcript. I think this is funny and interesting.
But this is “small potatoes”.
Some people can make abominable statement like “put them in gas chambers” and not be called out by the dominant medias.
OTOH, a “skeptic” (or non skeptic but critic of the politics of the IPCC) can be attacked because he wrote a book with a few un-referenced claims (even an extremely noncontroversial claim like the record power consumption in France, which can be checked on a website known by anyone remotely knowledgeable about energy in France).
People who disagree with the alleged “consensus” are systematically attacked even for the most trivial errors, like an incorrect reference, a misspelled scientist name, etc. The lack of balance has rarely been as obvious.
Real names policy could hurt “skeptics” (realists).

Barbara
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 21, 2016 8:53 pm

Thanks for your post. Real names could hurt badly the way things are progressing now.
Without sites like WUWT things could be much worse on this side of the “pond”.
Thanks Anthony!!!

May 21, 2016 6:16 pm

Turning off comments is counterproductive since you have to use comments to leave tips and notes. Unless you want to wade through millions of emails.
The sole problem I have with this site is the size of tips and notes. Thanks for finally reducing it recently. That should happen at least once a month. Once a week would be better.
I don’t know why you stay with wordpress. You like to talk about how web savvy you are, but you can’t find a more painful blogging tool than wordpress.

gnomish
May 21, 2016 6:24 pm

WUWT needs endowment by deep pockets if it is to put food on the table for a family, innit?
it’s almost unheard of on the net that readers pay for commentary..
but i’ve had hundreds of free websites and at least a dozen free forums, so paying for BBS hosting is simply out of the question.
i never understood how wordpress could get anybody to pay for hosting freakin text…
but then, the internet fell into decline with the first appearance of ‘blogs’, imo.

May 21, 2016 6:25 pm

Rasto L. – Happiness Engineer
WordPress.com | http;//support.wordpress.com

He’s happy because he still has an http address 🙂

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 21, 2016 6:33 pm

Ha! Emoticons don’t show now because they are regarded as mixed content 🙁

Dog
May 21, 2016 6:29 pm

I think I sent an email some time ago expressing that you add a function to vote on comments (similar to techdirt.com) or flag them for abuse. I mean, it seems like a no-brainer to off load some of the moderation to your readers rather than managing it all yourself…
It may seem like it would just be easier to turn off comments completely, but then I think you’d lose much of your reader base. Techdirt has several good articles on it:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150129/11104729856/bloomberg-latest-to-kill-comments-because-really-who-gives-damn-about-localized-user-communities.shtml

simple-touriste
Reply to  Dog
May 21, 2016 6:31 pm

“I think I sent an email some time ago expressing that you add a function to vote on comments (similar to techdirt.com) or flag them for abuse”
A function that might be abused by trolls, unless it is well protected.
Only for long time, legitimate posters?

Dog
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 21, 2016 6:39 pm

“A function that might be abused by trolls, unless it is well protected. ”
Perhaps, but I’ve never witnessed a single case of that ever happening by the hands of trolls unless they’re the overwhelming majority of the reader base.
Case in point, Poptech:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

peter
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 22, 2016 6:27 am

Now this sounds like something that would be tailor made to make use of a subscription base. You are only allowed to tag a comment if you are a registered, and paid, member. Some how I don’t see a large number of trolls being willing to plunk down dollars just so they can’t down vote comments they hate.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Dog
May 21, 2016 9:00 pm

Comment rating schemes build echo chambers.
Leave that sort of thing to the climate propagandists.

Dog
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 21, 2016 9:17 pm

That’s only if there’s a user ranking system that carries high ranking users’ posts over into all articles. A perfect example of that is SlashDot. They are just the worst of the worst when it comes to echo chamber commenting systems.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Dog
May 21, 2016 9:30 pm

I stopped reading /. about 15 years ago when I realized that the uber clueless and inept comments were almost always getting 5 points and the intelligent comments were hidden and buried.
And on stackoverflow it’s impossible to disagree with the party line. You can’t say a “guru” is wrong about something, even with a citation of his own words. You can get banned trying to disagree with someone. Argumentative messages are verboten which is to say … if you disagree you can get blocked.

Dog
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 21, 2016 9:26 pm

To clarify my initial post,
The reason why I promote Techdirts rating system as the perfect example is that they don’t give priority over high rank nor low ranking posts. (it’s listed in date order just like here) They merely add a visual badge that lets others know that it’s something worth reading.

Dog
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 21, 2016 9:44 pm

@simple-touriste
Sounds like stackoverflow is a lot like ArsTechnica…They’re supposedly a technology website, or so they used to be, but they actively promote pseudoclimitology which is all coordinated by a single individual who has yet to make a single citation on anything he writes. I actually had an account with them for nearly 10 years before I got banned for challenging his views on climate change just a couple years back…
And since we’re on the topic of echo chambers via various methods of moderation, that is another example of doing-things-wrong, subjective moderation.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Dog
May 21, 2016 9:58 pm

The “skeptic” part of SO is obviously the worst (don’t try to criticize a vaccine!!!!), but the whole project is disgusting and an epistemological abomination, including the programming languages part: the person who asks the question gets to choose the “correct” (“accepted”) answer.
When people ask “why does ALANGAGE only allows the FOO in BAR and not QUX?”, the wanted answer is a feel-good answer. When people who happened to be there during language design (say, me) answer “no special reason, it’s just the way it is, it’s the rule, period”, the answer not only isn’t accepted as correct but it considered a provocation, a trolling, and insult to the person asking the question, and is deleted. A completely bogus answer that makes no sense what so ever is accepted, because it provides a “reason” for a completely arbitrary choice.
So in practice, correct answers may be deleted without justification by “moderators” who have an opinion and moderate based on their (often lacking) knowledge of the field.
Criticism of accepted answer in old question isn’t officially illegal but it’s considered bad taste in practice.
Also, an answer that ends with a question mark is considered a question, and not an answer, even if the question is obviously rhetorical.

Science or Fiction
May 21, 2016 6:31 pm

I once got the following message at my site:
“Your happiness engineer isn´t happy”
Are you sure you get the best support from WordPress?
As one of the greatest sites at WordPress I think you should ask that question to the Chief Executive Officer for Automattic. Your site is great – you deserve great support.
“When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on.”
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
Thanks Anthony – your contribution to mankind is tremendous – your impact will become historic. 🙂

LewSkannen
May 21, 2016 6:57 pm

I can’t help much with any of these problems so I have sent you some cash to buy a decent bottle of wine to relax with.

yam
May 21, 2016 7:05 pm

Wishing you, and us, your better health, Mr. Watts. Please do what you must to heal.

Reply to  yam
May 21, 2016 7:19 pm

yam,
I wholeheartedly second that.

Leveut
May 21, 2016 7:08 pm

Re comments–I know that some time back Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture had similar issues. It might be useful to contact him to see how he dealt with it.

May 21, 2016 7:11 pm

Instead of subscriptions, what about patrons? A small group of people who commit to regular donations monthly, annually or even one time to make it free for everyone else. Start with a budget so we know what we’re shooting at. I’m against subscriptions because it creates a two tier system no matter how carefully you distinguish between subscribed and not. The idea is to get as many eyeballs as possible on the site. So while I wouldn’t sign up for a subscription, I would be happy to sign up for $200/year or so to help make it free for everyone else.

JohnWho
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 21, 2016 7:23 pm

You know, David, I may not actually contribute much to the forum, but I’d sign on as one of those “Patrons” or a “Founder” as mentioned before.

ldd
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 21, 2016 8:03 pm

I like this idea. It would be far less stressful if Anthony knew in advance that the costs of this site were covered from year to year. Then the additions can be addressed as they arise.

afonzarelli
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 21, 2016 8:18 pm

Yes, a foundation… a priest at st. patrick’s in the warehouse district here in new orleans started a foundation to refurbish the church buildings. Apparently, it was such a novel idea that he sold to the archbishop who then began a similar campaign for the restoration of st. louis cathedral (which now looks beautiful). A website with the notoriety that wuwt has should surely be able to garnish worldwide support. This would keep the blog intact so as to continue maximizing viewership; easy access for the huddled masses being a must…

Duke C.
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 21, 2016 9:00 pm

FreeRepublic founder Jim Robinson has been using this model for years.Quarterly donations by patrons. It works.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Duke C.
May 21, 2016 10:35 pm

Also include the option of a Lifetime Membership Fee for those who may not want to hassle with regular payments.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 22, 2016 3:12 pm

David – sound good.
But why not just do it NOW with the Donation button. Money where mouth is – I just sent $1000 to Anthony. He sounds “blue” and nothing chases blue like “green”!
A lot of us, perhaps being presumptuous, have come to not only respect Anthony but love him like a brother.
Bernie

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Bernie Hutchins
May 25, 2016 4:51 pm

Bernie – you said it to David, but it resonated with me. I’m in … for my first year subscription.

simple-touriste
May 21, 2016 7:25 pm

To me, at first glance, the “real names” option looked costly, silly and unmanageable. Now I believe it’s simply an abomination.
First, it’s unenforceable: I have seen no suggestion about how real names would be checked! So the option is essentially wishful thinking in the first place. (Asking for scan of ID papers is a big “no, never, are you crazy”, and that could be faked by trolls, too.)
So it’s essentially like gun control (only even less efficient). The bad guys will always use fake names.
Then, it’s unlikely to repel hysterical warmists and people we call trolls, even the most annoying ones, the most stupid ones, as they believe they defend the Just Cause: why would they hide their real name? They might not even understand they are trolls. (They have mental issues, no other plausible explanation exists. Think “sociologists”.)
And even if posters are allowed to use pseudonyms and keep the real names hidden, WUWT would become a big personal information database, with the added responsibilities and obligations.
And WUWT could have to do an awful lot of lawyering: do you imagine being the target of some US state AG? They might come at you to discover the “real names” of people who “abused” freedom of speech by posting “misleading” comments, over 30 years!
This is even more complicated as people in different jurisdiction might claim their own PI laws apply to WUWT: don’t forget how Europe claims that its (made-up, inept) “right to be forgotten” applies to google.com as much as google.fr, that it applies when Google Search is used from Europe as much as when it is used from the US. So what if different laws in different jurisdictions give opposite conclusions? WUWT could end up between a legal rock and a legal hard place.
Also, WUWT would be a target for pirates trying to grab the database. There would probably be rumors about personal data leaked by WUWT (even if no leaked occurred)
(Same issue for pay to read or pay to comment: it creates connexions that can be used to link people to rejection of climatism.)
Also, employers, esp. state employers could check the posting record of anyone, looking for politically incorrect comment.
Sorry, but we HAVE to be paranoid at this point. Esp. after the CEI event, in the country of the 1st amendment (we don’t really have the equivalent of the 1st amendment in France).
Just my random thoughts… IANAL

Barbara
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 22, 2016 11:39 am

Occasional commentators can and do provide important information. Maybe someone gets up the courage to say something but doesn’t want to participate on a regular basis?

May 21, 2016 7:27 pm

Thank you Anthony for this most precious site. A must-read for anyone serious about understanding the “climate change” dispute. I scare-quote it because they have redefined it to mean things other than a mere changing climate.
I was one of the victims of the loser who forged my name to a great many hateful, evidence-free attacks upon good skeptics. Thanks to one of your moderators (not sure if it’s OK to name him), the matter was sorted out and the fake posts deleted. I am all in favour of compulsory registration. It’s easy. Just get a single wordpress.com account from which you post all your comments.
There is an advantage to keeping the site under wordpress: if, for example, the rico 20 succeeded in getting us all “removed”, the site as-is would continue, whereas on a paid service if we went away, the next payment would not be made and the site would go away. I would not have contemplated such an abysmal situation a few short years ago, but our democracies are failing and the totalitarians are taking over.
Anyway, have a great holiday and we’ll keep the arguments civil while you’re gone. 🙂

Robert of Texas
May 21, 2016 7:29 pm

This is the single most important web site to me for honest information. I often learn more from the debate (comments) on an article than I do from reading the article – that is what makes this site so unique and interesting. I can skip reading the obvious Troll-Spam with ease.
Please do not turn comments off. Verify if it helps, but we need people actually talking to each other.
Voluntary subscriptions would be best, not everyone has a lot of money – that doesn’t mean their comments are without merit.
I hope you heal soon, the world needs you!

Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 22, 2016 3:46 pm

100% agree on all points! +1000

May 21, 2016 7:37 pm

Mr. Watts,
Please take care of yourself first and foremost. You have already made a huge contribution to truth in climate science. You are greatly admired.

TA
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
May 22, 2016 9:56 am

I second that.
Thanks, Anthony, and all the others who help him, for doing what you do.

May 21, 2016 7:59 pm

I am against charging any one anything for making comments or reading this site. People may talk about a certain issue and have 5 sites with different authors giving their perspective on things. Often, they are very similar, however if I have read three that are free and one that is paywalled, I never pay to read the paywalled version for perhaps very little additional insights. As well, one can often read similar things elsewhere for nothing. Bob Tisdale may have an excellent article that can be read at his site for nothing. But if WUWT wants to charge someone to read his article on WUWT, why would they do that if they can just read it at Bob’s site for nothing?
In the past, when things were planned for which money was asked for, all of the money was raised in no time, whether for a funeral or to attend a conference. Why should this time be any different?

Reply to  Werner Brozek
May 21, 2016 8:17 pm

Werner,
Good points, as always. In the blogosphere, site traffic is paramount. Any restrictions would reduce traffic. The choice is always: grow or die.
Better to either have some revenue generating ads, or ask readers to contribute periodically. In the past, they have always come through.

Editor
May 21, 2016 8:01 pm

> 3. Sea ice images broken by a satellite failure:
Oh dear, I’ve been distracted with 1816 stuff and haven’t been keeping an eye on Cryosphere images. It may be they’ve just started logging daily images again, so maybe that part of the sea ice page will get up to date. I’ll check it tomorrow afternoon when I get home and have better access to my system there. (And maybe Cryosphere will have something I’ve downloaded and I won’t have anything to do.)
It appears I can present images from a https URL. We might consider me keeping copies of the .gov non-https images and have the reference pages point to them. I’d like to hold off on that for a couple weeks or so.
Pain in the butt….

May 21, 2016 8:04 pm

I have used my full name on this site. I have connections to my website and email and phone. I have never had a problem with that. Since the beginning…JPP

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 21, 2016 8:06 pm

Probably since no one wants my paintings…lol…

Verified by MonsterInsights