RealClimate just topped 500,000 visits (ha ha watch out Deltoid we're coming to get you...) and has received a Science & Technology Web Awards 2005 award. They don't say if they're in order or not, but in the list we're 9th (out of 25 I think). Chris Mooney makes it too.
Our post on it is here.
Meanwhile, less noticed, Stoat celebrated its 30,000 visit, and even more importantly my google ads racked up my tenth dollar! Only a factor of 10 to go and I'll get my first cheque.
7 comments:
Congratulations. Not a bad result for 10 climate scientists. A certain competing blog with one owner - the second in the Climate list - also has half a million of visits - plus 192,000 daily unique visits.
Will you also write an article about it? I guess not! ;-)
Do you know how many climate scientists does it take to exchange a lightbulb? Ten.
Mann and Bradley are afraid that the broken lightbulb may be too hot and want to cool it down by a broken hockey stick. Connolley calculates that they need 1000 bottles of ice to cool it down and Steig makes sure that this calculation becomes a part of the consensus.
Schmidt calls for aliens via his friends in NASA that could help the hockey team to exchange the lightbulb. Rahmstorf adds the general relativistic corrections to the heat contribution of the carbon dioxide. Benestad guarantees that there will be 10 people in the team, as predicted by the climate models. Ammann helps Connolley and Mann to attack the people who say that they should try to turn the lightbulb around. De Garidel writes the grant applications to that they have money to buy a new palace in Kyoto with a new lightbulb in it. And David Archer tries not to exhale so that the concentration of CO2 does not grow too much.
Hi Lubos. I'd guess that if you stuck to string theory you might have some chance of getting into the sci.am lists, though since I know nothing of ST this doesn' mean a lot. But no-one is going to read you for information on climate. I think you need to recognise your limits.
I find the SciAm list not terribly satisfactory. It's the same SciAm that "defended science" against the skeptical environmentalist, is not it? Admiration for journals obviously has a finite lifetime.
I'd intended not to comment at this site again, but a shriek worthy of Lambert welled up.
Bellette said: "I think you need to recognise your limits."
A wise comment to anyone at any time. What would your opinion be of someone who:
-- (attempts to) present the most extreme form of a hypothesis as fact in a putatively encyclopaedic resource: In all cases, the warmth during the past century is outside the bounds of previous natural variability*
-- and at the same time is ignorant of some of the key methods used in testing the validity of the hypothesis?
I'll temper my comments and let you or someone else provide appropriately descriptive terms.
(* not the current version as of 2005-10-05, but even the weaker version you wrote: In all cases, the temperature rise during the past century is outside the bounds of previous natural variability. implies that we can get almost decadal resolution of temperature gradients on geologic timescales. Where's the citation for that, please?)
-- Jo Calder
Jo - in the blogosphere, no one hears you scream, so shriek away.
JonGwynne was a troll and got banned from wikipedia for it. I'm not too surprised to see you supporting him.
The statement is correct, within the context of the last 1000-2000 years. The page provides citations. Given that you've manageed to link to that page, how did you fail to read the references on it? And where did you get "geologic" from?
Quite why you're so interested in getting bogged down in R2/RE is... no mystery at all. But if you think your sniping is worth something, rather than trolling here, why not go troll at sci.environment where at least you'll get a reasonable number of people to read your comments?
Congratulations to Mann and Bradley once again. Their work with Hughes was the topic of the winning article of the prestigious Dutch journalism award, see here. The 12-page long article described why the work, underlying the Kyoto protocol, is nothing else that flawed statistics. You must feel proud to be a collaborator of such scientists like Mann and Bradley.
Your site is better than RC. RC is beautiful and prestigious. But the engagement on the content is minimal and opposite points of view are not allowed. Smart trumps pretty any day in my book. You're better then them.
Post a Comment