WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with most discredited web metric (hits!) and keeps smearing scientists while demanding others “dial back the rhetoric”

Posted on  

"WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with most discredited web metric (hits!) and keeps smearing scientists while demanding others “dial back the rhetoric”"

The NYT’s Virginia Heffernan now “regrets” being duped by Watts

As long as Anthony Watts keeps a website “hits” counter on his sidebar and keeps bragging that his hits are evidence of his blog’s popularity, that will provide the most irrefutable evidence of his innumeracy and his willful statistical deception.

One thing is very safe to say about any quantitative analysis you see from Anthony Watts:  It is, with high-probability, pure BS.  See, for instance, Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts.

Worse, Watts has, perhaps more than any other leading anti-science blogger, viciously smeared climate scientists and others.  Yet in a post touting the most meaningless statistic on the web — his 50 millionth hit — he has the nerve to write, “I’m really growing tired of the vociferous and voluminous name calling and people bashing, on both sides. It’s palpable.”  What’s palpable is his hypocrisy.

On Memorial Day, for instance, Watts directly questioned the patriotism of both Tamino and Rabett (see “Peak readership for anti-science blogs?“) leading Tamino to write, “This just might be the most loathsome thing Watts has yet done with his blog.”

Watts also keeps reposting the disinformation of The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, even though  TVMOB is the leading purveyor of outright hate speech among the disinformers (see Lord Monckton repeats and expands on his charge that those who embrace climate science are “Hitler youth” and fascists).  Since he reposted TVMOB a number of times last month alone, one can only assume he fully supports TVMOB’s methods.  Indeed, after Prof. John Abraham eviscerated TVMOB in a must-see video, Watts reposted a shameless effort by TVMOB to “censor” Abraham, as Skeptical Science noted.  Deltoid put it this way: “Monckton, supported by Anthony Watts, is trying to suppress Abraham’s presentation. Over at Watts Up with That? Monckton defames Abraham and asks for help in suppressing Abraham’s speech.”

But this is standard operating procedure for Watts.

Last year he demanded YouTube take down a Peter Sinclair video debunking him.  Then he defended his effort to censor Sinclair’s video, by saying he was “doing him a favor — no, seriously, you can’t make this stuff up, unless you’re a professional disinformer, like Watts.   Fortunately, Anthony Watts knows even less about copyright laws than he does about climate science, if that’s possible, and YouTube quickly put the video backup.

But Watts tries to fool people with charts and pretty pictures and phony why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along talk.  And as we’ll see he duped New York Times online media critic Virginia Heffernan into recommending WUWT in the NYT magazine today “For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests.”  At least Heffernan walked back this recommendation on line before the article was even published (see here).

But first, back to the absurd 50 millionth hit claim, which by itself is prima facie evidence that Watts doesn’t know the first thing about analysis.  In his July 29th post, “A cool 50 million“:

WUWT reached a new milestone with 50 million unique hits on the WordPress hit counter (in the right sidebar) early this morning….

No other climate related blog has a 50 million hit number. Some, like Joe Romm try to claim the numbers don’t matter, or try to claim that some other number matters more. But (and it’s a big one) he doesn’t show his own number counter. At least RC does.

Memo to Anthony Watts:  Not “some,” but everyone who knows anything about web statistics knows hits are a meaningless and deceptive measure of site popularity.  Oh, and ClimateProgress had more than 50 million hits this year alone (see below)!

[Sound of Watts feverishly using Google to find one credible Web analytics expert who thinks Hits are anything more than what an anagram of the word 'hits' would suggest!]

No serious blogger quotes their “hits” as a measure of traffic, let alone any who pride themselves on their knowledge of statistics.  Indeed, since Watts obviously reads this blog, he knows that back in March, in a post titled, “Hits charade: WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with dubious webstats, while lowballing other blogs,” I quoted a typical explanation of just what Hits are, “Hits, Page Views, Visitors and Visits Demystified,” which concludes “It is evident it does not make a lot of sense to count Hits.”  So, of course, it is the perfect metric for the top anti-science website in the country.  It’s interesting that not one of his commenters have bothered to tell him this!

But let’s not just use one source.  Let’s try About.com’s Definition of Hits from its Web analytics glossary:

A hit is a request for a file from a Web server. This includes every stylesheet, javascript file, and image on a Web page. And as such is a bad metric to use for evaluating Web page popularity.

Duh!

And then About.com’s “Web Analytics Basics” explains:

Hits are not a useful or reliable form of Web analytics in a business context. They don’t really tell you anything useful. They are only really useful if you’re a Web server administrator and you want to find out why a page is slow to load.

Don’t use the term hits unless you want people to know you don’t know much about Web analytics or Web measurement.

Again, not one of his legion of ditto-heads tells the Emperor he has no clothes.

The very metric Watts uses to demonstrate his success is proof positive he doesn’t know what he’s talking about!

And here’s The Online Journalism Review from July 2007:

But under no circumstances should a professional news report ever use the term “hits” in a story about a website again (unless it is a story about a dDOS attack). Consider yourself warned, as an “OJR Hall of Shame” might otherwise be forthcoming.

That’s WattsUpWithThat, an inaugural member of the online Hall of Shame.

Anthony, I don’t publish my webstats because my IT folks simply don’t believe any Web analytics program is reliable, except perhaps to track trends over time, which is how I mainly use it.

But since Watts laughably called me out on this, I will this one time post a screen shot of the latest Urchin Software from Google, which is considered to be one of the better analytics tools (click to enlarge):

Urchin Small

Yes, that’s right, according to one of the most highly regarded web analytics programs in the world, I had 54 million valid hits this year alone — more than Watts is touting for his blog’s entire existence!

Since Watts doesn’t seem to believe any statistics that disagree with his anti-scientific worldview, I’d be happy to export the data to any credible independent journalist he names or, say, Walt Meier at NSIDC who has posted at Watts.  Heck, I’d even give Dr. Meier my login information.  I’d also give him the login for CAP’s own webstats program, which also says I’ve had 54 million hits this year.

For the record, contrary to what Watts claims, I do post one independently-determined web metric on my site, as everyone knows.  I post the number of subscribers to my daily feed as determined by Feedburner.

I have chosen a subscriber-driven strategy.  I devote a lot of prime real estate at the top of CP to getting subscriptions.  I want people to read the content and I don’t care if they come here to do so (or go to other websites where I repost some content, such as Grist).  I now have about 35,000 subscribers, which is a large number for a website that focuses on a fairly narrow set of issues.  My subscribers have been rising fairly steadily.  It was closer to 2,800 at the start of 2009 and was 28,000 in March.  But, some days, the number drops sharply, and my IT folks tell me even it is not 100% reliable.

I don’t know how many of my subscribers actually read my posts each day, or how many posts they read.  The email subscribers and many if not most of the RSS feed subscribers can read any of the posts they want without ever coming here and registering in my webstats.  I will note that if, say, only 1/3 of my subscribers read half of my posts a day without coming to CP, that would mean my actual pageviews were roughly double what the webstats programs show.  There is, however, no good way of finding out.

Watts puffs himself up with the phony “hits” statistics.  And he also claims:

We continue to be at the top in traffic and links.

WUWT gets a lot of traffic.  But as the web comparison site Compete indicates, I currently rank a little higher than the fading Watts (based on unique visitors, as opposed to total visits).  Click to enlarge:

Compete 7-10 small

Watts likes Alexa for comparing webstats, but most serious IT folks don’t since it is gameable and hence “unreliable” and “can’t be trusted” as a couple of bloggers have put it (Google “Alexa gameable”).  And, again, my webstats and any of the comparison websites don’t calculate the people who get my content through my feed, which makes Watts’ claims more of a high school exercise.

As for links, Technorati, which is probably the most widely used ranking based on who links to you, says WattsUpWithThat has an “Authority” of 713 (higher is better) and is the 185th ranked blog in the country (lower is better).  Climate Progress has a Technorati Authority of 734 and is the 137th ranked blog.

It is simply amazing that a man who puts so little faith in actual, verified, reproducible temperature statistics puts his entire professional credibility on dubious and/or utterly un-reproducible web stats that he keeps on his sidebar.

Or maybe isn’t amazing because he has no interest in doing credible analysis and he walked away from the chance he was given to do real science.  Indeed, his life’s work “” to discredit the U.S. temperature record “” has been utterly discredited:

But he has all those pretty, phony charts and pretends to sound reasonable sometimes.

So he dupes journalists (at the NY Times) who don’t follow this subject closely (see “In yet another front-page journalistic lapse, the NY Times once again equates non-scientists “” Bastardi, Coleman, and Watts (!) “” with climate scientists“).  Just today NY Times online media critic Virginia Heffernan (temporarily) recommended Watts in the NYT magazine “For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests.”

At least Heffernan walked back this recommendation on line before the article was even published (see here) after being widely criticized on the science blogosphere — see Deltoid’s “Post-modernism rides again at the New York Times” and Neuron Culture, where she posted this apology:

I’m grateful for all the replies. Nice to meet you here, David….

I have no training in science. My surprise at ScienceBlogs was akin to the surprise a scientist who might feel if he audited a PhD seminar on Wallace Stevens. Why aren’t they talking about “Anecdote of the Jar”?! Why are they talking about how “misogyny intrinsic to the modernist project”? I saw political axe-grinding bring the humanities almost to a standstill in the 1990s. I thought science was supposed to be above that!

One regret: the Watts blog. Virtually everyone who emailed me pointed out that it’s as axe-grinding as anything out there. I linked to it because has a lively voice; it’s detail-oriented and seemingly not snide; and, above all, it has some beautiful images I’d never seen before. I’m a stranger to the debates on science blogs, so I frankly didn’t recognize the weatherspeak on the blog as “denialist”; I didn’t even know about denialism. I’m don’t endorse the views on the Watts blog, and I’m extremely sorry the recommendation seemed ideological.

All best,

Virginia Heffernan
heffernan@nytimes.com

Note: She included her email (and Watts included it in his repost), so feel free to email her on the stuff she still has wrong.

At least she basically admits she was duped by the phony image the website tries to portray, but who would even admit this:

it’s detail-oriented and seemingly not snide; and, above all, it has some beautiful images I’d never seen before

Ooh, pretty pictures, shiny objects, the old razzle dazzle.

Yes, WattsUpWithThat is detail oriented, if by “detail” you mean, “disinformation,” as in these recent absurdities by Steven Goddard:

“The death spiral continues, with Arctic ice extent and thickness nearly identical to what it was 10 years ago.” (5/31)

“Over the last three years, Arctic Ice has gained significantly in thickness”¦.  Conclusion : Should we expect a nice recovery this summer due to the thicker ice? You bet ya.” (6/2)

“Arctic Basin ice generally looks healthier than 20 years ago.” (6/23)

Here’s something else Watts stands out for — Fastest disinformer retraction: Watts says Goddard’s “Arctic ice increasing by 50000 km2 per year” post is “an example of what not to do when graphing trends.”

Watts simply lives to spread disinformation again and again:

And “seemingly not snide”?  Again, Watts directly questioned the patriotism of both Tamino and Rabett leading Tamino to write, “This just might be the most loathsome thing Watts has yet done with his blog.” Even in his post demanding others “dial down the rhetoric,” he calls another blogger “angry and juvenile.”  Non-physician, heal thyself!

He approvingly reprinted a post labeling climate science “the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.” (see here). Such a statement is anti-scientific and anti-science in the most extreme sense. It accuses the scientific community broadly defined of deliberate fraud - and not just the community of climate scientists, and all of the leading scientific journals, and all of the member governments of the IPCC, but also the leading National Academies of Science around the world (including ours) and the American Geophysical Union, an organization of geophysicists that consists of more than 45,000 members and the American Meteorological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

And yet Watts complains that people call him a denier.  I still prefer “disinformer” for him, since merely denying scientific reality is far less harmful than what Watts does, which is actively spreading disinformation.

Watts is capable of dishing out the most virulent attacks on leading climate scientists, like James Hansen and Mark Serreze (see Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat).  He falsely accuses NOAA scientists of fraud (see here).  But he can’t even take a factual and, by WattUpWithThat standards, relatively mild attack on himself (see “The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The Climate Denial “Crock of the Week”).

The reason Watts wants others to “dial back the rhetoric” is that he wants the freedom to spread disinformation, smear leading scientists, call everyone else the most vicious names, and basically undermine any effort to preserve a livable climate for our children and grandchildren and countless future generations, thereby ensuring misery for billions of people — misery that could almost certainly have been prevented or sharply reduced at rather low net cost if the media and policymakers didn’t keep listening to disinformers like Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard.

In honor of Virginia Heffernan and the rest of the media taken in by the fast-talking, pretty pictures, phony details, and general razzle dazzle of disinformers like Watts, here is Chicago:

« »

36 Responses to WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with most discredited web metric (hits!) and keeps smearing scientists while demanding others “dial back the rhetoric”

  1. Anonymous says:

    “Last year he demanded YouTube take down a Peter Sinclair video debunking him.”

    Oh, maybe it’s time to take down all the denier flicks, which just “spin”, “smear” and “twist” the science of climate.

  2. Peter Mizla says:

    I Google ‘Global warming News a few times a day to get the latest News from various web sources- I regularly see this site ‘Watts up with that?

    A few months back before I knew what this site was- I checked it out-it took less then 1 minute to see it was junk data.

    I do not work for the New York Times- but I had more ability then Ms Heffernan did to identify this site has meaningless conversations with contrived misinformation.

    This again shows The NYT lackluster interest in presenting the biggest story of the century. It still sees not threat to humankind-perhaps the Times should cover more of the horrid events in Russia.

  3. Prokaryotes says:

    Moscow hits 102°F; hottest day ever in Finland; 90L a long-range theat
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1559

  4. John Mason says:

    I tend to work by “unique page requests” and even that’s a crude baseline!

    Claiming a site’s popularity by “hits” is just so much bull….

    Having said which – if there’s a market… WUWT has ardent followers, just as the UK tabloid paper the Daily Mail has ardent readers. Each to their own poison, one can only conclude….

    cheers – John

  5. Lou Grinzo says:

    With the hard core, industrial-scale deniers, there’s one very simple rule to keep in mind, even though it’s ferociously hard to apply universally to their actions: They will say ANYTHING that will directly or indirectly delay action on climate change. That’s ANYTHING, as in ANY [expletive] [expletive] [expletive] THING.

    If something will fire up the squadron of flying howler monkeys who follow them, they’ll do it. If it will cause newcomers who drop in via Google to question any part of climate science, they’ll say it. If it makes them more famous (which gives them more leverage and influence, and makes it easier for them to personally, directly make money from their actions), they’ll say it. Once again: ANYTHING.

    Issues like “being wrong” or “looking foolish” or “losing credibility with their base/followers” simply don’t apply, and any assumption that one can fend off their rampant stupidity by “winning” a technical argument is hopelessly naive.

    For the most extreme of their followers, even death threats are not off-limits, as far too many climate scientists have found out already.

    This is asymmetrical verbal warfare that makes a US political campaign look like a polite chat over lunch. None of us should forget that for a second.

  6. Paulm says:

    This has got to be one of the scaiest graphs of all…
    Greenland Ice Sheet mass
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/past-and-future-of-greenland-ice-sheet.html

  7. Windsong says:

    I got your book, “Straight Up” and thought I’d just glance through it. Ended up spending an hour outside in the hot sun reading it. This happens everytime I get a good book on climate change. Whether I’m trying to look for more work (only working part time!) or whatever, whenever I see a book on climate change, I loose all thoughts on anything except the book.

    Had to put my computer in storage because I kept staying up half the nite researching GW. Still, I get hardly any sleep because always reading about GW. Anyone else have this problem?

  8. Where’s the apology and correction from NYT? The online article is still there with the recommendation of Watts right along with SciAm and Disco, and there are apparently no comments allowed. WTFUWT?

  9. cr says:

    “I have no training in science.”

    Neither do I. However, I have a degree in history, which involves research and critical thinking skills. Neither skill seems evident with Ms. Heffernan.

    She didn’t even know about denialism?

    (looks for nearest desk to pound head on)

  10. Dibble says:

    Sorry guys, it’s mostly my fault. I find WUWT really funny and disturbing at the same time, a bit like watching Sacha Baron Cohen.
    I’m responsible for a fair few ‘hits’ a day. There’s no denying that it is a popular site. It’s not a science site of course, more an echo chamber for the willfully ignorant.
    Goddard and Eschenbach are my favorites. Willis by the way has an inspired post on how the recently published paper on the sea temperature / climate linked decline in Phytoplankton seems to fatally flawed on the basis of….a hunch.

  11. NeilT says:

    Today Watts thinks that the arctic is going to be freezing for half of August, but skips the anomaly map which shows a 5-10DegC+ anomaly for most of Canada and the Archipelago. The anomaly map being the third image on the linked page. Only two showing on the page.

    Then he states that “Much” of Russia is seeing well below normal temps. I’m sure the >250,000 emergency services and troops fighting fires and working to help the thousands displaced by the fires will be heartened by that.

    I wonder why we can’t take his site down?

  12. Prokaryotes says:

    Just look at the Sierras for proof of climate change

    Sometimes, when it comes to understanding what is happening to our natural world, it seems that I live on two totally separate planets. The issue splitting my world is climate change. http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20100731/LIFESTYLE/7310318/William-Tweed-Just-look-at-the-Sierras-for-proof-of-climate-change

  13. Mike says:

    WTF? With all due respect I think this post and your two posts on Curry are distractions from what I take to be your main mission: informing the public of the need for action to halt or mitigate destructive climate change and rousing the public to get involved. To the non-coterie these posts just look like so much mudslinging. RC is the right place for scientists to with their own. You are probably giving Curry more press than she warrants. As for AW, his hole mission in life is to get under people’s skin. Don’t let him.

    [JR: Well, judging from his post cited above, it is I who have gotten under his skin. But he occasionally succeeds in duping the MSM, and that needs responding to. And he is the most widely read of the disinformer blogs by far -- hardly anybody actually reads Morano or McIntyre.

    You don't have my main mission correct -- the general public doesn't read blogs like this on either the science or anti-science side. Each month, my unique visitors constitute under 0.01% of the global populace. If you want to know why I blog, read this.]

  14. MapleLeaf says:

    Mike @13,

    First, thanks to Joe for calling Anthony on his BS. IMHO, one has to take the likes of Watts down, and hard too. Fight fire with fire I say, while still taking the high road. I could be wrong, but SwiftHack was perhaps the final straw for many who know AGW/ACC to be a threat. If anything, it got people off their butts and united them against ideologues like Morano, Monckton and Watts. I sense that their patience is also at a minimum, and they are not prepared to play mind games like Watts is doing.

    Mike, I’m sure that people like DC and Joe would rather not have to deal with this BS put forth by Curry and Watts, but ignoring Watts and Curry won’t make them go away. So probably the best strategy is to continue demonstrating why Watts has no integrity or no ethics and is void of scientific understanding–but back the arguments with facts as Joe does. That will, hopefully, go a long way to open peoples’ eyes to the nonsense that the “skeptics” and those in denial about AGW/ACC engage in. Public education is key here…

    IMHO, even the reputation of the “skeptics” is at an all time low (in a relative sense of course!)– now when it the media going to finally take them to task? Now there is a scandal– I thought that is what they and their readers like/want?

  15. Anna Haynes says:

    I have to say though, re Joe’s
    > “The NYT’s Virginia Heffernan now “regrets” being duped”

    …that this is a Exhibit A for making the case that the press is doing a lousy job of informing its readers – if even *reporters* haven’t run across articles on the antiscience effort, that speaks volumes about how poorly the press has done up to now.

    (Exhibit A is this telling anecdote, Exhibit B is the “Visual depiction of the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public” image mentioned above (at http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=296 ))

  16. Anna Haynes says:

    Also, this incident exemplifies the need for an update to the NewsU “Covering Climate Change” course for journalists, that alerts them to the pitfalls they face.

  17. villabolo says:

    MapleLeaf says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    First, thanks to Joe for calling Anthony on his BS. IMHO, one has to take the likes of Watts down, and hard too. Fight fire with fire I say, while still taking the high road. I could be wrong, but SwiftHack was perhaps the final straw for many who know AGW/ACC to be a threat. If anything, it got people off their butts and united them against ideologues like Morano, Monckton and Watts. I sense that their patience is also at a minimum, and they are not prepared to play mind games like Watts is doing.
    ******************

    Fight fire with fire? Start documenting all of their fake charts and their origins. If you haven’t heard of them already, please check out the following ‘skeptic’ site.

    http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/

    Look at the Home and Main page. Then the About Us Page. Very friendly, isn’t it? It is an elite website open by invitation only to other skeptic websites.

    A large percentage of WUWT images and charts come from CC instead of original sources. Some of them appear fake.

    I get the impression that CC is a clearinghouse for ‘skeptic’ (dis) information such as charts and images so that other websites can save time in looking for them from primary sources and or faking it themselves.

    It’s obvious what needs to be done.

  18. Paul K2 says:

    Wow, villabolo… what a site that is! Talk about conspiracy theories, and secret groups plotting (fake data?) in the dark! Wonder if we can pry that site open some way? This is an excellent opportunity for a real investigative reporter to find out how the false message being fed to the public is being actively fabricated.

    Maybe Heffernan can perchance do some honest work, and penetrate the hood of secrecy, to see if WUWT graphics and data are being manufactured and disseminated from this site?

  19. gpwayne says:

    I picked up on the Watts article by accident while looking for his reaction to the State of the Climate 2009 report (I was curious to see how he spun the bad news).

    Intrigued, I ran the same data in Alexa and found a load of rather less flattering stats that his moderator (who wrote the piece) seems to have missed out. Curiously, when looking at metrics with rather more significance, climateprogress came out miles ahead using the same data and analytical tools – take a look here to see Watt’s left out: Climate change: statistics, spin and self-importance at Wattsupwiththat

  20. John Mason says:

    Paul (19),

    Not that difficult.

    Force it into search mode by generating a 404 (by typing a bit extra at the end of the URL, like /2009), then enter a well-loved climate term. I tried Hockey and I got:

    http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/?s=hockey

    Cheers – John

  21. John Mason says:

    Or, since this one mentions Joe, albeit inly in passing,

    http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/phytoplankton-need-cap-and-trade/

    Cheers – John

  22. John Mason says:

    Even quicker than the above – just enter the year after the URL:

    http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/2010/

    Simple as s**t!

    But nothing new on there TBH.

    Cheers – John

  23. John Mason says:

    BTW – having looked around a little more – it appears to be, at least partly, Steve Goddard’s article-stash. I thought I’d seen some of it before. No commentary or anything…..

    Cheers – John

  24. John Mason says:

    http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/2008/

    A little more amusing but still no big surprises….

    Nothing for 2007 or 2009 BTW…

    Cheers – John

  25. JMurphy says:

    Watts also claims to not like anonymous posters on his site, especially when they seem to know more than anyone else, i.e. they are rational, informed and able to show up his mistakes.
    There was one poster recently who Watts ‘exposed’ as posting from the Met Office in the UK, and he has previously tried to embarrass other posters by revealing where they are posting from – if it can help him in any way, of course. Luckily, the Met Office poster was doing so in his own time and on a computer available for staff use for personal purposes, but Watts still ranted about ‘public tax dollars being used to subsidise public officials, blah, blah, blah’.
    Watts is nasty, hypocritical, ideological and ill-informed, and I would be embarrassed if he was an example of someone who thought the same way as me. If for no other reason, he is proof that AGW is actually happening.

  26. Peter Mizla says:

    Prokaryotes

    so the Wash PO is finally getting ‘serious’ about global warming? Crow has a bitter after taste ;-)

  27. Prokaryotes says:

    After incumbent Harry Truman defeated Thomas Dewey in the 1948 United States presidential election despite many media predictions of a Dewey victory, the Washington Post sent a telegram to the victor:

    You Are Hereby Invited To A “Crow Banquet” To Which This Newspaper Proposes To Invite Newspaper Editorial Writers, Political Reporters And Editors, Including Our Own, Along With Pollsters, Radio Commentators And Columnists . . . Main Course Will Consist Of Breast Of Tough Old Crow En Glace. (You Will Eat Turkey.) – wiki

  28. Daniel J. Andrews says:

    Hits are anything more than what an anagram of the word ‘hits’ would suggest!

    That’s a new one to me. Good one. I will steal it. :)

  29. MarkB says:

    “seemingly not snide”?

    Are you kidding me?

  30. T Kull says:

    Why did you delete my comment?

  31. John Mason says:

    Re # 30 – yes after another look it seems that way.

    A kinda clearing-house for articles of spin and wee “how do we spin this one” plots that – had the tables been turned – the denialosphere would have been lapping up like a cat with cream! The bizarre thing was how easy it was to get past the front end – in fact simply editing (reducing back to indices) the URLS on links posted @ WUWT does the job very effectively. Sherlock Holmes would have described my deductions as elementary.

    However – given AW’s choice of “hits” to establish “proof of popularity” – it seems he might need a bit of guidance with his I.T. I can set something up for him if he wishes that: in the case of the so-called Climate Insiders site, which purports to be private yet is a piece of cake to negotiate, nobody but the inner cabal will ever get a hope of reading anything unless AW approves access, so it’s CP-readers-proof, but there will be a fee! And remember I have principles and full respect for the lads & lasses who actually do the hard work -those folk who are out there in the Polar regions or the tropics, collecting the data.

    Over to you, AW!

    Cheers – John

  32. Tom Servo says:

    Hey Joe, you better start filling out applications at Starbucks cuz your “climate change” career is jes’ about over!

    Watts has beat your ass!!!

    [JR: One got through. Sorry. on the bright side, he's one of the more eloquent ones.]

  33. MapleLeaf says:

    Tom Servo @35,

    Uh huh, what a convincing and eloquent case you make. You did not read Dr. Romm’s post did you? OK, you stick with liars, misinformers and data fudgers. I’ll stick with those with ethics and integrity.

    Last time I checked this “debate” was not about winning or losing, but about doing what is best for the planet and its inhabitants.