DeSmog Number 3 in the Top Ten Global Warming Blogs
The Youth Climate Movement's blog, Its Getting Hot in Here, has released their analysis of the top 10 global warming blogs and we're very proud to see DeSmogBlog listed along with many other great sites.
Here's their list, with authority based on the latest statistics provided by Technorati.com:
10. Accuweather Climate Blog (68,071 - #10) — “Global warming news, science, myths, articles.”
9. Climate Feedback (46,821 - #9) — “An informal forum for debate and commentary on climate science.”
“8″. A Few Things Ill Considered (35,362 - #2) — “A layman’s take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.”
7. Climate Ark (22,922 - #5) — “Climate Change and Global Warming Portal.”
6. Climate of Our Future (15,042 - #8) — “A discussion on climate change.”
5. It’s Getting Hot In Here (13,992 - #7) — “Dispatches from the youth climate movement.”
4. Celsias (8,394 - #3) — “Cooling the planet one project at a time.”
3. DeSmogBlog (6,671 - #4) — “Clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science.”
2. Climate Progress (4,359 - #6) — “An insider’s view of climate science, politics, and solutions.”
…and the reigning champ:
1. RealClimate (3,222 - #1) — “Climate science from climate scientists.”
going from # 4 to # 3 is
going from # 4 to # 3 is mostly all my page loads and comments. I take all the credit.
I guess this is a good place
to ask why, then. Why do you obsessively post here? It can't really be to try and convince anyone, because you mostly seem to post these oh-so-witty one-liners that just mock and disparage the AGW community.
I'm only an occasional reader, but it seems every post, within minutes, has "Rick" spouting off insults and pointless mockery. Have you got nothing better to do? Seriously, if you think that us horrible "alarmists", or whatever today's term is, are so wrong and such a terrible danger to the economy (etc.), then why don't you DO something about it? Something other than shouting random insults like some sort of village drunk sitting in the corner of the pub, that is.
Eh. Whatever. You're probably doing it to piss off people like me, and I've just taken the bait. Just another troll...?
Never mind, Julius
We all rise to it from time to time.
Fern Mackenzie
yeah I'm just a troll. I'm
yeah I'm just a troll. I'm here to ruin your day.
Okay
Heh - fine by me! Thanks for the help! Comments are a HUGE way that we continue to grow. In fact, in our next redesign of DeSmog (coming soon) you will see even more opportunities to get your voice heard on our site. Thanks to everyone for creating an active discussion here on the site.
I think thats the best
I think thats the best approach to take here. Just checked on Wikipedia and was surprised to see a trend where many websites are encouraging "troll" comments and interaction.
Active discussion is the way to go.
I don't think that the
I don't think that the comments section on Desmog is doing anything to clear the PR pollution that is your raison d'etre.
I'm all for genuine debate but let's face it... the people who rely on science to buttress their arguments have a much higher bar to clear. We're trying to speak to truth. The group of naysayers -- lead by Gary, Rick, and JR* -- have no such burden. And they can lie faster that we can correct them.
And lately, I think they're winning. Not in any real, logical way, just in the throwing-enough-shit-against-the-wall-so-some-of-it-sticks way. If you repeat a myth often enough, it takes on the veneer of truth. Again, not with anyone who knows their stuff, just with people who are literally trying to cut through the confusion and figure out how serious the climate change problem might actually be.
Joe Romm wrote convincingly about it here:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/07/the-difficulty-of-debunking-a-myth/
So I don't see the problem in running a site like they do at Climate Progress; they don't allow links to discredited sites like CO2 Skeptic or Climate Audit, and they don't allow people to make dishonest claims that have already been thoroughly debunked and discredited.
And lo and behold... Climate Progress is filled with people who have thoughtful, nuanced opinions. I learn more there than I ever could here.
I've also noticed that good people are fading. The smart, thoughtful, intelligent people seem to be posting less often, tired at having to refute the same mindless vitriol that they've been responding to month after month after month.
The truth is the casualty of this debate. I love a good, heated debate, as long as both sides play fair. It's something that I learned to do at journalism school, and it's something I'd love to support here.
This isn't censorship. Libel and defamation aren't fair comment, and you're under no obligation to provide a forum for it.
(*So pat yourselves on the back gentlemen, I salute you).
The three you name swamp
The three you name swamp every single post with comments. It is clear they know nothing about the subject and will link to any hack that has similar views, whilst simultaneously demanding peer reviewed scientific publications to counter their views.
What they fail to understand, is the climate will keep changing whatever crap they spout. The scientists will keep monitoring the climate whatever crap those three spout. They are essentially irrelevant, existing merely to get in the way of civilised debate.
Fairly clear then that you
Fairly clear then that you guys are relying on propaganda and faith based doctrine and have not credible science to back your wild claims.
It is the AGW crowd that is howling the Sky is Falling.
If you really can't support it, well .... suck it up buttercup.
Try harder.
So far, all we see is the same old tired discredited and deblunked alarmism.
See, this is the problem
I don't give a toss what the hysterical* denialists like Gary here say or think, but they have a clear advantage in the public discourse: If we engage them, they spout the same old talking points so loudly and repetitively that, as someone else said, some will stick. If we say "go away, I can't be bothered to 'debate' with you" it looks to an "innocent bystander" as if WE are the ones afraid of debate, as Gary is trying to imply here. It seems like a lose-lose situation at this level.
* seriously Gary, you accuse our side of being hysterical, while you're the ones throwing around words like "faith based doctrine" and generally saying the same thing over and over, but with more insults each time...
Julius::: Take a valium. Few
Julius::: Take a valium.
Few people care what any of us say here.
ITS A BLOG!!!!
It all opinions all the time.
My posts are intended to present the oposing view because I think everyone deservs to hear all sides of any issue.
And since the AGW side are the ones making all the claims, I think it is quite reasonable to expect them to do all the work defending it.
That is BTW how science works. Or used to work before AGW doctrine became so entrenched that question it is deemed heresy.
You can post whatever you like that supports your views.
In the final analysis, none of it matters. The climate will do what is is going to do regardless.
Finally, please point out what I said that you refer to as insults.
I generally try to refrain from personal references and simply insult the movement or the idiology.
Nothing personal intended.
Well, that's personal for a start:
"Take a valium".
Oh, it's true that you, specifically, and probably much of this blog are fairly irrelevant. But there is enough media attention on climate change, and probably quite a lot of people taking an interest and reading various websites, following TV programmes like Durkin's "Swindle" one, and so on.
"I think everyone deservs to hear all sides of any issue." - you do realise how much this makes you sound like a creationist railing about those Darwinists teaching schoolkids evolution...?
"the AGW side are the ones making all the claims" and "That is BTW how science works. Or used to work before AGW doctrine became so entrenched that question it is deemed heresy." again mirror the creationist line pretty much exactly. At which point can we stop debating the fundamentals of a given area of science? I could replace "AGW doctrine" in that quote with "evolutionist doctrine" or "spherical-earth doctrine" and the *logic* of your argument would apply in the same way. We don't *need* to have a serious scientific debate about *whether* the Earth is round, or life is evolving, or CO2 is affecting the climate. There may be HUGE scope for debate about the details, but I'd rather leave that for the scientists (i.e. the ones specialising in that area) to have via academic journals (and conferences, or in the pub after the conference, ...).
OK, personal insults. Firstly, my post wasn't *just* about you, but you've handily supplied at least one example. I find the insinuation somewhat offensive that my concern about potentially harmful climate change is an "ideology". Would you like to explain your idea of what the ideology is? The word implies that there are goals and motivations behind it, right? So what do you think is my motivation in believing that humans are causing climate change?
Bah. I think I do need a valium now, or at least a beer. Not because of you, mind, but because that $%£!@£ laser isn't working.
Unduly harsh.
Ok, I was a little harsh last time, and I apologise to Rick. Although he is in the denialist camp and we will never agree, at least he can and does conduct civilised discussions.
But, I've got to agree with Julius regarding the general denialist approach. The world ain't flat, we don't need both sides of the argument. The climate is warming, denying it won't make it go away.
Oh, and "And since the AGW side are the ones making all the claims, I think it is quite reasonable to expect them to do all the work defending it.
That is BTW how science works." Read the bloody papers, that's what they are for. "They" make the claims based upon the evidence, that is what science is about. Trying to deny the Arctic melt based upon a hot, sunny afternoon in Cuba is what denialists are all about.
So ABC Dude. You speak as
So ABC Dude.
You speak as though you have some special ownership of the truth and then spout several paragraphs of absulute crap.
Then your loose any sence of honesty by claiming ClimateAudit is in the same league discredited sites like Realclimate.
Nice try, but no credibility.
Try posting something honest.
RealClimate in
the same league as ClimateAudit?
RealClimate discredited?
Gary isn't delusional, he's stark raving mad as a hatter boiling off mercury.
My point seems to have been
My point seems to have been made clear enough then.
Calling Climate Audit discredited is exactly the same as calling realclimate discredited.
Trust which ever one you want but don't expect intellegent people to believe that the folks at Cliamte Audit have ever been discredited in any way.
Is just absurd.
Gary = Steve McIntyre?
Ooh, we're a bit defensive about ClimateAudit, then, aren't we.