Hits

Yesterday we had an all-time record number of hits: 9,354. This broke the previous record of 6780 (set on October 22) and not just by a little bit. Unfortunately due to a computer problem, we don’t have a count for the first 10 days of October, but I’m sure that we were over 150,000 hits in October. Some of these are robot hits and we get more robot hits than we used to.


20 Comments

  1. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 1, 2005 at 9:44 AM | Permalink

    Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of new hits were people checking to see why you were so ‘mean’ as to accuse Gavin of not being honest. I doubt very many of these people spent time looking at all the actual science posting and discussions here.

    BTW, do your ‘hits’ only count the number of times someone looks at a page or does it count different URLs? I know I typically come here a couple of dozen times a day, maybe more.

  2. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 1, 2005 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    Pages.

  3. TCO
    Posted Nov 1, 2005 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    I think there is a precipitation (TCO) factor confounding the temperature (general interest) proxy. 😉

  4. Ray Soper
    Posted Nov 1, 2005 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    Steve, I have been following your blog for some months now, and am pretty familiar with the arguments. However, the casual visitor will I think struggle to find a simple, coherent summary of the argument on the site. I know that there are some summarised expressions of the argument, but they tend to become buried in the blog archives and are not easily accessible to the casual visitor. Unless keenly interested in what you and Ross have to say, I fear that most visitors will have a squiz, find a complex interlayering of argument, rebuttal etc and leave. That suggests to me that you would be wise to put up a “sticky” summarising the main arguments for and against, and the reasons that the discussion is important.

    Ray Soper

  5. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 1, 2005 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    Will do.

  6. Louis
    Posted Nov 1, 2005 at 3:28 PM | Permalink

    in regards to a coherent summary, perhaps just a reference to “What is the Hockey Stick Debate About” referenced on your orginal web page would do the trick. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

  7. George
    Posted Nov 1, 2005 at 8:29 PM | Permalink

    I’ve gotten almost as addicted to climateaudit as Dave D. seems to be. It’s become the first site I go to (RSS really helps, BTW). Last spring I had an ongoing conversation with John A. via e-mail, and he was surprised I hadn’t heard of c.a. I started visiting and got hooked.

    The most interesting web sites are the ones whose content changes all the time. That’s why The Weather Channel gets so many hits. Steve, you’ve done a very good job at introducing new threads, and the blog format adds to the interest.

    I can only imagine the time commitment required to do what you’ve been doing, and I sincerely thank you for the effort and for the fruits of your effort. Yours is a remarkable service to climate science.

  8. TCO
    Posted Nov 1, 2005 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

    What he said.

  9. Ray Soper
    Posted Nov 2, 2005 at 4:41 AM | Permalink

    I have had a look at Ross’s April 05 paper which in my view does an excellent job of presenting the issue. All you need to do is to have a tag line on the blog somewhere that says “Click here for the summary of the argument”.

  10. stephan harrison
    Posted Nov 2, 2005 at 8:20 AM | Permalink

    I’d just like to support what George (number 7) said. Whilst I think that the evidence points to anomalous GW and a significant anthropogenic signal, I also think that Steve has done a great job in bringing some important methodological issues to our attention. As someone who has done some dendrochronology and worked quite a lot with dendroclimatologists, the discussions on ClimateAudit have made me think anew about the reliability of the data.

  11. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 2, 2005 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for the various endorsements. I appreciate them. I do absorb my share of brickbats so the occasional nice thing is appreciated.

  12. Reid B
    Posted Nov 2, 2005 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    Keep up the great work Steve. I suspect that many more people than you realize are keeping tabs on the content of this blog including many VIP’s.

    I for one believe CO2-AGW is untenable science. CO2 is being elevated from a minor greenhouse gas (third order forcing) into the prime climate driver(the only first order forcing). Real science always wins in the fullness of time.

    Stay tuned…

  13. Paul Penrose
    Posted Nov 2, 2005 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    I too find this site to be extremely informative. It is one of my favorites. Kudos Steve, Ross, and John A.

  14. Posted Nov 2, 2005 at 11:10 PM | Permalink

    Sometimes I have a hard time following the hard math, but look forward to the coments and the explainations. This is now my second check after the local online newspaper. Keep up the good work!

  15. Chris Chittleborough
    Posted Nov 4, 2005 at 5:21 AM | Permalink

    I’ll delurk to add my thanks for this site. I think Steve and his colleagues are making an important contribution, not just to the debate over AGW but to increasing our awareness of the need for more openness and auditing in many fields. So: thank you.

  16. Patrick
    Posted Nov 5, 2005 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

    Can I add my appreciation for this site and the effort that goes into explaining complex issues to interested bystanders. It really concerns me that warmers talk of such massive requirements to reduce CO2 with so little thought of the social consquences. If the west is going to tell the Indians and the Chinese to cripple their development programs, when these are bringing millions out of abject poverty, we had better get our facts straight. Same goes for when we close down energy intensive industries and the communities that rely on them. Let’s find out the truth and then act on it.

  17. Hans Erren
    Posted Nov 5, 2005 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

    Steve,

    a what-to-read-first on the very top of the main page would help newbies tremendously.

  18. John A
    Posted Nov 5, 2005 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    I blame global warming.

  19. TCO
    Posted Nov 5, 2005 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    I think that GW is happening more likely than not (not so sure how bad it is, though…no gators in Virginia yet). But I also think that a lot of the climatologists are surfing the wave of a fad in terms of their research dollars. And also have a tendancy to exaggerate their findings (to prompt action) and to downplay or even not publish the occasional contrary finding. And those are signs that they are weak reeds.

  20. Mike Rankin
    Posted Jan 22, 2006 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    You (Steve) have mentioned your google scores on occasion. After searching for something unrelated, I tried a search on climateaudit and found a number of interesting hits. After sampling other blogs, discussion groups, etc.. it is obvious that the quality, quantity and civility presented here is an exception. Thanks for your continuing efforts.

%d bloggers like this: