Some of you may have noticed how surprisingly high climateaudit ranks in google searches in topics not obviously connected to us. I did a google on "full true plain disclosure press release" and, lo and behold, there was CA at the top of the list. Here are few other rankings.
briffa climate – 1,2
jacoby climate – 1,2
thompson climate – 8
mann climate – 4,8,9
preisendorfer – 4,5,8
full true and plain disclosure – 1,2
famiglietti climate – 3
margaret wente climate – 1,2
wahl ammann climate – 1,2
disclosure due diligence – 6,7
mcintyre barton – 3
mcintyre mckitrick – 21 surprisingly
mcintyre mckitrick mann – 5,6 (realclimate 7,8)
mcintyre mann – 1,2
autocorrelation climate – 6
mwp climate – 5,6 (realclimate 8,9)
mann climate – 8,9; Ross at 4
arfima climate – 3
arima climate – 1,2
d’arrigo climate – 5 (realclimate 10)
gavin climate – 8
climate honest – 4
Amazes me. It’s interesting that we rank higher on some of the non-MBH topics than the MBH topics. I’m
Climate Audit 
24 Comments
…not surprised given that MBH has had lots of press at established venues, whereas the other topics are pretty specific and technical. Less topical.
You come up 2nd (today) in hits for “spaghetti graph”, too.
Actually we come in 1,2,3 since #1 is my dormant webpage(which has been pretty much superceded by the blog – I need to integrate this a little better.) Some of the other citations derive from here as well – so we pretty much dominate the googling of spaghetti graph. I’m not too surprised at this since I hadn’t seen the term before and started applying it, but someone pointed out that the term had prior usage.
People co-invent and reinvent all the time. One more argument for formal publishing, mon frere…
hadcru jones – 1
crutem jones – 1
It must drive them crazy for CA to be at the top of these google runs.
And the number of people being that technical in their searches is about donut hole, Steve. They’ve already ceded the ground of hard core discussion to you. They’re sticking to poobah liberal dick in hand holding discussions with ninnies the likes of Lynn.
There is a fundamental difference between CA and RealClimate – Steve doesn’t post huge articles with a hundred references to articles that can’t be viewed by mere mortals, and a thousand links to previous articles which contain a hundred references to articles that can’t be viewed.
Also Steve does actually take the time to go through an article piece by piece without making a priori assumptions as to the rightness or wrongness. He checks the mathematical method and quotes sources and shows how he tests things.
The thing about RC that just irritates me is not the arrogance, its the sheer academic laziness. They don’t check work which they claim backs up their positions, they don’t bother to discuss mathematical details. In the world of RC, anything which backs up their results is an authoritative reference.
In fairness, RC is not unusual in that respect. A lot of scientific reports in climatology have this same narrow fascination with collecting citations in place of reasoned argument for a result. Its no wonder that people like Lubos refer to Richard Feynman’s discourse on “cargo-cult science”. There is little or no self-examination of whether what they are doing is truly robust to everything that can be thrown at their conclusions which might falsify the result.
It reminds me of
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/06/blogs-about-physics.html
In that text, all the hits went to my blog as #1. The world is dynamic, so it is no longer the case for many of them.
Blush
Type Louis Hissink in Google and ………
Re #7 another quite amazing ‘John’ ‘A’ post. You say that "There is a fundamental difference between CA and RealClimate – Steve doesn’t post huge articles with a hundred references to articles that can’t be viewed by mere mortals" Ok so you’re saying this place is about keeping it simple? Then you say "The thing about RC that just irritates me is not the arrogance, its the sheer academic laziness. They don’t check work which they claim backs up their positions, they don’t bother to discuss mathematical details. In the world of RC, anything which backs up their results is an authoritative reference."
So your saying keeping it simple isn’t academic laziness??? You’re saying having reffs and other work that backs you up is lazy and wrong? Amazing. Oh, hang on, I think I get it, only if you’re a lone voice are you right, by defintion (err, the ‘John’A’ definition of ‘definition’) if other work backs you up you’re wrong??? And it’s intellectually lazy to read the reffs? Indeed, in ‘John’ ‘A’ world the only science that’s right is that done by SM his loyal followers and it’s all about finding obscure mathematical and statistical flaws (as if that’s simple…) in graphs, well ONE graph really, you’re convinced are wrong ???
LOL, quite amazing – but highly entertaining!
Keep utgw ‘John’.
Tell me fellas, is science a popularity contest?
Re: #11: You surely seem to think so. I can not speak for the rest of people here, but my educated guess is that you are one of the few with that opinion.
If you believe in a scientific “consensus”, then yes, science is a popularity contest.
We know popularity doesn’t make something right or wrong. But there is little point in having an important message to give if nobody is listening, so the popularity of the site is important – it tells Steve whether people are interested in this form of communication. If they weren’t, it would perhaps be better to communicate through other channels, especially given the amount of effort a blog takes to run. Fortunately for us, this blog is proving to be an excellent form of communication.
Re #12 well, I suggest you make your guesses based on a better education. Science isn’t either right or wrong based how many hits a site gets or how often it pops up in a google search. Such things are irrelevant to that.
Coming from the guy who says that he doesn’t understand the concepts nor does he appear to be straining to do so, that’s a laugh. All you do is blather around here, with no real argument. You’re too dumb to engage on the content or try to. All you do is appeal to expertise, SAY that you appeal to expertise, and act like a crushed petal, little flower when someone calls you on it.
Actually, I’m not dumb – however if calling me so pleases you… I’d rather appeal to expertese than appeal to peoples prejudices.
Hi, Peter. A couple of weeks ago, you were pointing at the long mild autumn and saying look, it’s global warming.
Now, there is a bit of snow and the Met Office is worrying about “the coldest winter for a decade” – See : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4355946.stm
(You’re somewhere in the West Country aren’t you ? have you been snowed in ?)
So, is this proof that there is no global warming ?
I’m making a very limited point here that the site is high-ranked on a number of google searches, including some searches that amused me. Luboà…⟠has pointed out a similar phenomenon with his blog and I won’t get too excited about it. Blogs tend to get highly rated relative to static webpages. However, ranking higher than realclimate on some searches is apples and apples and surprised me.
I am not critical of the style of realclimate presentation. I think that their style is often very effective. The Hockey Stick itself was an effective and well-presented graphic, that’s what attracted me to it. It’s the details that I disagree with. Sometimes the analysis of the details requires some relatively sophisticated statistics. I think that I make consderably more effort than realclimate to engage people on technical issues, even to the point of writing on some seemingly obscure topics. Obviosuly their censorship of responses on technical points is repugnant. Ultimately that reduces the interest of their site.
Re: 10
Thanks.
No.
No, I’m not.
No.
No.
No.
We aim to please.
I will. Thanks for answering.
Re #16. Ff, indeed, we’ve just had snow, ‘lying’ for to days, and quite a bit too – very enjoyable, stunning in the sun (and note, it was cold, and I’m not denying that).
I’m not sure I said one mild autumn (the warmth record has probably been scuppered by this colder weather I think btw) is ‘proof’ of ACC, just more evidence. Re the coming winter (which hasn’t happened yet), if I go to the US and see one or, indeed, many thin people would that be proof America isn’t getting more obese? I don’t think so, it would be data.
Peter,
Re: 20
Peter, such points are data and we can see them. Sadly we are not been privy to the data used by Jones and much of the Hockey Team, but nevertheless we are asked to believe their conclusions sans data.
Re: 11
“Tell me fellas, is science a popularity contest?”
Please post this on RC, a blog where “scientific consensus” has become a mantra. While you are at it, why don’t you bring this to the attention of the IPCC.
climateaudit is now #1 if you google “benestad climate”; realclimate is #2. However, we’re only #13 at “rasmus climate”.
We’re now #1 for rasmus climate, ahead of realclimate as well as #1 for “benestad climate”. I don’t know how google works exactly, but I presume that we must be gaining on realclimate on hits – apples and apples – of we’re running ahead of them on hits for some of their own writers. We rank just behind realclimate for “gavin climate” but barely. This must drive them crazy.
Drive?
More like a short put.