Our traffic statistics from October 25, when the poll went live, to November 1 (the latest for which we have data on referrals) indicate that 30.5 percent of page views (about 4,000) of the poll came from Watts Up. The next highest referrer at 16 percent was a Canadian blog site smalldeadanimals.com; it consists of an eclectic mix of posts and comments, and if I had to guess, I would say its users leaned toward the climate denier side based on a few comments I saw. Meanwhile, on the other side of the climate debate, Joe Romm’s Climate Progress drove just 2.9 percent and was the third highest referrer.
Beauty.
Not much a guy can say except…. PERFECT!!!
Ha! love it! I’m no scientist and I hate analysing stats but the refernce to 3 blogs tells me ‘most’ people read SDA or WUWT.
The comments on those links really are hillarious.
Brava, Kate and SDA commenters!
“and if I had to guess”
If they had to guess? What did they do, spend three seconds here?
Kate has been accused of many things, but never a lack of clarity on where she stands…….LOL!
I is eclectic, I is eclectic!!!
Hey, they noticed! How nice of them. 😉
Beautiful!! Keep up the good work!! We’re winning!!
Oh that is so well done.
“and if I had to guess, I would say its users leaned toward the climate denier side based on a few comments I saw.”
The gentleman is a master of understatement.
“and if I had to guess”
Isn’t that how they came up with all the AGW BS to start with?? Oh, and outright baldfaced lying and making up “facts”.
When they call us “climate deniers”, they really mean climate heretics.
This is a nice way to end the week.
I posted the following at ClimateProgress. It is “awaiting moderation.” I wonder if they will let it stand?
“Well, well, well. The comments here do a pretty good job of proving conclusively that AGW is all about politics, and has very little to do with science. Pretty funny to hear so-called sober, dispassionate scientists deriding skeptics as “deniers”. Look in the mirror folks, the opposite of denier isn’t “realist”, it’s “true believer.” AGW has become an article of faith. Not that it ever was science, any more than Lysenkoism was science.
If AGW were a real phenomenon, those persons proposing measures to combat it would not have to resort to fraud, character assassination, and intimidation to advance their agenda, yet we have seen all those actions, and more from the usual suspects.
And that meme about “Big Oil” funding the skeptics is really getting a little tired, given that “Big Oil” has publicly funded any number of the research institutions that peddling the AGW line. Big Oil has no fear of carbon taxes or of Cap & Trade; those measures just increase the price level at which they function. No big deal. It’s the little people like me that will get shafted if the economic regime proposed to combat “climate change” gets fully entrenched.”
a Canadian blog site smalldeadanimals.com; it consists of an eclectic mix of posts and comments,
Eclectic Boogaloo.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
It smells like…Victory.
There is no doubt about gloBULL climate change. If I was sitting here 40,000 yrs ago there woulda bin 12,000 FEET of ice on my ass! The interglacial periods saw the Gulf of Mexico cover the Great Plains as far north as the NW Territories (or whatever they’re called now) yet the number of exhaust spewing SUV”s was minimal. Gore said the debate was over. No, fool. First tell me what melted the glaciers back SEVEN TIMES (at least) and maybe then YOUR debate will be over cuz you’re WRONG.
Here’s an interview with one of the lead authors of the IPCC working paper on TAXING the RICH, taking a % of the action and then giving the rest to those deserving African potentates who will no doubt keep it all safe in their PRIVATE Swiss bank accounts.
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
Dave, nothing “F”s the price of your real estate quicker than 12,000 feet of ice creeping toward you house, only Al Gore, David Suzuki Rob Renner Jim Prentice or Dalton Mguinty are stupid enough to cut a dedal on that real estate, with, of course the backing of Maurice Strongs bank of Demarais and Herman Von Rompurys blessing. Stick a fork in it LIEBERALS, it don’t hunt no more that dog, give our economies a break to reload before the second leg of your destructive plan.
In the meantime and in between time…
I haven’t seen anyone “leaning” here. We’re all pretty much convinced that most climate scientists are peddling Green Flavor Aid.
I suppose if their poll had not “gone horribly wrong”, Scientific American would have extolled the glorious reception of their message by their grass-fed audience. If they’re going to decry the results of their own poll as “unscientific” after the fact when they don’t like the results, one should wonder why they bothered to conduct it in the first place. I’d venture to say that if 50% of their votes came from sycophants of Real Climate, we’d never hear that anything was amiss with the survey.
As far as research funded by “Big Oil” is concerned, if they are unaware of the meaning of an Ad Hominem Fallacy, they don’t deserve to call themselves “scientists.” If the research has scientific merit, it doesn’t matter who funded it or what they had to gain from it. Truth is truth. One should also wonder if they know who funds the Green research and why. But they have no interest in their own conflicts of interest.
Proposition 23 in California was funded by large energy companies, but it was defeated by THREE TIMES the spending by the Big Green Wheenies.
Good job Kate. Keep turning up the heat.
I’m not surprised that AGW is still on the front pages and embedded in peoples minds…MSM including the Calgary Herald still continue talking about climate change, carbon sequestering, and other bland inane stupidity.
Would someone please, please get Fox News-North happening in this country.!!
I’m sick of listening to the Leftards and the unknowing, non researching, moronic mouthpieces of the MSM continue to lead this BS debate.
Theo
The linked ClimateProgress page calls opponents of AGW “anti-science” and refers to the “pro-pollution Cato Institute”. It sounds like all they’ve got left is name-calling.
Nice poll; catch any fish with it?
Suckers!
Why conduct a poll if you know it’s inaccurate?
I’m glad I don’t have to pay your eclectic bills.
Down on the farm we had an eclectic fence.
Climate “deniers”?!
I don’t think anyone who posts at SDA – even the trolls – denies that there’s climate. I don’t think anyone here denies that climate changes. Even though there a lot of Christians here at SDA, I have never seen anyone contend that the Earth is only 7,000 years old, and that God made the whole thing in seven days. I think we’re all pretty comfortable with the notion that there were ice ages tens of thousands of years ago, alternating with warm periods, and that there will be ice ages and warm periods over the millenia to come. So, how can we be labelled “climate deniers”?
I’m pretty confident saying that nearly everyone here disagrees with the AGW hypothesis, and that for the most part, we disagree because 1) the AGW crowd has been shown to use faked, cherry-picked, and wholly made-up data, 2) the AGW crowd hides their methods, destroys records, and tries to smear anyone who wants a closer look, and 3) NOT A SINGLE FREAKIN’ PREDICTION of the AGW crowd has come true. I’d say that makes me a “Chicken Little Denier”.
Kev: love you three points. The evolution-deniers use the exact same approach. I’m trying to figure out if there’s a link between the two, or if all anti-science arguments necessarily have to take the same form. Thanks for the data!
Just immediately following the carefully selected and gratuitously self congratulatory quotation is this:
“As an aside, I suppose it is a good sign that CP readers didn’t waste as much time as WUWT readers trying to skew what was transparently an unscientific poll. At the time, I thought a result skewed by the science deniers would be bad, but who could have guessed that the antiscience crowd would embrace the unscientific so wholeheartedly?”
Having the batsh*t crazies skew an already skewed poke at science, doesn’t in any way legitimize your irrationality around this issue.
“batsh*t crazies” if we don’t agree with your unproven theories; truely, Bill Stewart, you are the voice of reason.
Oh no! We’ve been exposed…. I hates native americans
——————————–
Jose – comment #19 on that website:
The crowd at Small Dead Animals are rabid deniers. Environmentalism is a death cult and all that. They are mostly Canadian red necks. They love tar sands. Hates native americans, muslims and people who drink capuccinos.
a 2.9% Romm
Almost as good as 1.37% Gore or a 0.98% Suzuki.
Their echo chamber is getting smaller by the day.
well, he’s right about the capuccinos
LOL
“Joe Romm’s Climate Progress drove just 2.9 percent”, that from “one of the most influential global-warming blogs on the Internet”. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1924149_1924153_1924209,00.html
What, don’t the climate progress folks care?
It didn’t take as much dedicated effort as “Climategate” to reduce a silly poll to a joke, so it is unworthy of being used to rattle “Warmists” trying to peddle their claptrap? Is that the contention? Wow, are Soros and Tides aware of this new improved venture into Twilight Zone PR?
Here in Western Canada, after our third consecutive year without summer, our “red” necks are going the way of the dodo.
KevinB, right.
Aww, I didn’t know we were given points for going there directly from here. I voted, but used a search engine to get there.
?
What exactly is “climate denier”?
Does that make any sense?
CBC posters are becoming deniers. I think it was the projected 46% increase in power rates. Green Shaft in action. I asked where all the power from when they had industry went? Asked what they pay and what they export for and a few other questions like that.
Scientific American isn’t.
Proud to be a DENIER too. They can bite me
Like I have said before, Nuts used to be locked up or just marginalized, in this new world, Nuts like Gore Suzuki etal are given podiums, and audiences of fools.
The consensus of the 4000 respondents is that AGW is hogwash. How can this consensus science be ignored?
I have gone to the SA site and have been dismayed by what I have found. They have lost their scientific viewpoint and have adopted a position of political advocacy.
I’m proud to be a Canadian redneck lurker and occasional commenter at SDA, Kate.
But, you gotta give these guys at Climate “Progress” marks for persistence. A major part of their modus operandi since Day 1, has been ridicule and character assassination. They’re still at it.
I guess they have to continue that tack as they’ve not been able to actually come up with any real science to back their theory. The use of increasingly elaborate regression analyses based on fake data doesn’t cut it.
See, I can use ridicule too.
It looks like Climate Regress is not letting outside comments upset the groupthink. Quell surprise.
From the link : “In any case, I don’t think we will make the same mistakes twice with an editorial poll about such a highly charged and important topic. But I cannot say Scientific American editorial will never run any poll ever again.”
SciAm editor-in-chief, Mariette DiChristina
First, the poll that they designed was absolute crap but if the results had been supportive of AGW I doubt that there would have been any talk of “mistakes”.
I love the response to their humiliation – No more polls. Of course, a scientific magazine is no place to openly debate or poll readers about “highly charged and important” science topics. You couldn’t find a more typical reaction from AGW true believers. It is identical to the attitude of the IPCC, The Hockey Stick Team and UEA-CRU Climatgaters : The debate is over, hide the data, delete the evidence.
Atta boy, SciAm, show us how climate science is done in the big leagues.
BTW, beyond blogs, mischief has always been an essential part of science and scientific discovery. “What happens if I do this?”. WUWT and SDA found out that, as expected, fury and further attempts at silencing opposition remains the MO of AGWers.
Posted by: Alex at November 21, 2010 3:27 AM
Do you deny that the theory of evolution is still a theory?
My theory is that AGW is the natural outgrowth of those who believe the theory of evolution is a fact.
Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Posted by: Alex at November 21, 2010 3:27 AM
Must you use the ‘denier’ term? It’s modern use is quite revolting given its post WW2 connotations. Also, I find it interesting you acknowledge evolution is only a theory (i.e. it has not yet risen to the status of scientific fact). Given this, what’s wrong with being a skeptic of evolution? Isn’t that what science is about?
Personally, I don’t have a dog in this hunt, and believe evolution is a strong theory. But, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between scientific hypothesis, theory and fact.
*sigh*
“Its modern use…”
My theory is that AGW is the natural outgrowth of those who believe the theory of evolution is a fact.
I don’t think one group of believers has anything to do with the other.
They probably overlap but that’s about it.
Warmists seem to believe that climate should be static/unchanging and they seem to think the perfect climate is…..well they don’t really say.
Probably something they’ve experienced in their short lifetimes though.
Three cheers for Kate and the Eclectics.
Climate Alarmism is simply the latest and greatest new religion. It is run by Con-Artists.
Alarmist ConArtist CEOs, Al Gore and others, will never ever admit to the crime of ‘Mother-of-all-Collection-Plate-Religions’. To do so would open themselves up to the Mother-of-all-Lawsuits. In front of a Judge, they will simply plead the ‘religious belief’ thing and probably get away with it. ‘Belief’ – sorta like pleading insanity. How can you prove otherwise when facts and numbers and history and morality do not even enter into it.
“My theory is that AGW is the natural outgrowth of those who believe the theory of evolution is a fact.”
What an odd and insulting remark.
For the record, I have a science background, I am a confirmed atheist, I am convinced that the theory of evolution is true, and I am equally convinced that the case for AGW has not been made.
I prefer to be called a skeptic, not a denier. As others have said, no one is denying the reality of climate, and in fact no one that I know denies the reality that climate changes. The opposite of skeptical is gullible. I prefer to be skeptical.
Am I a small minority? That is, a conservative who is an atheist who considers herself an environmentally caring and responsible person who also does not believe, or so far has not been convinced to believe, in the theory of AGW. Sometimes it feels like I am part of a tiny demographic group! Hello……….is there anyone out there??…..
Oops – correction – my little rant was in response to remarks made by Alex – equating evolution-deniers to climate-deniers.