Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« And still they come | Main | Caspar and the Jesus paper »

On writing popular blog posts

Thanks to everyone who has linked to the last post, which has given me record visitor numbers. There is an irresistable urge to spend your whole day refreshing your visitor number figures when this happens, isn't there?

The counter is still heading upwards as I write. Welcome to everyone who is visiting for the first time and thanks for all your comments.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (5)

I have to say, that was a very well written summary of the events, and I will be linking friends and family here to see it. Explaining these events to people who do not follow scientific journals and/or do not have a firm grasp of advanced statistics is no small feat. Thank you very much for succeeding where I and others have failed.
Aug 12, 2008 at 7:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatt
That was the first post I read here and now you're in the list I check periodically. Brilliant. Now hurry up and write something new, or you'll lose some of us. Attention spans like mayflies.
Aug 13, 2008 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

The problem with writing posts that attract lots of attention is, as I've noted, that you spend 24 hours afterwards refreshing your page view stats. Then you spend the next day answering comments, and the day after that dealing with the work crisis that has accumulated in the two days you took off.

How do popular bloggers manage?
Aug 13, 2008 at 9:10 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill
Dear Sir,

thank you so much for the post detailing the death of the execrable Hockey Stick graph.

I live in the UK, and sadly, in paying my TV licence expect the BBC to investigate such matters and present them in the way you've just done.

This is never the case.

In the world of proper public interest journalism this is a hot story, it should be prominent on the Science/Nature news output - it is an intriguing, revealing, and scandalous story which affords an insightful window onto the whole 'peer reviewed process' and the dark arts of the climate science industry.

It is most definitely in the public interest given the measures planned by government to 'combat' climate change and how this will affect the ordinary working citizens of the UK with regard to extra taxes and legislation.

But waiting on Roger Harrabin or David Shukman or Richard Black to take time out from regurgitating press releases from the Royal Society or the IPCC or the UN generally, is obviously a hope too far.

Some day, this incident and the BBC's shameless co-option into the climate change hysteria will be exposed and reputations will be ruined.

Another example of the BBC's abject failure in this area is the fact that, despite their virtually unlimited resources and much trumpeted 'awkward squad' ethos, not a single BBC journalist felt motivated to highlight the horrendous propaganda of Al Gore's awful film, and in so doing highlight the scandal that this was being sent - funded by our taxes - the schools to indoctrinate our children.

Shame on the BBC that this was left to a high court judge to adjudicate on and identify the inaccurracies in this appalling film, and all the while the BBC spent hours of Panorama and Newsnight time on silly side shows like Scientology, feral youths, the endless downs of the housing market and the usual climate change terror.

Just as long as the reporter can run alongside some non-entity screaming questions in their ear, and all the while portray themselves look like defenders of the truth - then all is right with the world.

The 'low-lifes', criminal opportunists, con artists and the rest of these limited, crude, occasionally violent when confronted (*'Hey, it makes great television!') fish in a barrel is the main target of this once respected institution.

Running after the head of the IPCC in the car park of a plush hotel and aggressively questioning him about his air miles and his carbon footprint and his 'flat earthers' comment would just bring too much aggro.

Too much effort. Annoy the wrong type of people. Upset that cushy world they live and work in....

I understand.

Would they ever dare run alongside, doorstop, or 'car-door stop' an environmentalist who refused a harsh interview on 'the science' behind climate change because they claim 'the debate the is over'?

In what other sphere of public life would the BBC accept that and remain silent?

Think about that if you think the corporation is impartial.

They slam George Bush - rightly, in my opinion - for creating a scare scenario for invading Iraq, yet FAIL miserably in honing in on the Green scare factory and their favourite social control theory known as Climate Change.

Keep up the good work. The tide is certainly turning...

Aug 14, 2008 at 12:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete
You hockey stick post is being well received in OZ. How about posting a bio?
Aug 14, 2008 at 3:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Dunne

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>