Sunday
Jan082012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Statistics
Jan 8, 2012 BBC Hearty congratulations to Anthony W for hitting the 100 million page views mark, which is an extraordinary achievement.
Richard Betts was asking what the equivalent figures are here. I haven't previously posted about reader numbers here, but since Richard asked, here they are (click for full size):
;)
Squarespace doesn't give a total number of page views/visitors to date. I'm also slightly cautious with these figures, as it has been suggested to me that servers can overcount, but 6.7m a year has nice ring to it.
Reader Comments (43)
I'd be a little careful with that graph if I were you. If Mr Mann sees it he might flip it over and use it as a proxy.
Looks suspiciously smoothed out to me!
James - LOL.
BH - well done to you too, you have created a great place for intelligent discussion and enlightenment. Keep at them, the mainstream media cannot do complex issues, but the truth will out and Mann & Jones and their merry AGW bandwagon will be toppled - it is just a matter of time.
Presumably that is a leaked graph as a result of the Met Office re-examining 160 years of climate data.
On the very same day, my band's blog hit 10,000!!!
Do you need any help in "hiding the decline"? If so there's a consultancy in East Anglia that can, for a price, do the "trick" for you.
Incidentally, remember the scientific establishme, with one voice telling us that the the word "trick" was a commonly used scientific term that meant nothing other an innocent adjustment? Well I checked CG1 and CG2 for this commonly used word. It occurs 21 times in 3000 emails. Let's assume a modest 100 words per email, that's in 30,000 words the commonly used "trick" appears 21 times, or once every 1430 words.
Now if take a fully representative country, say pick Hungary as a good choice.
Then if you take that figure and extrapolate for the full site traffic, then I can quite confidently say, I am likely to be probably responsible for 50% of the traffic on this site ;-)
Well done.
Dem is good numbers! These, and the numbers for WUWT, are hugely encouraging. The bare-footed opposition to the well-booted pushers of CO2-scares may not have institutional power, and does not enjoy the wealth and the mass-media of the booted ones, but those numbers!... that's a lot of virtual footprints in the sands of blogtime. A lot of brain cells glimpsing different views than those held so dear by the leaders of such as the Royal Society, of the fear-flourishing multinationals such as the WWF, and of the astonishingly supine politicals such as all those who voted for the Climate Change Act in the UK.
Any further breakdown on countries from IP addresses? JC of course from Hungary and another well known one from Italia but presumably most from the UK with the Ewe Ess of A second. Lucia did something on this some time ago and the ratio of unique viewers per country population was interesting. A Sir Ronald Fisher frequentist approach of course, but a couple of SH ex-colonies came out of it quite well.
Have we, within a few hundred evolutionary years, developed superior BS detectors? Maybe we have, but sadly our guvmints haven't. But our PM is Welsh. Don't know about the Kiwi's.
Encouraging numbers. Well done Bish.
GrantB - I'm embarrassed that your Prime Minister is Welsh. Julia's parents should have stayed in Barry.
As a Welsh Aussie, two children having returned to the 'lucky country', it is very sad to witness the ruinous policies introduced by your present government - matched and exceeded by the UK so-called coalition.
Charlie notes : 'On the very same day, my band's blog hit 10,000!!!'
Not bad, 4 orders of magnitude: half-way there!
I'm totally against using blog statistics...unless one is writing for business. If my blog get 3,000 visits a day or 30, that shouldn't matter as it is MY blog and not a commercial enterprise (that said if by a combination of reasons the blog hits 3,000 then of course I celebrate).
As it happens, if one's blog is a commercial enterprise then it'll have to transmogrify into something continuously attracting and entertaining. It then becomes the equivalent of a newspaper and just as (dis-)informative.
ps congrats to Leo for having compared BH to the Guardian...
Only a climate scientist would plot a graph with that end point (unless he wished to hide the decline, which that graph clearly shows). Doing a bit of eye-ball extrapolation, I'm worried. Or are we missing zbd?
The botton line is, well done Bish.
It almost has a hockey-stick quality........
Pretty damn good count, pretty damn good blog.
Your Grace,
Congratulations to you on your blog stats. As with Wattsupwiththat, the high level of visitors is only due to the continual stream of interesting posts. This requires a great deal of time and dedication.
For no good reason, we'd be interested in a 3 - 5 year plot indicating whether the current November - December drop in visits is a fourth quarter seasonal phenomenon: An cyclical climatic variation, as 'twere.
Even RC has a mere 15m, with rather longer to achieve it and vastly more PR expenditure. Well done, Bish!
Ahhhhh . . . hockey stick droop.
We have a cure for that up here in the Great White North . . . just one wee, liitle pill and BAM! your stick perks right up.
Mr. Montford,
I cannot tell you how many times I have recommended HSI and have lifted quotations from this blog ( with attribution and a link). I consider this blog a consistently reliable source of information and include you in my constellation of climate science stars.
Phillip Bratby
My thought as well, but I am sure we will survive -- somehow.
Re: Jan 8, 2012 at 1:22 PM | Phillip Bratby
"Only a climate scientist would plot a graph with that end point (unless he wished to hide the decline, which that graph clearly shows). Doing a bit of eye-ball extrapolation, I'm worried. Or are we missing zbd?"
I wouldn't be too worried - we're only 8 days into January, and not surprising that there was a peak in November with the release of the Climategate 2 emails.
Completely off topic
Happy Birthday David Bowie
Congrats to Anthony and Andrew and may you both have contiunued success.
Phillip Bratby
"Or are we missing zbd?"
Phillip! Yo know as well as I do that she has a full time job over at the D.M. comments getting hammered by the people over there! Famous in her own dinner time! ;-)
Add my congratulations to those already posted! This is a highly informative site and I enjoy the comments almost as much as the blog itself.
Slightly OT... but is the latest edition of the HSI available on Kindle? I need a replacement for the copy which went walkabout in Oz
Congratulations to the Bish. This blog is wonderful. I am very grateful for all the Bish's hard work in support of science. The HSI is a masterpiece of science reporting and history.
Tony
Yes, but there are still some issues with formatting of footnotes, so you might want to wait a bit.
NO ROCs = NO WIND FARMS
A CAMPAIGN MESSAGE
PLEASE SEND URGENT EMAIL TO DECC robr@decc.gsi.gov.uk
We know that the developers won’t build windfarms if they don’t have ROCs subsidy. DECC reports the results of the consultation on their website; if 10,000 of us say zero ROCs they have to listen!
The Depeartment of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) consultation on wind farms ends on 12th January (Thursday). Information about the consultation can be found on the following link: https://econsultation.decc.gov.uk/office-for-renewable-energy-deployment-ored/ro-banding-rev/consult_view
1. Generators of electricity from eligible renewable sources are awarded Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROC’s) for every megawatt hour they generate. These certificates can be sold to other energy suppliers along with the electricity they buy or can be traded independently.
2. Combined with the buy-out payments, the extra revenue from ROC sales effectively doubles the income for renewable generators.
3. This subsidy is paid by the consumer, effectively it is a tax.
4. Current Price 1 ROC = £38.69 per Mwh
5. The consultation process ends on the 12th January 2012
No ROCs = No wind farms
Please send an email to robr@decc.gsi.gov.uk saying wind power no longer needs a subsidy. This is the text of my own email which you could use as a starting point:
Dear Sirs,
It is my view that wind power no longer needs a subsidy.
The figures used in the Arup report to calculate the cost of installing onshore wind turbines were supplied solely by the developers of onshore wind. And even then less than 33% responded – less than 80 - insufficient to give a true estimation of the cost.
The ROC subsidy payments to drive the adoption of wind turbines to meet arbitrary EU targets are misguided for the following reasons:No consideration has been given to the detrimental effects of ROC payments on the national economy.
If businesses were not paying the subsidy, then they would be more profitable, thus boosting the economy. If consumers were not paying the subsidy they would have more money to spend in the general economy, thus again, helping to support it.
The subsidy will help drive millions of households into unnecessary fuel poverty. No consideration has been given to the detrimental effects of wind farms and associated infrastructure on the local economy (no cost benefit analysis).
To meet government targets on renewable energy by wind power would mean creating an industrial windfarm landscape over much of the country, destroying an important part of our national heritage.
In addition I feel there has been no consideration given to the National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) report
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/06/02/hidden-value-of-nature-revealed/
Yours faithfully
Thank you for the advice concerning the new edition of the HSI. The Kindle was a Christmas present from my family; I am hoping that HSI Mk 2 will be a Birthday present (24 Jan if you really want to know!)
Congratulations, Your Grace! This is a very encouraging picture. And I can just imagine the magnitude of positive change ... as soon as Big Oil sends their cheque ;-)
His Grace's blog has its own flavour. It is unlike any of the other sceptic sites, and is a refreshing alternative to RealClimate and its septic ilk.
congrats bish and Josh,
you have enlightened and lightened up the debate.
more power and influence to you both.
By now I would think you would have gathered how to "Hide the Decline" from all the Climate Science you look at!!
Or did you get your proxy unside down??
I'm not at all concerned about the count. I like the content and thats why I visit here regularly. Keep up the good work.
From Louise Gray - will wonders never cease
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9000760/Wind-power-is-expensive-and-ineffective-at-cutting-CO2-say-Civitas.html
Well done, Bishop Hill. Goes to show how valuable this site is.
Re: Jan 9, 2012 at 7:48 AM | Frederick Bloggsworth
"From Louise Gray - will wonders never cease
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9000760/Wind-power-is-expensive-and-ineffective-at-cutting-CO2-say-Civitas.html"
Not so surprising that it is accompanied by the usual ad-hom insults from the AGW proponent cited at the end of the article -
"But Dr Gordon Edge, Director of policy at the lobby group RenewableUK, said much of the information was gathered from “anti-wind farm cranks”.
He explained that modern gas plants are not required to provide back-up for wind. Instead, wind is "integrated" into the existing system to act as a fuel saver, enabling the UK harness a free electricity source from the weather when it’s available. Some additional investment is required, but Dr Edge said “credible analysis” makes clear it will cost less for consumers than relying on fossil fuels, that are rising in price all the time.
“It is surprising that a think tank such as Civitas has published a report based on the work of anti-wind cranks, repeating the same discredited assertions. The UK’s energy policy over the next ten years will play a critical part in our economic success – offshore wind in particular has the potential to revitalise our manufacturing sector, with the promise of over 70,000 jobs," he said."
Wonder if he's referring to the DECC calculator as the "credible analysis" which has already been fully debunked and the 'promise of over 70,000 jobs' is laughable. Thankfully his remarks have been given the slating they deserve in the comments section. As is usually the case Louise's article is far less informative than the comments below!!
Dr Edge said “credible analysis” makes clear it will cost less for consumers than relying on fossil fuels, that are rising in price all the time.
What, like shale gas, for example?
This guy is clearly some kind of ostrich-like loony.
Gas is globalising thanks to shale. Even 5 years ago, gas was regional and seemed likely to be for ever: it cost $2 billion to make a gas liquefaction plant, half a billion to build a regasification plant and there was little prospect of international trade in delivered gas because it cost too much to move it around. The highest bid was almost from the nearby consumer.
Shale gas has completely smashed that paradigm - it's getting so cheap and plentiful that the USA will soon be exporting it to Europe. It's almost getting cheap enough to resume gas to liquids projects.
Fossil remains the only known renewable fuel source. We keep finding more of it.
He explained that modern gas plants are not required to provide back-up for wind. Instead, wind is "integrated" into the existing system to act as a fuel saver, enabling the UK harness a free electricity source from the weather when it’s available.
Fuel saver? Free? Well I can buy a new Bentley that has better fuel consumption than a 25 year old Range Rover V8. Strictly speaking I am saving fuel...
... but what about capital and running costs?
Painting by numbers where the only colour in the palette box is green.
Hide the incline!