The weblog was launched on 6 December 2009, and we had until 8 January 29,700 klicks (counting began only a few days after launching), with a total of 53 articles.
So far we deleted only one comment because of inadequate language. Unfortunately we had a few more cases with rude language; we ask our readers and commenters to avoid that. Also, one should keep in mind that even if we are our multilingual that our texts should be understandable for others – thus please use High-English/American, Hochdeutsch, and not slang. Avoid unnecessary abbreviations, even if they may be common on other blogs.
The survey among Klimazwiebel readers, ending 6. January 2010 had 62 participants, and resulted in the assessment that "Klimazwiebel is ...
- biased towards alarmism 5/ 8%
- biased towards denialists 2/ 3%
- open minded / honest broker 33/ 53%
- confusing 5/ 8%
- interesting 41/ 66%
- relevant 25/ 40%
- a place for ego-centrics 4/ 6%
- an opportunity for serious discussion 39/ 62%"
It is pleasing to see that quite a few participated, and that the votes seeing us as either biased alaramists or denialists were both small. That we confuse some is likely unavoidable, but that 66% find us interesting is encouraging.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
More than enough to know you are in the right path.
Congratulations!
It's early days but you have made an interesting debut. A welcomely sane addition to the internet world.
I expect the numbers to increase in the future.
I also hope to see a few more postings in German, as I think the citizens of the German speaking countries have been isolated from the science and are quite ignorant on the subject of climate- unfortunately. But Vater-Staat knows best!
The discussion in other countries is more balanced and people are better informed of both the sceptic and the believer sides of the catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming hypothesis. Germany urgently needs to be better informed.
Again congratulations on this blog - it's one of the best. I'm sure it will be very successful.
It's a great blog and I like the honest broker, more "natural scientist" attitude as opposed to the ego-scientist PR-playes on one side and the retired mining engineers on the other.
That said, I'm concerned that there was one thug who made a post that had to be removed. He is probably a bad sort, who will stir things up rather than contributing insights. Be vigilant.
Dr. Ismail Bhat
has an excellent piece poasted at Air Vent.
I share the view that science is at great risk of being decided by authority. The latest news about the CRU investigation are not encouraging. Jeff Id, the first to break Climategate, has been silent and contacted by the Norfolk police.
So, the focus of the investigation is on the leak, and not the trick.
http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/extremismus_sondereinheit_ermittelt_gegen_klima_verraeter/
Hans, I find that if I post using name/url, that the first time, I get a response that the post did not work. "Your request could not be processed. Please try again."
I could give up there, but have seen this on other blogspot blogs, so I just hit enter again. Then I get the captcha screen. I wonder if you lose other commenters who don't realize that one has to comment twice to even bring up the captcha screen.
P.s. Once I have commented once (in a session), then I no longer have to enter twice. But every new session creates the need. And the biggest issue is all new posters, who would just think their posts were not allowed and give up with the first attempt.
I have the same trouble as TCO.
Apart from that (and that your commenting system doesn't seem to be completely Firefox compatible, I can't copy and paste in the comment box), thanks for an interesting blog!
I have a question regarding your little survey on the right:
being a scientist in natural sciences, but a layperson in climate related science, what boxes should I tick?
Anna/9 - I should know the answer, true, but I am not certain. I suggest: tick both, please. -- Hans
copy and pasting - I found a way - first "preview" and then "edit" - then it works fine, it seems.
I think the survey should have distinguished traditional natural scientists (what EZ was in his Ph.D.) from climate scientists.
Think it is an important distinction.
I started out reading Eduardo Zorita's comment why Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process. I had expected that more climate scientists had expressed the same views. It is about science. It is not politics.
I do respect your integrity Mr Zorita.
Looking for more information I found this site that I do think is very interesting since it does not operate in a MannoJonesian fashion. That is trying to eliminate discussion by eliminating comments.
So keep on. I like it. And when I don't like it any more I will tell you.
Thanks,
Göran Rudling
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)