tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post1296991602552586890..comments2023-07-14T03:38:09.995-04:00Comments on Green Herring: The Wrong Foot? Media coverage of a new denialist talking pointJim Prallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-51037004747442408232010-05-14T13:27:25.321-04:002010-05-14T13:27:25.321-04:00On reviewing my comments I see the dates of the hi...On reviewing my comments I see the dates of the hit count updates were not filled in properly, though you can see them from the date of the posting. Here they are for the record:<br /><br />2010-01-25 19h30 EST: A=459, b=71<br />2010-01-26 11h00 EST: A=524 B=117<br />2010-02-01 07h30 EST: A=1440 B=224<br /><br />The percent gains in the last post are comparing 01-26 and 02-01. Here is one more new update:<br /><br />2010-05-14 13h30 EDT: A=434 B=3340<br /><br />Very interesting - the count for Foot's journalistic botch went down substantially since then. My best guess on why: many hits were copies of the story in online editions of smaller market newspapers, and many such papers keep current news online only for a limited time such as one month.<br /><br />Gavin's response, not being a wire story, continued to gain coverage, including my own blog about it (ranked fourth at least on my own computer.) The three above mine are all from climate denial websites, one from climatechangefraud and two from climategate (dot coms), all three reporting/repeating the same story, "So sue me, Gavin, I triple dog dare you."<br />Oooo, triple dog dare! Now Gavin's really cornered, eh?Jim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-87391009208728732302010-02-01T07:44:56.183-05:002010-02-01T07:44:56.183-05:00Update hit counts:
2010-02-01 07h30 EST: A=1440 B...Update hit counts:<br /><br />2010-02-01 07h30 EST: A=1440 B=224<br /><br />In six days, hits for the smear are up 175%; for the response by an actual scientist, up 90%. The echo chamber has double the propagation rate of the reality response.Jim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-72284231662442536052010-01-26T11:10:54.210-05:002010-01-26T11:10:54.210-05:00Oh come on, Ken. I don't attack him because he...Oh come on, Ken. I don't attack him because he is a programmer. I'm attacking the journalist for giving undue weight to an attack on scientists for relying on a programmer instead of other scientists.<br /><br />Anyway, another data point this a.m.:<br /><br />2010 11h00 EST: A=524 B=117Jim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-55024967089813125012010-01-26T09:28:48.661-05:002010-01-26T09:28:48.661-05:00You attack someone who questions GW because they&#...You attack someone who questions GW because they're a programmer, however, you are a system administrator. Hardley qualifies you more than the programmer. Not sharing models, preselecting data, preventing publication of studies counter to your preconceived ideas are not science. It at the very least calls to questions the conclusions. More open-literature study is needed before jumping to any conclusion not based on so-called facts not reproduced by other scientist.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13767001498642224229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-9621503351471085662010-01-25T19:26:19.275-05:002010-01-25T19:26:19.275-05:00Updated hit counts (A=the smear; B=Gavin's sma...Updated hit counts (A=the smear; B=Gavin's smackdown reply)<br /><br />2010 19h30 EST: A=459, b=71Jim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.com