4,000,000 visits

Er, now 4,000,001 :-)

PS: Tim, the "million" after the number is presumably a case of unintentional repetition...or you've had a humungous number of site visits!

Oops, I'm still no good at proof reading.

[Tim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2923…).

Apparently there's a preview button for that, although I never seem to be able to engage it... ;-)

I'd be curious to see how the number of visits breaks down by separate visitors, but I doubt that there'd be any way of working that out. Even so, 4 x 106 is a fair whack of access. Well done.

4,000,000 visits - wow, your mum has discovered the Intertubes.

Well done Tim, you've had that number of posts because you're the 'go to guy' on number of issues, especially DDT. Here's to the next 4 Million... :)

Congrats, Tim. But I feel like I must be responsible for a significant proportion of those visits in just the last day. I'm checking the previous thread constantly. (Your discussion with P Moore is fascinating.) Don't leave me hanging!

I'm delighted to hear your site is proving popular. It deserves to reach the widest possible audience: it's clear, rigorous and timely, and the subject could not possibly be more important. Keep up the good work, and may sanity prevail!

Well, I'm about to hit 40,000, so we're pretty much neck and neck Tim, give or take an odd 0, or two.

But congratulations, fantastic effort, and you seem to effortlessly maintain a very high standard, month after moth, year after year. Here's to the next 4,000,000!

Aargh, sorry, obvious typo there, should of course have been "moth after moth", attracted by the bright light of Deltoid.

Congratulations.

And no, the 4,000,000 million is not an error so much as a prediction. One might say a prophecy. Given an undermined time limit it is not impossible, not even improbable.

No Worries Tim. Glad to help :-)

Does that include bots?

The site summary says:
3,927,251

"My thanks to everyone who has dropped by." On the contrary Tim, that "everyone" should be thanking you.

Congratulations, Tim. For those of us in the benighted backwaters (Alabama, USA in my case), you are a beacon.

"My thanks to everyone"
Everyone?

Yes, everyone.

Vigorous discussions (well, OK, back and forths) obviously contribute to such numbers.

And my thanks too to Tim for the sterling effort involved.

Congrats Tim. This is where I learned about the DDT misinformation and to question AGW skepticism. Still a skeptic, but an open minded one at least. The gun-control discussions were a lot of fun too.

Congratulations!

Congratulations, and thanks for the many years that you have devoted to this project.

Best Regards,
Robert Parson
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of Colorado at Boulder.

Congratulations!

I first came across your blog from slashdot, with a link to a post where you picked apart the think-tanks producing certain anti-Linux studies. It was an eye-opener to how corporate funding of ideas work.

I kept reading to understand more about how non-political ideas can be attacked for political reasons. I hope I wouldn't have been tricked into falling for the DDT hoax or the Anti-AGW hoax anyway... but you certainly have given a good vaccine against such things over the years!

Congratulations - you have good posts and good comments, so I learn from the conversation, and you don't let the inmates run the asylum. I hope you have some discussion with Brian Dunning on DDT.
You're a skeptic and a gentleman,

Stewart Longman

Well done, Tim. And thanks you you and many of the posters here for all the enlightenment, especially on the myths about DDT. On the way over here today I did a Google and found that the number 2 "hit" on the parade brought up by "Tim Lambert", just below that of deltoid itself, was a link to that dolt Bolt's site. His piece there (2008) contained a link to a critique, by "JF Beck" (who?) of sthg you and John Q. had written. However, and here's the laugh, that dolt Bolt's link was to a non-existent website. So much for the permanence and lasting value of the arguments put out by those dolts who claim they are "sceptics" but betray the substance of the word "scepticism" at every point.

I have no doubt contributed to the count

However, be aware, many visits like mine are to enjoy a good laugh at the absolute inanities, non-sequiters, and general ad-hominems you produce.

You are the climate blog equivalent of "Plan 9 from Outer Space". It's so bad it's worth watching for the stupidity - not for anything of meaning

Hey Jerry! We regret not being able to read of your great Galileo-Einstein-Newton-like scientific insights, since you've not posted them. Unless you've been posting those using various sockpuppets, that is.

Hi Jerry! No Deltoid thread would be complete without at least one little troll appearing. Regretfully, the feeding lots have closed after my post, so run along now, be a good boy.

Jerry's contribution, name calling and no substance. Thanks Jerry, bye Jerry.

Many happy carrots! and hearty congratulations

[Hmmm](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2937…)...

Poor spelling, poor grammar, poor punctuation, poorly non-evidenced statements...

Exactly from where is it that the "stupidity" comes?

Only 3,000,000 of these were Brent.

... and the remaining million were other mutually contradictory denialist arguments.

[turdB said:"... it's kinda gone off the boil..."](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2942…)

Really?
It's only just warming up.
Who would have thought after all that crowing just a year ago that the liars, dissemblers, tricksters and conmen would be proven to be the denialists' own crown jewels.

McIntyre, McKitrick, Mosher, Fuller, Wegman, Montford et al will be hard pressed to find themselves admitted into decent company by the time that little stunt has run it's full and unexpected course.

Chek, you are apostrophically challenged.

And apocalyptically misguided. When the waves fail to consume us, will you be apologetically contrite?

Here's a larf: This BBC Play has some real-life academic numpties predicting melting roads and a bridge to Norfolk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p6rr4

Takes a half hour of one's life, but it's either side-splittingly funny (if you are a sceptic) or a wrist-slasher (if you believe in Global Warming).

Is there anything more sickening or degenerate than self-appointed, pontificating know-nothings? Perhaps, but I don't know what that might be. I thought we'd had enough of them after the 2010 US election crop, but perhaps I was wrong and it's a global phenomenon. (Unlike the MWP).

Hey turdB, why don't you petition your leadership (detailed above) to adopt the slogan "Ignorance'Ñ'us". Then you denialists (plural) would have something solid to unite under.

It's so absolutely apt.

Remember, turD lives in Central England where it has definitely not warmed according to the only temperature record he trusts.

Take 2

John, that graph shows that for 9 years it certainly is not warming.

I think it's absolutely charming that a little feller who was born around the turn of the century has learned enough to come on here and talk with the adults. But I'm a parent and I really think that he should spend more time outdoors climbing trees and playing cricket.

John, interesting to note that turB is monitoring what you write so carefully. Might turB have a fixation, or did he just read about himself this once by chance?

Deltoid has from the beginning been one of the consistently great blogs. The quality compliments among the responses above are very well deserved, science has been better defended here by Tim than almost anywhere - thanks Tim!

I seem to have missed Bent's posting, but it is apparent that he has returned (transiently) to claim that there is no 'recent' warming.

I know that he is banned, but it would be interesting nevertheless to hear him answer the questions that were put to Alan D. McIntire [on](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/senator_fielding_says_there_ha…)
[several](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/senator_fielding_says_there_ha…) [occasions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/senator_fielding_says_there_ha…
). Bunt claims to have engineering expertise, so let's see what the extent of his statistical understanding is - and if he can come up with a credible answer, let's then see how he justifies his affection for pronouncements that there is no current global warming.

And as I've linked to the Fielding thread, I can't resist another acknowledgement of the relief so many experience to see that he is about to pack his bags and be shown the door of the Senate.

Ironically, as I sit here typing about the Denialati that bang their heads against real science in their pathetic attempts to rehash long-ago debunked myths and fallacies, and as I myself bang my head against their pseudoscience, one of the new summer crop of blowflies is doing its own headbutting dance against the windows.

I suspect that there is a increasing index of futility as one moves through that list. I'm filled with chagrin that I live in a society where attempts to educate the ignorant lie somewhere between conspiracy theories and Calliphoridæan buzzing in terms of social impact...

BJ

Being a member of the Denialati I take offense at being referred to as a pseudoscientist.

Bookmakers William Hill yesterday cut its odds for snow falling over London on Christmas Day from 8/1 to 6/1.
Aberdeen is the 3/1 favourite, down from 5/1.

Weather, not climate.

What you just demonstrated there was pseudoscience.

Ironic, isn't it.

> However, be aware, many visits like mine are to enjoy a good laugh at the absolute inanities, non-sequiters, and general ad-hominems you produce.

Which statement is inane, an ad hom and a non sequitor.

I suppose we can be glad he can laugh at himself, though.

[Fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2945…).

If you are so offended by the charge of "peudoscience" you could prove yourself by providing an answer to those lingering questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/senator_fielding_says_there_ha…).

It should be easy for any real climatologist or statistician.

Hmmmph.

Those [lingering questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/senator_fielding_says_there_ha…)

El G, can you or any one of your fellow travellers point me to the paper where any climatologist or climate research unit explicitly says winter is abolished by AGW?

Because every Tom, Harry, Brent, Gordo or other Dick denialist seems to think they have some sort of 'gotcha'moment whenever snow turns up in winter.

>Being a member of the Denialati I take offense at being referred to as a pseudoscientist.

Then we must endevour to call you one at every opportunity.

>John, that graph shows that for 9 years it certainly is not warming.

Using the arguments you have given us, this graph is produced by the MET Office, Brent, so it must be wrong, which means it *is* warming after all. I believe NASA have a supercomputer working on the contradictions in your numerous "whatever fits" arguments.

Snow in winter in the UK. Now who'd have thunk that?

Aberdeen has had I think 12 or 13 white Christmases (possibly the most in towns/cities on which one can bet on) since 1960, so 3/1 seems almost about right.

The odds on a white Xmas always shorten when we get a cold spell forecast this "close" to the event. And this week it's gonna get cold, with snow forecast for the east coast and nearby areas late in the week.

Fools and their money are soon parted! Betting is a mug's game. Mind you, el Gordo seems a bit of a mug whether he bets or not.

Hands up those who think it's been getting warmer since the millennium.

EG joins turB to pop in and remind me that their collective absences provides zero loss of reasoned argument on Tim's blog.

Excellent stuff, well deserved and thanks for doing this Tim.

Congratulations Tim! I may not agree with you on climate matters, but at least your blog is robust.

Thanks Janet, you are far too kind. It would be in your interest to keep an eye on the AO Index, to understand the meaning of cool.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index…

>By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread.

[turdB said: "Is this weather or climate? Brrrrr!"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2948…)

It's both - British weather that is entirely consonant with the British climate.
And your sly yet cowardly implication is also just the usual [smug, short-sighted, malformed idiocy we've become accustomed to from you.](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=8)

Stop the presses, there may well be more complaints about cold winter weather. The Brit winter season just 'might' be getting colder.

The temperature in one part of Greenland yesterday was warmer than their summer. It looks as though a few Brits (and Europeans and Americans) might have to invest in several pairs of warm socks.

Warm Arctic Cold Continents. Brought to you courtesy of a warming world. Better known as WACCy weather.

I see that [fatso still hasn't grasped the difference between signal and noise](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2949…).

Like [I said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2946…).

I love *your* mind Brent. All scientific arguments exhausted, you've decided to stick with "weather is climate", an argument you've already conceded was wrong.

But hey, honesty and integrity mean nothing when you're trying (and failing) to get a rise out of people.

Just to remind people why Brent was banned - he went on a tirade about anonymous sockpuppeting being "undignified" and then anonymously sockpuppeted the next day.

I've written before that Brent's views are based on ideology and not science, and this gives him the moral impetus to lie. After all, he's right damn it! He doesn't care what arguments he uses or how we respond, as long as he gets a rise.

> Is this weather or climate? Brrrrr!

Any example is weather.

What you can EXPECT is climate.

After all, you can expect 50:50 heads/tails on a fair coin toss. But that doesn't mean the coin is fixed if you throw a tails.

I wonder if Vegas has thought of getting the denialists to pop over and have a conference there. Vegas would make a *killing* on them, they have no clue what statistics is!

> John, that graph shows that for 9 years it certainly is not warming.

It doesn't show cooling.

Therefore the claim that the world is cooling is false.

> There's new evidence that solar activity influences cloud cover

There's new evidence that shows that the CLOUD experiment has shown no discernable effect of the process proposed. Definitely not enough to counter or create the strength of global warming we currently see.

Funny how models are fine when they "may" "prove" AGW wrong or not a problem...

> Could it be that carbon dioxide is not the great driver we feared?

No.

> Could it be that the billions being thrown at Global Warming are no more effective than Canute having his throne placed at the seashore and ordering Nature to obey his commands?

you mean the Canute who, despite being told he was all-powerful, set this demonstration up of how without power he was to his toadying lackeys?

I.e. a Canute experiment that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of continual denialist propaganda use?

Seems so.

You don't even read up on your history, never mind the science.

Tell me, do you have a brain cell in that entire body of yours? Is it working?

Good old idiotic Bent working his paycheck here on deltoid.

IHBT, HAND.

Bent, are you aware that you're committing a crime?

Computer trespass is a criminal matter.

McKinnon is facing 50 years in a US jail for doing that, you know, and Australia has a treaty with the USA for extraditing criminals to face a judge.

Tell you what Brent - you give me the actual, untruncated quote, and I'll tell you how you've misinterpreted it as is your habitual, knee-jerk want.

And then perhaps you can explain to us how British weather trumps global temperatures.

Oh that's right you can't, cos you're banned.

(Although I suspect Tim would allow a science overturning comment from you through. So if nothing appears I'll just assume it's the usual old rubbishy, Wattsian non-sequiturs).

Turd's a coward.

Bent.

I see that [those questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2945…) were [simply too difficult for you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/4000000_visits.php#comment-2948…).

Brent doesn't like rigorous scientific analysis, so I thought he [deserved some](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-high-temperatures-versus-record-…).

Bent continues to commit crimes as Sockpuppet.

He's long exhausted criminal idiocy and moved on to straight criminality.

Computer trespass is a crime.

Bent is a criminal.