Discussion > Does Bishop Hill just talk to the converted?
They are lying :) Agree on the objective thing johanna. But Climate Audit is nearest.
Richard Drake
The "Fracktion" thread is a perfect example of why BH is such a valuable blog and is far more than just a bunch of like-minded folk "talking amongst ourselves".
Thus my comment on that thread:
"To a layman like me, Prof Smythe's comments appeared to be expert and knowledgeable although the tone of his remarks and the apparent lack of communication with Cuadrilla made me suspicious.
First of all the blog links to a calm, clear repudiation of those comments. Then a number of true experts add their views on this thread, reinforcing the criticisms and expanding on the subject for the benefit of the majority with some fascinating details of the industry's workings.
Thank you. A masterclass."
Many of the threads follow a similar pattern of countering AGW propaganda and disseminating knowledge. That is one of the main reasons why this blog is so welcome. There is also a fair bit of preaching to the choir but that is hardly surprising and it often contains a nugget of new info or a different perspective which is interesting.
Another big benefit for me is to find a large group of people who broadly share my views on climate issues in particular and other science-related topics.
It would be very interesting to know how many people follow this blog, including lurkers, and to get some idea of the demographics.
mikeh
mikeh:
Many of the threads follow a similar pattern of countering AGW propaganda and disseminating knowledge. That is one of the main reasons why this blog is so welcome. There is also a fair bit of preaching to the choir but that is hardly surprising and it often contains a nugget of new info or a different perspective which is interesting.
Very fair way of putting it.
Another big benefit for me is to find a large group of people who broadly share my views on climate issues in particular and other science-related topics.
And for many of us. And it's within this broad agreement that the disagreements that do occur can be extremely enlightening. Thank goodness we don't need to resprise age-old troll-led canards and dead-ends every time. As a result there is active and useful debate here, not least yesterday and today on GCMs, with Doug McNeall for me an expert and respected opponent.
It would be very interesting to know how many people follow this blog, including lurkers, and to get some idea of the demographics.
Couldn't agree more. That was a big reason for my thread Everyone on this blog and long before that one called Channelling dogginess.
Sorry by the way that I've chosen not to respond to your latest post on 'Real names or pseudonyms?' mike. I will I'm sure before we're done.
Richard Drake
S-Cat - I don't think that WUWT is particularly objective. It is more along the American model of a plurality of views, which is perfectly fine.
Sites like Tallblokes and Steve Goddard's are not really objective either. If they were, there would be no point in their existence. They would just be news aggregators. They have an opinion, and are out, loud and proud. It's all good, IMO.
What I object to are sites that claim to be utterly objective (i.e. have no opinions whatsoever). Either they are lying, or they are so indiscriminate as to be worthless.