Just guessing. And only bc you asked. You're neither provocative enough nor confirming the echo chamber enough?You're not as well connected with other bloggers and tweeters as the 'stars'? Your posts are often short and people pass quickly by?
Too spot on to make a comment and writing 'great post' every time would make me feel like I'm commenting at Watts. Have been visiting here for a while now.
Concision is good. It's one of the reasons I visit here.
David, I like your posts, though they've been pretty short lately. Who knows why some blogs get tons of comments? Usually the more comments the more either the original post or some early comments were egregiously wrong. That said, you don't owe the internet your time. Blog if you feel like it, ignore it if you don't. Best of luck!
For what it's worth, I hadn't seen your post about your brother until just now. I've enjoyed putt-putt off and on, with my sons especially. Sorry for what happened. Life is always more complicated than we imagine.
I've been reading you so long I'd say this is the 6th-7th time you got sick of it. Take a rest and come back.Best,D
David, I get most excited when my RSS reader indicates that you have a new post up. For my money, you are the most neutral commentator on climate on the blogosphere. Do keep blogging!
Second what Dano said. Yours was one of the first science blogs I started reading, years ago. I still check it every day and would miss it if you closed up shop.
I know how you feel, when you see loads of comment on other blogs and nothing on your own. Feels like you're writing into a void. But it might be that you simply have a bunch satisfied customers. I certainly count myself as one.
David, Quark Soup is one of the blogs that I check daily. I enjoy your posts and appreciate your style.I don't comment much (here of elsewhere) because I have little expertise in science and so have little of value to add - though I am learning from you, and others.Something to watch - I am an Australian, and although mine is a fairly unimportant country some interesting developments are occurring here. We have elected a Conservative government which seems hell bent of repealing our Climate Pricing legislation. If they succeed Australia will have the embarrassment of being the only country to enact a Carbon Price and then repeal it. They won't be able to repeal until July because of our Senate arrangements.Although the Government claims that the Carbon Price is not working, evidence shows that it is effective. See the article from the Guardian linked below:Carbon taxed companies cut emissionsA note on terminology. The Coalition mentioned in the article is the Conservative government. It consists of the Liberal Party (a conservative outfit that is not at all liberal) and the National Party (a rural Conservative party)
I am another who regularly reads and enjoys the blog but rarely comments. It is one of a handful of blogs I regularly read, and read all of it - because the volume of posting is not so high that it is impossible to keep up and the posts tend to be good and things I don't find elsewhere.One of the reasons for the lack of feedback has got to be that the commenting system is a pain in the neck...I've just spent 5 minutes trying to figure out if I had a login I could use to comment with! Then there is a captcha to get through...you get the idea. (I'll add that my first three attempts to post failed the capcha! I could easily have left thinking I'd posted and that it was in moderation).Also, I usually read this blog via RSS on a mobile device, and it's difficult to comment on those at the best of times.It might be better if you used disqus or some such system. Another, more radical, approach would be to simply turn off comments completely, as many people are doing. People can always feedback via twitter, and it encourages longer form blog responses too. Also, I guess as you're seeing now, it helps to ask for feedback if you want some :-)
The Economist acknowledged the obvious this week - something David cannot grasp, based on his denialism seen at judithcurry."[A]ttempts to explain away that stable average have not been convincing, partly because of the conflict between flat temperatures and rising CO2 emissions, and partly because observed temperatures are now falling outside the range climate models predict. The models embody the state of climate knowledge. If they are wrong, the knowledge is probably faulty, too. Hence attempts to explain the pause. . ." Precisely.
Because you don't say anything ridiculous.
"partly because of the conflict between flat temperatures and rising CO2 emissions, and partly because observed temperatures are now falling outside the range climate models predict. The models embody the state of climate knowledge"All three of these statements are false.In the short term there is no conflict between 'flat' surface temperatures and rising CO2 emissions (and the temperatures are not flat in the first place - they are a consistent with the previous trend with natural variability overlaid on top).The observed temperatures are not falling outside the range climate models predict (even though you'd expect them to do so 10% of the time anyway, even if the models are correct).The models do not embody the state of climate knowledge. We also have observations and physics. There are many things that are known and not captured by the models. And all of them point to warming and risk.
I don't like to post with my real identity, would prefer anon posting.
T: You are assuming the data -- which also comes from models, remember -- cannot be questioned. But it can, as Cowtan & Way have shown. With that datset there is very little "Pause"....
Post a Comment