On the plus side, love it or hate it, WUWT is read almost equally by both sides of the climate debateIf it is, they aren't saying. Remember this poll that Anthony took last year when he was canvassing responses to the Lewandowsky survey? If that's any guide and I don't see why it wouldn't be, it shows that almost all his readers (more than 97%!!) are fake sceptics.
You only have to read the comments on WUWT articles to know that by far the majority are from people in various shades of denial - from the 8% Dismissives through to utter nutter conspiracy theorists, with rare comments from people who know what they are talking about. (Anthony limits comments from science types to about two or maybe three on his blog at a time - more than that he censors them or bans people outright. He can't have facts clearing the muddy waters of denial.)
(Update: so far
Anthony also thinks that arguably the most widely read climate website, Climate Progress, has fewer comments these days because it doesn't post articles from fake sceptics. Well I beg to differ. The main reason Climate Progress has fewer comments than it used to have is because it only accepts comments from people having one of the following accounts: facebook, yahoo, AOL or hotmail, which cuts out a lot of people who might otherwise have commented. Another reason is probably because it's posting more articles each day.
As for stats - ThinkProgress has 287,154 followers and Climate Progress has 59,217 followers - and those are just the Twitter followers. I'd expect it has multiples of that in readership if you include people who haven't a Twitter account and/or don't follow them on Twitter. Anthony has 8,510 Twitter followers - nothing to sneeze at but fewer than Michael Mann and an order of magnitude less than Joe Romm's Climate Progress. WUWT might be popular and visited by a lot of people, but ThinkProgress has a considerably larger readership than Anthony Watts' anti-science blog.
I've also got to say that I've yet to see Anthony Watts take any notice of all the science he says he reads. Heck, from where I sit he doesn't even read half the articles he posts on his own blog.
UpdateIronically, in the HW comments two people who I take to be WUWT regulars reckon there must be many many more "alarmists" than fake sceptics who read but don't comment at WUWT and are arguing that many many more "alarmists" than fake sceptics would have read but not completed Anthony's poll above. Like 60 times more! Yet Anthony's poll above was to "prove" that it's deniers who didn't take a survey. And deniers usually complain they are drowned out by "alarmists".
Fake skeptics are not known for consistency or logic or arithmetic or scale or relativities.
From the WUWT comments
Well, there are only a few comments so far (archived here, updated here). There is nothing of much interest yet. No-one has confessed to habitually visiting SkepticalScience.com :) I wonder what more of his readers will say. Anthony gave me an indirect plug in his article. Will I get a rash of visits from WUWT readers who are hoping to broaden their thinking? (Fat chance!)
Ed Mr. Jones says:
December 6, 2013 at 9:20 am
Echo Chambers are where critical thinking goes to die.
December 6, 2013 at 9:29 am
I am part of a consensus, leave me alone.
Tim Walker says:
December 6, 2013 at 9:52 am
Thanks for this introspective post.
This one epitomises WUWT. Don't leave the safety of deniersville, deride anyone who wants to discuss actual science at WUWT and then complain that "they" won't engage with you. Oh, and write "algore"! _Jim says:
December 6, 2013 at 10:29 am
Doug Danhoff says December 6, 2013 at 10:12 am I agree in principle, and am discouraged that neither side wishes debate.
‘They’ won’t come off their ‘reservations’ or out of their cloistered hallowed ivory towers!!!
What are we to do, stand there with megaphones shouting across the moat?
When was the last time Algore debated anybody?
When we do get ‘one’ here (purported; most come here to troll), they seem to have the mental faculties of a 10 yr old (Sisi?) … I even try to engage the few socialists we have show up in an even-handed non-derogatory manner, JUST to get one under a microscope to see what makes them tick, but, they slink away, choosing not to engage even on a polite level …