Tuesday, September 10, 2013

TRF, the Earth's 10th-13th most central climate blog

If this blog were primarily or even exclusively a blog dedicated to the climate, which is the case of all the colleagues and competitors listed below, I would find the results mediocre. But because it's primarily a theoretical particle physics blog, the results are OK. ;-)

According to
Mapping the climate sceptical blogosphere (full paper in PDF)
by Amelia Sharman, The Reference Frame is the 10th "most central" skeptical climate blog on this blue, not green planet, tied with 3 more blogs.

The author analyzed the links inside a network of 171 climate blogs by two methods, Freeman's approach and Bonacich's approach. The latter produced some unknown blogs at the top. The former, Freeman's analysis had two versions: rating blogs by their outgoing links and by the incoming links. Of course, I am a thinker, not a linker, so I only had a chance with the incoming links. Needless to say, the rating by outgoing links produces some relatively unknown blogs, too.

So here is the only relevant table of results – Table 3 from the paper (Freeman's method applied to incoming links):
  • 1. Watts Up With That
  • 2. Climate Audit
  • 3. Jo Nova
  • 4. Bishop Hill
  • 4. =ICECAP
  • 6. Tom Nelson
  • 7. No Frakking Consensus
  • 8. JunkScience
  • 8. =Science and Public Policy Institute
  • 10. Climate etc.
  • 10. =Climate realists
  • 10. =Roy Spencer
  • 10. =The Reference Frame
The name of this blog was capitalized relatively to the source; sorry, the name is capitalized; the layout is just typeset in a style that shows capitalized letters in lowercase. ;-)

Congratulations to the other blogs for their better spots, I think that they deserve it. I am a bit baffled by the complete absence of Climate Depot in these tables – except for a list of "web references" at the end – but I won't attack the author's methodology just because I find a result surprising (yes, I do consider Climate Depot to be an important source – and "a central source" could be even more accurate – of news about the climate debate).

Hat tip to: Anthony Watts' blog, for it to become even more central. ;-)


  1. In terms of quality, depth, and accuracy of climate analysis and commentary TRF is, of course, second to none, literally.
    The deviation of TRF's actual ranking from the top spot is a good measure for the community's inability to identify, appreciate, and demand true quality. (Alternatively, the rating methodology may be flawed, I haven't looked into it.)

  2. Well instead of doing a study, they could have asked me. It appears that I must be a generic reader and poster on skeptical blogs.
    The blogs I visit (and link) are :
    WUWT Of course
    TRF (the style of our humble correspondent has no equivalent and when an exceptionnal style joins a deep content it always makes for a fulfilling experience)
    CLIMATE ETC (was there since the beginning and J.Curry very fast attained a social status among climate "scientists" that puts here far beyond and above her "peers". Btw it is extremely interesting to observe the dynamics that make someone who was totally unknown before her first posts at Climate Audit into a personality that matters. Who testifies before the Congres etc.)
    JO NOVA (Australia is a far away unimportant country so I should not care. But Jo Nova shares with our host a stunning ability for style. It is a joy to read her sharp, intelligent and well written blogs. I remember when Lubos scientifically proved Lewandwski and there was an amusing ping-pong going on between TRF and JO NOVA)
    CLIMATE AUDIT (the father of them all and started the skeptic blog revolution. Most important bloggers - J.Curry, A.Watts. L. Liljgren etc stated their "career" by posting on Climate Audit. Steve seems to get tired of managing a blog so the posts grew rare. But when there is one, it is always worth reading. His point on Lewandowski, even if lacking of style compared to L.M or J.N was devastating in its typically Stevesque dry and analytical way.)
    BISHOP HILL. Of course
    ROY SPENCER (Good and worth reading but doesn't achieve the quality and openess of Climate Etc)
    So long life to TRF.

  3. I have to confess that I found my way to TRF via a link at Climate Depot and, of course, I then discovered it was a lot more than just another climate blog.
    As for pure climate blogs, no doubt about it, WUWT is in a class of its own.

  4. I haven't read it yet but I did a quick word search to get an initial mark on the piece. There were three occurrences of the word "denial" but these were to be found only in titles listed in the reference section, and three of the word "denier", two of which were covered by quotation marks in the body of the text and one listed as a self-styled, in-your-face title of a blog in a table.

    Remarkably unprovocative then, in that regard anyway. But let's see.

  5. The thing I like about Judith Curry's Climate Etc. is the way she starts with the extended opening comment, then lets the conversation fester and metastasize, refraining before she weighs in, or abstaining altogether.

    Four skeptic blogs have the exact same amount of incoming links? I call bullshit. Since they're peddling the bullshit there must be a motive.

    Only motive I can think of - they are fishing for blogs that can be easily leaned on in order to disrupt the whole skeptic blogosphere.

    That makes TRF for practical purposes an important player. Radio Free Europe of the skeptics. Not likely to be audited into submission by a rogue administration.

  6. Maybe people just gravitate to common sense-type explanations?

  7. What I find amusing is that "Real Climate" is not on the list. Have their lies and distortions finally done them in? I stopped following all of it several months ago because it just turned into a circle jerk with the AGW fraudsters.

  8. LOL, the main reason is that the paper lists skeptical blogs only. But I hope that there could be other reasons, too! ;-)

  9. A few people who purport to be intellectual and impartial have ridiculed me for reading Climate Depot, as if I had no ability to read critically - or perhaps that no one had - and could not value it for some of its linked articles. Hell, I even read the National Enquirer occasionally. I know it's not much good, but it's some good - the New York Times called it "the bible of the O.J. Simpson case." I guess I was in my forties before I fully realized that people like this are fake-intellectual, fake-impartial. Just a heads-up to people who don't fully realize it.