My blogging review of 2010

So, it’s 2011. Time for a quick look back at the first whole year of my blog.


Well, I’m shocked at how many people have read and commented on my blog. I thought I’d be writing mostly for friends and colleagues but the blog seems to have reached a little further. If anyone reads regularly or just wants to say hello, I’d really like to hear from you; please leave a comment to let me know who you are and if there’s anything you think I should be writing in 2011. (And thanks for reading!)

The other big surprise was being linked to and quoted in a Guardian article about the Institute of Physics. I only knew about it when I was reading the paper in a cafe and noticed my name in the paper!

I also wasn’t expecting the response to my “Hockey Stick” post, which I wrote mostly for my own benefit to have all the IPCC climate reconstructions in one place. I’ve been meaning to write a review of the Hockey Stick book (by the Bishop Hill guy) but haven’t quite found the time.

That leads nicely on to the next point…


I’ve not actually been reading climate blogs for that long, probably 2 years or so. I’d like to spend more time reading and commenting but there just aren’t enough hours in the day.

Anyway, here’s what I’ve noticed in that time and it’s probably not very shocking.

There seem to be two, shall we say, very passionate groups/sides of bloggers. I guess you’d group them as pro “established climate science” or against. I quite often see the same names commenting on the same “sides”. It’s all quite cliquey and often impolite (to say the least). Maybe I should look into this more and think of a way of analysing it but this isn’t really the time to do it.

The point I want to make now is about my blog. Some of the days when I’ve got lots of hits/comments are when I’ve been linked to from one of the bigger blogs and, by the nature of those comments, it’s not difficult to tell which “side” that link has come from!

I’m actually quite glad I’ve not been blogging long enough (or comment around enough) to have been drawn in to one of these well-defined cliques – I’m happy enough to just be writing about what’s interesting me rather than feeling an allegiance to a particular cause.

Top Posts

According to WordPress, these are my posts that got the most views in 2010.


Dear Institute of Physics… March 2010


The “Hockey Stick” evolution June 2010


Britain’s snow and climate change January 2010
1 comment


Antarctic climate change – the exception that proves the rule? March 2010


Skepticism or denial? February 2010

(I’m surprised that the snow post is in there. I think it must have googled a lot recently!)

Anyway, thanks again for reading and hope to see you here in 2011.

8 Responses to “My blogging review of 2010”

  1. John Mashey Says:

    Well, have a good 2011, and one question: I lost track of
    the IOP issue in the press of other events. Was there a useful

    • andyrussell Says:

      Up to a point. It seems that the “Energy Sub-group of the Science Committee” or whatever it was called was disbanded. It seemed most likely that this was the source of the evidence statement and it sounds like that group was being misused in other ways too. That is what I heard anyway so thanks for reminding me as I should contact someone who knows more than I do.

  2. Rob Schneider Says:

    Sorry to hear you didn’t have time to read and review the Hockey Stick Illusion.

    • andyrussell Says:

      I’ve read most it – I’ve just not had enough time to think about how to review it. RealClimate and Bob Ward have already had a go so I was trying to work out how to say something new. Thanks again. Andy.

      • John Mashey Says:

        Well, if you do, don’t miss the quotes from JSE, my
        favorite (well, only) dog astrology journal, and the falsification
        (or possibly schoarly incompetence) that puts Deming &
        Lindzen together to (possibly) defame Overpeck (who I talked to at
        AGU and still has no idea where this came from.) See attempt to discuss this @ Wikipedia and
        He Who Quotes from Dog Astrology
        . The Wikipedia discussion was amusing: after
        running about 20 edits/day, stunned silence occurred for a day and
        a half, followed by a series of frenzied attempts to delete the
        comment (not from a main page, but from a *talk* page, generally a
        no-no.) WMC kept undeleting it. It has long since been archived,
        but of course, it is still on record. In the long term, I’m sure
        the archives of this talk page will be a fruitful research source
        for behavioral psychologists.

  3. Rob Schneider Says:


  4. jg Says:

    Regarding your invitation: “please leave a comment to let me know who you are ….”
    I followed you here from the RealClimate E&E libel post. I shouldn’t be taking on another blog (got enough self-inflicted reading and study to do) but I will be following and catching up on your earlier articles. Please cite relevant earlier posts when you write, as this is the most likely way I’ll get to the backlog.
    My current project is understanding the data and data analysis used in climate science; and to this goal, I appreciate your summary of data sources in another recent post.

    John G

    • andyrussell Says:

      Hi John

      Thanks for the introduction! My invitation to say hello didn’t seem to work out too well so it’s good to hear from you.

      Thanks for the idea too – I’ll have a look through my last few posts and see if I can add some links. I’ll keep it in mind for the future too.

      Good luck with your project and I’ll have a look at your blog too.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: