Comments 1 to 16:

1. Sarah at 09:27 AM on 26 March, 2012
   The hacking attack has undoubtably cost sks money as well as time.
   
   Here's the donation link, which John hides pretty well:
   Skeptical Science donations: http://www.skepticalscience.com/donate.php
   Moderator Response: [JH] Thanks for providng the link. I've been wanting to make a contribution.
2. Alexandre at 10:12 AM on 26 March, 2012
   I like the amount of SkS articles per week. I don't read most of them anymore, as now I feel I have covered the basics of the issue. But I like to see what kind of news are coming up, so every now and then an article gets my attention and I read it through.
   
   My comments have also become more sparse and shallower in content, as my patience with 'skeptics' diminished.
   
   I like the cartoon. Maybe a big victory of the manufactured controversy is making global warming a touchy subject on the media. Maybe this was the whole point of the manoeuvre. I was listening to an interview with David Attenborough at BBC these days and he mentioned global warming as a serious danger. The interviewer, Mike Williams from One Planet (an otherwise great reporter, IMO) was quick to point out that "many people don't agree with that".
   
   I wonder what kind public service they would offer if BBC said, similarly, that abestos causes a number or diseases and quickly added "but it's controversial, since this and this doctor claim otherwise".
   Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback. It is indeed difficult to deal with the deniers on a continuing basis without losing one's temper now and then.
3. climatehawk1 at 11:40 AM on 26 March, 2012
   SkS is great. I tweet a lot of the material and I learn a lot from the articles and comments. Very helpful and a tremendous contribution to the continuing discussion with those in denial. I don't comment much because I don't feel scientifically versed enough.
   Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Please don't be shy about posting on our comment threads. You do an excellent job of defending climate science on the comment threads to articles on The Huffington Post.
4. Doug Hutcheson at 13:27 PM on 26 March, 2012
   • From your perspective, does SkS publish too many, just the right amount of, or too few, articles per week? I read as much as I can find on the topic, here and elsewhere. More would be welcome.
   • Do you typically read each article that is posted? Yes
   • Do you typically read the comment threads? Yes
   • Do you typically post comments? Not often, as I am not a scientist, so have little to add to that side of discussions. I do post when I think I have something relevant to say
   Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your active particpation in the comment threads is also appreciated.
5. adelady at 13:43 PM on 26 March, 2012
   I reckon the number of items published is pretty good.
   
   Yes. I read every post and every comment. There are some I might skim over, though. I do take more time with particular topics that interest me.
   
   Commenting? Not being a scientist or a statistician or any other useful occupation, I'm more interested in what some of the really knowledgeable commenters have to contribute. I limit my own comments accordingly.
   Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your active particpation in the comment threads is also appreciated.
6. Bern at 14:54 PM on 26 March, 2012
   I'm in two minds about the # of articles. I'll just say that I'd prefer SkS prioritised quality over quantity.
   I try to read every article on SkS. This can be difficult to squeeze around other commitments at times, but it's always worth it. I've learned a phenomenal amount about climate science since finding this site.
   Comments I sometimes read, sometimes not (depending on available time & whether that particular topic interests me).
   I post comments when I feel I have something to contribute.
   And I must say, it's easy to do so here on SkS, because I know that if I get something wrong, the inevitable correction will be a gentle one. :-D
   Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your humor is also appreciated.
7. Sceptical Wombat at 00:00 AM on 27 March, 2012
   I'm with adelady - quality is more important than quantity. If you can increase quantity without sacrificing quality then go for it.
   
   I read all posts and all comments that are there at the time I read the posts - and sometimes go back to see if any one has added a useful comment.
   
   I occasionally comment.
   Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader.
8. AnotherBee at 00:23 AM on 27 March, 2012

   This may be slightly off-topic, but i have a question triggered by the Toon of the week... This is a Weather question (but with a climate underpinning). Currently, the UK is experiencing an unseasonal heatwave. The proximate cause is a jetstream blocking event, so we are under perpetual high pressure. I note ( from NSIDC that Arctic Sea Ice extent is relatively high (compared to the last few years only!). Is this a flipside of the same jetstream cause?

   Moderator Response:

   [DB] If you look at the areas where the ice is concentrated, you'll note that much of the recent gains in ice cover are in those areas about to melt out abruptly in the next 6 weeks:  The Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Sea, the Kara Sea, portions of the Barents Sea, Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay.

   

   [Source] [Map of the Arctic]

   Get your popcorn ready, the show is about to begin (best watched from here).  Relevant discussion is here, as well.

   As for the other part of your question, Real Climate has a post up on this here and Dr. Kevin Trenberth also has a paper out on much the same topic here.

   [Sph] Personally, I think the best show is here (only in the 21st century)

9. funglestrumpet at 08:20 AM on 27 March, 2012
   Number of items: I would prefer more in-depth, but less in number, if only due to time restraints.
   
   Yes, I read all articles and most comment threads, except when two people are battling it out and it is clear that neither will give way. Having said that, I rarely go back over the comment threads once I have read them, unless there is an unresolved issue that I am interested in that might be resolved in later comments.
   
   I post when the mood takes me, but usually only once per article.
   Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your active particpation in the comment threads is also appreciated.
10. andylee at 08:32 AM on 27 March, 2012
    In Douglas Adams’ style, perhaps “The Restaurant at the Top of the World” may yet come to pass.
11. Muzz at 11:16 AM on 27 March, 2012
    Strange, my perfectly valid comment about the caption of the cartoon appears to have disappeared lol. It was in position 9 or 10. Must take screen shots in future, in case I'm mistaken
    Moderator Response: [DB] Your previous comment was deemed trolling due to the many polarizing fake-skeptic terms, unsupported assertions and debunked memes it contained. This website explores the science of climate change. As such, all positions are supported by references and citations to the peer-reviewed primary literature published in reputable journals. Please take the time to engage in dialogue that makes a positive contribution, not detracts from it.
12. John Hartz at 11:19 AM on 27 March, 2012
    @Kate #1:
    
    Lucky for us, Interpol doesn't charge for investigating crimes.
13. prokaryotes at 15:05 PM on 27 March, 2012
    Must watch
    
    THE CRISIS OF CIVILIZATION http://climateprogress.net/item/the-crisis-of-civilization.html
14. prokaryotes at 15:06 PM on 27 March, 2012
    Fixed linkage http://climateprogress.net/item/the-crisis-of-civilization.html
15. JMurphy at 08:08 AM on 28 March, 2012
    Good program on tonight called 'Global Weirding'. It had Kerry Emanuel, Katharine Hayhoe, Adam Scaife and Mike Lockwood (among others) trying to explain the strange things going on with the weather all around the world. The denialosphere must be apoplectic, especially as it was on that left-wing, UN-backed (supposedly) BBC !
16. funglestrumpet at 00:47 AM on 29 March, 2012
    A thought has just come to me.
    
    Can we have a running count as to the number of days since Peter Hadfield posted his debunking of Viscount Christopher Monckton's presentation material on the WUWT website? It would keep our concern's with Monckton's contribution to the climate debate in the eye of all those visiting this sight. More importantly, it would also be a way of informing anyone looking up Monckton prior attending one of his presentations that they are about to see a lot of questionable presentaton material. If any of them raise the debate on WUWT and Monckton's failure to respond, it should spoil the good Viscount's day and stop a lot people swallowing everything they hear hook, line and sinker.
    Moderator Response: [JH] Thanks for your suggestion. We will take it under advisement.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.