At the start of the month, in my 100th blog post, I dedicated myself to posting daily through March. So far, so good: I’ve had more hits and almost as many comments on my blog so far this month than I did in the entire time up until now. That’s largely due to my frogging post being featured on the front page of wordpress.com after following the advice of Kathy at Lake Superior Spirit. However, I’ve also been flaunting my blog a bit more on facebook (my poor friends are probably sick of seeing the notifications…) and have investigated some other sharing options. I’m doing it partly because it’d be cool to know more people are reading my stuff, but also because I want to try to understand how traffic flows around the internet. What interests people? How can you find material that you like among the sea of miscellany?
I’ve also had a (now ended) tangle with a climate change denier unbeliever, in which I refrained from arguing on the climate science and instead tried to unpick dear Roger’s motivations and understanding of the process of science (despite pointed hints James at talkingnature.com that I was wasting my time – perhaps, James, you were right!). It was an interesting experience, which taught me a few things: one is that non-scientists (well, at least one, but I have no reason to suspect his views are unique) in this debate claim to understand what science is and what scientists are, better than actual scientists. Literally:
“I have to say that you dont come accross as “literally a research scientist””
“I dont believe you know much about science at all.”
“if you think AGW is a fact you are hardly a scientist”
“every scientists and intelligent lay person knows that the AGW hypothesis is unprovable”
I’ve done a bit of head-on-brick-wall-bashing arguing with creationists about evolution in the past, and I pride myself on being as civil and fair as possible, but it can really make me grind my teeth. As I pointed out to Roger, many of the people I work with are actively engaged in various aspects of climate change research. Skeptics and deniers who make outlandish claims about scientists ‘cooking the books’ are attacking the honesty and professional integrity of my colleagues – I won’t say peers, because they are all much more knowledgeable about climate change and their own areas of specialisation than I am!
Anyway, there’s plenty in the pipeline for the rest of the month: continuation of the toxicity and behaviour change series I’ve started; a new photographic experience (oooh, mysterious!), plus my thoughts on nuclear power, slime, spin and more. I hope you’re finding March Madness as interesting as I am!