

Climate change skeptics/deniers pay better - jgrahamc
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/12/climate-change-skeptics-deniers-pay.html

======
jrmurad
> I wonder if this implies something about gullibility.

I wonder if this implies that skeptics/deniers are more productive (and have
more money to spend.)

I wonder if this implies that skeptics/deniers are more curious (and will
follow a link to learn more.)

I wonder if this implies that skeptics/deniers are less anti-business (and
don't ignore advertisements.)

Maybe not but I don't particularly think that clicking a blog ad is a clear
implication of "gullibility" either.

~~~
jrmurad
Also, you only say what percentage of revenue comes from likely "deniers"
(based on origin.) If you think you're measuring "gullibility," wouldn't it be
more informative to know the two percentages of likely vs. unknown/random who
visit your site and generate ad revenue, right?

------
billybob
Strange the number of posts I see with this logic:

1) I fund my site via ads 2) User group X clicks on those ads more often than
others 3) They're suckers!

In other words, "I have contempt for the people who pay my bills."

If you think so poorly of advertising (which is understandable), maybe you
shouldn't fund your site with it?

~~~
martythemaniak
"maybe you shouldn't fund your site with it"

Maybe you should read the part that says $0.50 is a typical month. What
exactly can one "fund" with 50 cents?

~~~
oconnor0
My once-a-month small candy bar habit.

------
ars
Have things gotten so bad, that simply reading about other opinions (on the
"denier" blog), gets you branded as a heretic?

~~~
jgrahamc
No, but I was assuming that the vast number of people who do read those blogs
agree with their contents (because of homophily) and that only rarely are
people reading things concerning opposing ideas.

