"The most-discussed Climate Progress posts of 2009"
Who the heck knows what the best posts are? But I do have two quantitative measures of the hottest posts “” most comments and most views (Part II).
The most-discussed post this year received 390 comments, which doesn’t beat my record of 525 (see “Most discussed posts of 2008“), a figure I may never match again because of my comments policy, which is best described as anti anti-science. The disinformers and the quacks make their living by repeating false statements that have long been debunked in the scientific literature. In the real scientific community, anyone who did that would quickly be seen as a quack or a charlatan.
Those who have been duped by the disinformers endeavor to take over the comments section of every major climate website. Where they are allowed to do so, like Dot Earth, they ruin it for everyone else. Climate Progress has a long-standing policy of (generally) not allowing people to repeat long-debunked disinformation, since it requires me or my tireless readers to waste valuable time debunking it. The other choice, ignoring it, is not really an option because on any given day, a large number of people are visiting for the first time and if there is disinformation that is not debunked, they might assume the author and readers are accepting it as true. But sometimes I think it worthwhile to let the anti-science crowd have at it, just so everyone else can see what we are up against — and that leads to posts with lots of comments.
This list of most-commented-on posts is, I think, an okay introduction to Climate Progress (though I’d still recommend starting with the articles on the right hand column) — but it’s an even better introduction to the terrific set of readers that make CP’s comments section so lively and informative:
83. The U.S. House of Representatives approves landmark (bipartisan!) climate bill, 219 – 212. Waxman-Markey would complete America’s transition to a clean energy economy, which started with the stimulus bill.
[I think I addressed over half of the suggestions raised.]
100. Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics': New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and “patent nonsense” “” and the primary climatologist it relies on, Ken Caldeira, says “it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and “misleading” in “many” places.
[The response to that contest was amazing. While no one quite got the title that we ended up using, it did help inspire the final title, as I’ll discuss in January.]
As you can see, I’m getting a lot more comments than I did last year, which is no surprise since I have more than twice as many readers (not counting subscribers, which have increased 6-fold).