The other most-viewed ClimateProgress posts of 2010

Posted on  

"The other most-viewed ClimateProgress posts of 2010"

Here are all the posts written in 2010 that were clicked on by more than 25,000 people — not counting “More conclusive proof of global warming,” the blow-out winner for 2010.

7.  26,000 views:  Graham says GOP should stop demonizing climate change: You’re risking “your party’s future with younger people” by calling it a “hoax”; The SC Senator asks, “Are we the party of carbon pollution forever in unlimited amounts?”

[Note to Graham —  Yes, you are!]

6.  31,000:  A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice.

5.  37,500:  Science: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting:  NSF issues world a wake-up call: “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.”

4.  42,000:  An illustrated guide to the latest climate science

3.  44,000:  NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer “” despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance”

2.  45,000:  NASA: Easily the hottest April “” and hottest Jan-April “” in temperature record:  Plus a new record 12-month global temperature, as predicted

1.   67,000 views:  As BP’s oil disaster devastates gulf region, Landrieu and Boehner call for expanding oil drilling

The BP post made #1 because it was on the top half of the front page of HuffPost for several hours.  Typically the most widely read posts on CP are ones that either were featured on HuffPost or Reddit.

Note:  I don’t know the total readership of any of my posts because there is no way for me to know how many of the 40,000 or so people who subscribe to either my RSS or email feed read any particular article.

« »

10 Responses to The other most-viewed ClimateProgress posts of 2010

  1. DrD says:

    Dr. Romm,
    I read these seven and hundreds more last year and am better informed because of it. Thanks for your unstinting efforts on behalf of those who seek honest, science-based climate information.
    Best wishes for 2011 to you and to all the commenters on CP.

  2. 350 Now says:

    The bad news is the good news was wrong…

    Sen. Lindsay Graham said in the Friedman 2/27/10 interview article:

    ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28friedman.html?_r=1 )

    “I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. … From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people…”

    It’s very revealing that his last sentence is “putting at risk your party’s future with younger people” INSTEAD OF ‘putting at risk the future of young people.’

    I think this should be a major focal point in the news the next few months. Everyone is entitled to change their mind with new information, but that’s not what happened here with Graham. It seems he had a “come to Jesus moment” behind the GOBP woodshed.

    His quote: “We are more dependent on foreign oil today than after 9/11. That is political malpractice, and every member of Congress is responsible.” – Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R) SC

    This quote should be a tagline in everyone’s email signature block, in every correspondence, in every news report, in every car window, on yard signs and FB pages of every climate hawk in the country. Make him accountable for his words ten months ago.

  3. WVhybrid says:

    Slightly OT…

    Joe, did you see the 17 Dec 2010 interview of outgoing Congressman Bill Foster of Illinois in Science? He mentioned he was considering starting an “Albert’s List” similary to EMILY’s List. The list would support scientist and engineers running for political office.

    Whadd’ya think? Would having more folks with STEM eduction in office be a good thing?

    WVhybrid

  4. Wes Rolley says:

    WVHybrid #3

    To answer your question about the educational background of our congress critters, you have to note that those who do have an advanced STEM degree (Ehlers (R-MI), Holt (D-NJ) and McNerney (D-CA) have very little influence. Since McNerney had worked for Sandia Labs and then was active with wind energy for many years, it would have seemed good to have him on the Science or Energy or even Natural Resources committees. Did not happen.

    Politics as usual will be usual for a long time, I am afraid.

  5. Mike Roddy says:

    Thanks for the post list, and for all of your hard work, Joe.

    OT, but there is mischief in the Mojave these days. Solar plants are being delayed indefinitely by coal and gas company legal actions, disguised as tribal protests over artifacts. Before it was over plants and wildlife habitat, even though the sites in question were barren hardpan or creosote habitat. Faux green or tribal groups have succeeded in stalling solar for over two years, and put a chill on financing. The gas and coal companies may be sociopathic, but they are also clever and ingenious when it comes to manipulating opinion.

    Grist ran a post on it, and I got into some intense discussions in the comments section. It was startling to see the level of ignorance among the blog commenters there- quite the opposite of good old CP. There were trolls, too, but it seemed to be mostly a lack of knowledge. If it’s like that at Grist, it made me a bit worried about people’s overall awareness.

  6. spiritkas says:

    G’day,

    Thanks for a great year of posts, I enjoyed coming across your blog and follow it daily. I hope we’ll see more Climate Progress next year in terms of the literal meaning and in terms of your outstanding blog. I like how you don’t pull punches when dealing with poor climte science communication any more than you do on those who simply have a poor understanding of climate science and a voice so loud that it must’ve been amplified by an oil drum.

    Cheers,

    spiritkas

  7. fabry says:

    This article was very interesting, thanks for sharing it
    Fabry

  8. Tim says:

    As a fairly recent fan of your site, let me thank you for the remarkable effort you put in here, Joe. Given the dismal short- and medium-term downturn in the political outlook for science in general and for climate science in particular, it has to be tough to hang in there. By all means, keep on fighting – you are a much needed voice.

  9. catman306 says:

    This Keith Olbermann fellow has millions of viewers and, wow, what he and his crew have to say about climate change and political weather. I’ll bet he secretly views ClimateProgress.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#40834383

  10. max says:

    I am certainly appreciative of your efforts here at CP although I must confess the view numbers seem disappointingly small to me-in a country of 308M-67,000views=.02%