Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Top 12 Most Viewed Climate Progress Posts Of 2012

By Joe Romm  

"Top 12 Most Viewed Climate Progress Posts Of 2012"

Share:

google plus icon

While every major denier blog has seen stagnating or declining traffic, Climate Progress had its best year yet in 2012. Overall, traffic is up 30% to 50% on most days.

The reasons for the growth are clear: The partnership with ThinkProgress and the rapid growth of our following on social media — something the deniers have utterly failed to match. I guess they are anti-social as well as anti-science!

Social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, plus mobile devices, are our most rapidly growing sources of traffic. Social media is particularly effective at disseminating headlines, which are the most important part of any blog post, as I discuss in my book Language Intelligence.

The power of social media is clear from a brief review of our most widely viewed posts, which are inevitably the ones that get the most retweets on Twitter and most “Likes” on Facebook. Climate Progress gets a level of retweets and Likes typically seen on websites with far higher nominal traffic.

Given that 2012 was a very lively presidential election year, it’s no surprise that the top post was:

That post had more than 100,000 page views — and a remarkable 3570 retweets and 43,000+ likes. The retweets alone mean that the headline probably went to more than 1 million people through Twitter. When you throw in Facebook and search engines, plus the hundreds of reposts and excerpts by news aggregators, I wouldn’t be surprised if that headline was seen by more than 2 million people.

Climate science came in a close second with this post:

That piece also had more than 100,000 page views — plus 1735 retweets and more than 8,900 Likes!

Here are the other top posts of the year:

Even that last post, the 12th most viewed Climate Progress post of 2012, had 1330 retweets and 2.9k Likes, and the headline may well have been seen by over one million people!

‹ General Motors Tripled Sales Of Chevy Volt In 2012, Selling One Million Vehicles Over 30 MPG

January 4 News: Members Of Congress Call For Investigation Of Shell’s Arctic Drilling Operations ›

27 Responses to Top 12 Most Viewed Climate Progress Posts Of 2012

  1. Brad Johnson says:

    I will take a victory lap for having penned the #1 and #3 top posts of 2012.

  2. Dan Ives says:

    I’m sure my opinion is the minority here, but I’ve been following this blog for a long time and this is the first time I’ve felt uneasy about its growth and success. Of the top twelve most popular posts, seven of them are essentially different ways of saying, “The Republicans are Hypocrites/Extremists/Evil/Oligarchs and you should be very, very afraid of them gaining political power.”
    [JR: First off, there aren't 7, there are at most 1. Four of those posts are specific to Romney and Ryan -- hardly a shock those are popular posts. Oh and 1 of those you are counting actually presents the opposite view.]

    I don’t really dispute that, but honestly, how many websites are dedicated to advancing that narrative? Does CP really need to go that route?
    [JR: The last question suggests it's not clear to me you actually read this blog regularly.]

    And that narrative is misleading because it obviously is intended to build support for the Democrats, but it’s never spoken that they are pretty much just as bad, especially when it comes to climate.
    [JR: Uhh, no it isn't and no they aren't. To say the Democrats are "pretty much just as bad" is to suggest you don't really read this blog or follow the news at all!]

    Again, acknowledging that I’m likely a minority on this, I find this all very disheartening. Not a single post in the top twelve references the unmitigated failure of President Obama on the paramount issue of our lives.
    [JR: Absurd to imply that this blog hasn't been uber-critical of Obama.]

    Every political post on that list follows the same flawed narrative discussed above. The only encouraging news, to me, is that a couple extreme weather and climate science posts made the list. Obviously Joe doesn’t have much control over which posts become the most popular, but my conclusions from all this about the readership of this blog are not encouraging in the slightest.

    [JR: Uhh, the most popular posts are, amost by definition, not indicative of the blog's general readership!]

  3. Superman1 says:

    Mulga Mumblebrain,

    I’m having trouble posting this comment, so I’m re-writing the format. You stated recently: “Great Caesar’s Ghost! It is only necessary to return to the sort of ‘standard of living’ of say the 1930s amongst the better off in the USA or UK, plus keeping all the useful technological advances made since then. ‘Paleolithic’ is a very great exaggeration. We need only abjure the wasteful, conspicuous, consumption of utter tat that characterises our frenetic and frantic materialism. That and redistribute the tens of trillions looted by the hereditary global parasite class, and we’d be laughing.” My response is: Not so. We presently emit about 32B tonnes CO2 world-wide. In the 1930s, we emitted in the vicinity of 4B tonnes. But, we now have 3.5 times as many people as in the 30s. So, keeping the 4B total the same, to get the same average emissions with today’s population, we would need to emit 1/4 the average of the 1930s. That would bring us back to roughly what we emitted before the start of the 20th century. But, why do you believe even the 4B tonnes is acceptable? Anderson’s papers tell me that we are at the CO2 limit for the atmosphere, and even that puts us in the Extremely Dangerous vicinity of 2 C. My interpretation is that Mother Nature is saying to us: ‘Read my lips; no more fossil fuels’. As I’ve said elsewhere, the Pennsylvania Amish or Native American lifestyle may be what’s necessary for a few decades if we are to survive.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      The difference, dear Superchap, is that I believe that the standard of living of the better off classes in the West in the 1930s can now be achieved, thanks to technological advances over the ensuing eighty years (and those that are imminent), with zero greenhouse emissions. In other words vastly less intensive consumption of useless crap, particularly the luxury consumption of the rich, spread equitably, powered by renewable energy. Such a transformation would power the demographic transition to smaller family size, eventually achieving stable, then falling, global population. A less materialistic society also promises more spare time for social, cultural and personal growth and development. The alternative, of the world’s poor attempting to emulate the materialism of the West, is, as we all know, omnicidal.

      • David Goldstein says:

        MM- your comment, to me, perfectly encapsulates the paradox of Homo Sapiens. You cogently summarized the potential of our species at this point and time of our evolution. The picture you painted is achievable- easily- with current technology and ‘know how’. It would be a world in which almost all people could seek to maximize their creative/spiritual/developmental (choose your own terms) potential with a minimum of material/environmental stress. AND YET- we, as a species – are now choosing to go in precisely the opposite direction. And we know it!!! (at least, it has been spelled out in detail by those who do!). Also -did you see my comment further down about Gore’s sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera?- interested in your thoughts.

        • prokaryotes says:

          Re TV to Al Jazeera (US) very cool to have some more informative media outlet in the USA. Very cool for Al Gore, though i thought Current TV sucked, cause it was not available online with streaming, imho.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          Well, David, I’m not. I have solar electricity and water, do not drive, walk or catch buses (three to work and back)grow vegies, berries and fruit, have chooks and am planting trees all over our patch. I’m a bleeding wonder! My sins will be overlooked, for the present. I’d like to spend time in landcare groups, but still have to struggle on as a wage slave. I’ve finally given up newspapers and magazines, and am returning to literature, because it’s so very much more uplifting. Reading ‘The Devils’ again, with its reference to the Gadarene swine, always puts me in mind of the News Corpse apparatchiki, sent mad by the infernal possession of Murdochism. I just wish they’d finally find a big enough pond to drown themselves in.

  4. prokaryotes says:

    “That post had more than 100,000 page views — and a remarkable 3570 retweets and 43,000+ likes…”

    Very cool :) But why are there no comments at all?

  5. Jack Burton says:

    The suicide pact between fossil fuel industry,religious fundamentalists and the republican party is fine with me. Here is where it is not fine with me “They take it upon themselves to take ALL the rest of us into their suicide pact via their political power”.
    They deny science. Some even claim to create their own reality via their political actions.
    I am afraid the laws of Physics are not repealed by the actions of the Republicans and the interests they serve. Though I have been told by some republicans that physics is just an opinion, and their are other opinions on physics. This in regard to the physics related to global warming. So why should any of us NOT slam the republicans? They are a disgrace to humanity and a danger to all. This is not my fault. If I point it out, that hurts their feelings? Too bad.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      It’s more a genocide pact, really, or even an omnicide pact. Problem is, many of the religious loonies are actively looking forward to it, convinced to the bottom of that vacuum where they imagine their ‘souls’ to reside, that they will be ‘Raptured’ while the likes of you and I boil in flaming pitch, or other substances too hideous to mention.

  6. DRT says:

    Joe, What posts had the most comments?

  7. Sasparilla says:

    It’s great to see the success of your site Joe – extremely well deserved. Thank goodness the tide of the denier sites seems to have crested.

    As to the comment implying Joe hasn’t burned a multitude of bridges speaking the truth about our current President and his abject failure in addressing climate change – Joe has been there from the beginning, speaking the truth and I’m sure annoying the administration’s spin masters to no end – as a leader should.

  8. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    Dan, the views expressed in the comments range widely in political viewpoint and in how damaging climate change will be.

    Joe has been consistently supportive of those who will tackle climate change irrespective of politics.

    All sorts of comments are tolerated if they are on topic, at least a little thoughtful and not outrightly abusive.

  9. David Goldstein says:

    this may a bit OT- but it does speak to the Republican/Democrat divide. Al Gore sold Current TV to Al Jazeera for a personal profit of approx. 100 million! The Uber Democrat Uber Climate Hawk just made 100 mil essentially from the Emir of Qatar. Oil Money! No other way to spin it. I am actually a Climate Reality Project trained ‘climate leader’. My goodness…I just don’t know what to say. (and, btw, I am, if anything, to the left of the Dems)

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Yuck! The Qatari rulers are religious fundamentalist fascists and despots, exporting jihadi death and destruction to Syria, and al Jazeera has had numerous journalists resign in disgust at the lurid bias and untruthfulness of its ‘reportage’ over that hideous tragedy. Gore goes down many notches, but could exculpate if he donates the proceeds to some useful cause. He’s well rich enough already.

  10. wili says:

    ClimateCentral just put out this:

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-coverage-falls-further-in-2012-15424

    “Climate Coverage Falls Further in 2012″

    Any idea why Joe wasn’t included in their list of most prolific writers on climate issues?

    • Joe Romm says:

      It is a bit arbitrary who they include. Would be more consistent if they only did print, for instance.

  11. Colorado Bob says:

    I saw Chad Myers today on CNN plugging their Sunday night program on “Future Storms”.
    It has been a bitter carbon based pill for Chad these last 5 years, he’s gagging on it, but he said the extra warmth of the Atlantic ocean made Sandy 10% bigger.

  12. prokaryotes says:

    You contradict yourself…

    Dan Ives: “Does CP really need to go that route?”

    Dan Ives: “Again, this is not criticism of you, it’s more an observation.”

    To me that sounds a bit like someone is overly concerned.

  13. Jacob says:

    Either that or they’re not here to intentionally ruffle anyone’s feathers or otherwise cause trouble.