Whose Reality is it Anyway?

by charles the moderator

[updated to correct usage of the words rank and reach. The correct graphs were used originally, but I used the wrong word to describe them]

Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project claims 8.6 million views of their presentations during their “24 hours of reality”. Let’s examine that claim.

On Facebook, they had around 66,000 people “accepting” the invitation to attend.

Let’s look at the Alexa stats for traffic rank reach on that day and compare it to a site we have access to more detailed information.

Alexa traffic rank

Alexa traffic rank

Eyeballing, it appears that on 9/15/2011, climaterealityproject.org had between 5 and 6 times as much traffic as wattsupwiththat.com.

Let’s convert Alexa’s traffic rank reach to numbers of people.

quantcast visitor numbers

quantcast visitor numbers

On 9/15/2011 according to quantcast, wattupwiththat.com had 27.9 thousand global visitors. Unfortunately, the climaterealityproject.org doesn’t show up in quantcast, for 9/15/2011, so we will have to estimate.

Being generous with the Alexa rank reach ratio between sites, let’s multiply 27.9 thousand times 6, which gives us about 167,000 global visitors for Al Gore’s big party on 9/15/2001

Now going back to Alexa, here is the fun statistic.

time on site

time on site

The average time on site for climaterealityproject.org is about 3 minutes on 9/15/2011.  So for everyone who stayed for an hour there were maybe 30 or so who left after a minute which is normal for boring video. The distribution can vary, maybe some stayed for for 5 minutes or 10, but it doesn’t look good.

Let’s be generous with this as well and say that 1 in 10 stayed around to watch a significant amount of the program. That means there may have been about 17,000 dedicated viewers (estimating on the high side) of the program worldwide.

Now, maybe I’m totally wrong, maybe the Facebook application put this presentation in peoples’ newsfeeds and they watched inside of Facebook. I didn’t install the Facebook ap so I don’t know if it did that. Can anyone confirm?  Maybe it showed up in Facebook friends’ newsfeeds and that was enough for Gore and company to call it a view, even if it was never played.

Maybe all the users took the alternate path of going directly to Ustream.

Or maybe, just maybe, there’s a little bit of storytelling going on and perhaps the numbers are a wee bit inflated.

Depends on your reality I guess.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ken Hall

Don’t tell me that Al of Gore would make something up? Or exaggerate? /sarc.

Kev-in-Uk

Some more made up bulldust from the Warmists it would seem!
However, – using their own figures – and call it 9 million for ease – and ignore the fact that probably half were just curious and maybe some were fanatical repeat visitors/viewers!
according to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
the internet population is 2.1 billion.
this means that 9million out of 2.1 billion people are ‘interested ‘ in AGW.
This is around 0.43% of those with internet access.
Hardly demonstrative of a worldwide ‘fear’ or ‘concern’ is it?
Reply: You just reminded me of this, which I forgot to include in the article above. ~ ctm

QuickieBurialAtSea

uhh..does this mean that as WUWT carried more Gore, length of stay here decreased ?
I wouldn’t be surprised at that .. Al is terrible, even once-removed.

QuickieBurialAtSea

.that should be “once-removed”

I just used the Ustream method.
I plugged in and became the token shill for about 3 hours.
The video stream kept repeating itself.
Maybe some of the segments were live, but they continued to show the same feeds over and over.
Quite pathetic actually.
I even used the online chat.
When I showed up, which was about 4-6 hours into the project, it was mostly drunken jibberish and guys talking about girls.
Not any different than any other chat room.
It had to have been my presence that forced some of the alarmists out of bed, because after about a half hour of me in that chat room, that the rooms started to fill up with sober respondents and the name calling, ad -hominum, and jeering began to take its toll on me.
If this project was suppose to train the alarmist to win a conversation, then the project was a complete failure.
Anyone that stuck around while I was around, would have been embarassed for these fools.
That will be several hours of my life I will never get back.
Reply: Question–did you get to the Ustream via the climaterealityproject.org page, thereby counting as a short term visitor, or was there a way that bypassed the stats I used? ~ ctm

Me

How many of us skeptics stopped by to have a look and almost puked after 20 seconds and left.

TheBigYinJames

Shouldn’t at least one of those graphs be a hockey stick? Don’t bristlecone pines have internet?

I DO NOT HAVE A WEB SITE FOR WHICH I DO NOT HAVE MONEY. If AL GORE IS HAVING 8.5 MILLION VIEWERS IN FACE BOOK, WHY THE SURVEY OF CHIMALAYA.COM DECREASED HIS POINTS? HE HAD 14 points & I had 13. India had 17 points out of that mine is 13.
During 2010 , for 45 days I had 92.86% with out Twitter Account. Wecome to visit in Google search Engine: “Raveendran Narayanan” “Climate Change”

I got pretty much the same results. Alexa seems to disagree even with the basic Gore figure. On Sept 15th, my blog got 4,679 unique IP visitors in 24 hours,
http://sitemeter.com/?a=s&s=s24lumidek&r=6
Alexa translates it to 0.0013% of the Internet traffic. Gore got 0.04% of the Internet traffic on its peak day which is 30 times more than The Reference Frame. 30 times 4679 is about 130,000 unique visitors to the Climate Reality Project website on the very Climate Parody Day. So he either counted each unique visitor about 50 times or the whole figure is fabricated.
I agree it’s almost implausible that more than 20,000 people in the world were watching the boring show for more than a few minutes. Actually, most of the people who spent some research by watching this stuff were people like us, skeptics who view it as a professional duty of a sort.
Because both alarmists and skeptics agreed that this Gore event would harm the climate alarmism case, the event was promoted on skeptical blogs like ours – because we wanted its impact to be larger 🙂 – while the alarmist blogs remained nearly silent about it because they wanted to minimize the impact. This basic maths is totally obvious.
Reply: In the Alexa graph I used, climaterealityproject.org looks like it hit just above 0.05% for that day. These are all rough estimates, especially when trying to estimate the numbers of people who actually watched something for awhile as opposed to bounced, but yes, our numbers match quite nicely. It also roughly matches the numbers from the Facebook event. 66,000 may click on “I will attend”, but you’d be lucky to get 25% of that group to sit and watch for more than a minute. ~ ctm

Disko Troop

Apart from popping in to see Josh’s cartoons I even stayed away from WUWT for Gorefest11. You cannot have too little of Al Gore. If they made AlGore toilet paper I would buy it.

Dagfinn

I suppose the point of the whole thing would be to persuade non-believers, so the believers would feel no need to watch it. So there were probably more who wanted others to watch than who actually watched themselves.

One follower of the true faith is worth 50 Deniers
/Al G

Keith Battye

Me says:
September 20, 2011 at 1:09 am (Edit)
How many of us skeptics stopped by to have a look and almost puked after 20 seconds and left.
————————-
I was one of those. Mind you the video was pretty crappy too.

How many of us skeptics had a look at climate reality project?
Not this one. I did enjoy the cartoons by Josh though, right here on WUWT.

Warrick

If not for WUWT I would not have heard about it. I did not click any links further – seemed pointless. Josh’s cartoons were good though.

son of mulder

“Me says:
September 20, 2011 at 1:09 am (Edit)
How many of us skeptics stopped by to have a look and almost puked after 20 seconds and left. ”
I confess, I confess. But all I was guilty of was rubbernecking. You know, that urge to look at a traffic accident as you pass by.

Steve C

‘Scuse me sitting here looking smug, but I decided that even one extra hit on Gore’s site would boost its credibility more than I was prepared to allow, so I didn’t go near it. Nominations for my sainthood to Anthony, c/o the Vatican 🙂

Leon Brozyna

Or, as his masseuse put it, “Is that it?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The first graphic shows “Reach” but is labeled “Traffic Rank”.
More telling is the Traffic Rank graph for six months. It’ll look even funnier in a couple months to see that one spike and then fading away to nothingness … while WUWT holds steady … month after month, like the Energizer Bunny®

Ron Albertson

There are still some tickets available! You’ll need a thick wallet, but what price is too steep for reality in person?
http://halltickets.org/ResultsTicket.aspx?evtid=1708018&event=Al+Gore&ppcsrc=8086610439&nid=1&eid=QS3&egid=A

Patrick Davis

Even though I thought Obama would be good for the US (And by default the world), it seems not to be the case. US politics seems to be more plastic than I thought!

I got to the videos via the CRP site. If all the video watching was through Ustream, would any of it show up as long term visit to CRP? I think I saw them embedded in a CRP page. Even then, if I’m not actively using the site, web monitors could conclude I had moved on to more interesting sites or had gone to bed, which was a more interesting site anyway no matter who or what I shared it with.
Maggie Fox didn’t go into details about where she got her figures. Probably the most interesting would be from Ustream, but I doubt they’re talking.

Nuke Nemesis

Did you really count this hits, or model it?

marcoinpanama

“How many of us skeptics stopped by to have a look and almost puked after 20 seconds and left”
Guilty as charged. Although the opening commercial was, what, at least 30 seconds, maybe more. If this part counts in the metrics, actual program watching would be much less. Personally it was all I could do to continue eating breakfast while watching “denier” feces hitting a spinning fan. If that’s the way Al Gory addresses the very people he is trying to convince, what can I say. I’m searching for terms here – intellectually bankrupt? Yes. Reptile-brained? Yes. Utterly without redeeming social value? Yup. The last gasp from a rapidly-purtifying meme (Al or AGW – not sure which)? Hopefully.
Geez, just realized that AGW also stands for Al Gore Wrecks (or pick your own ad-hominum W word)

Jay Curtis

Why does he still get air time and page space? Continuing to give the Goracle a podium is like beating a dead horse. He’s irrelevant. Watching Gore and his diminishing flock prattle on is like watching newsreels of the Hindenburg go down in flames over and over and over again. Seriously. Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA
I think it’s just morbid curiosity for most people at this point.

Bob P.

I watched on and off for a couple of hours and logged on again for Al’s conclusion. My contribution probably accounted for 10 visits. I do think many went directly through Ustream as the climate project site did not work for me. So to be fair, you probably should not just tally climate project site numbers for that reason and others (facebook, etc.) you noted above.

John Silver

Love the headline.

Australian Climate Change Minister even less popular than Gore. See the size of his audience!!

h/t yaossxx on Delingpole Blog

The interior of the Earth is also 2 million degrees…. Hello!!!!
It’s not as if the guy won’t say anything to further the cause!

L5Rick

“Al Gore’s big party on 9/15/2001”
Shouldn’t this be 9/15/2011?

Jeremy

Now comes the real test of Gore’s intellect. The world has rejected his message clearly. Can he turn away from a message he has lost, or at least re-examine his alarmism? That’s the tough one. He certainly knows that his work is seeing a non-linear decline in returns. He must face facts at some point, unless he’s completely isolated himself in a bubble and he’s not seeing the reality he thinks he’s professing.

Cwæþ Luboš Motl (September 20, 2011 at 1:21 am)

Gore got 0.04% of the Internet traffic on its peak day which is 30 times more than The Reference Frame. 30 times 4679 is about 130,000 unique visitors to the Climate Reality Project website on the very Climate Parody Day. So he either counted each unique visitor about 50 times or the whole figure is fabricated.

You’re forgetting that because of all the excitement, there were probably between 30 and 70 people crowded around each and every computer, mouths open, tears streaming down their cheeks. Those people count, don’t they?

Dave

“claims 8.6 million views”, interesting how they used views instead of unique visits.

JeffT

Just a simple question guys,
How many Al Gore trained “The Climate Project” connectors do you have in areas of importance, such as business, politics, education ?
I’ll give you a hint to the depth of their penetration – UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, who chaired the last UNFCCC conference (COP16) in Cancun 2010 and will chair the next conference COP17 in Durban in South Africa, is a TCP connector, trained by Al Gore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiana_Figueres
Locate the Paragraph titled ‘Lectures’ and the last sentence in that paragraph.
In Australia, we have Al Gore trained TCP connectors (presenters of the A.I.T. message, notes, video) in business, unions, education, legal.
And that doesn’t touch on the ramifications of the ‘Inconvenient Youth’ – for teens as part of the Alliance for Climate Protection.
Now we have the Climate Reality Project. The Al gore website appears to have taken down The Climate Project, and it is now ‘under construction.’

Daniel H

The UStream info/stats page for the Climate Reality Project shows that there were 484,371 total unique views across all channels and videos. Not sure how the Gore Gang inflated that up to 8.6 million views but there you have it.

Nuke Nemesis

Does Al Gore’s CRAP project claim unique views, or does it count return visitors? If you get disconnected or timed out and reconnect, how many views does that count as?
Or did CRAP gather some data on views, adjust it, extrapolate it and then run it through a model to get 8.6 million views?

CodeTech

Many, many years ago my ISP sent me an urgent email advising me they were going to start charging extra for abusive users of their hosting service. I was aghast… abusive? Really? They claimed I had something like 50,000 hits in a week (this was in dialup days).
I got a copy of their records, and spent a bunch of time laughing. Each graphic, each access, they counted every single communication between a client and their server as a “hit”. For a typical page that would have been 20-50 “hits”. My actual number of visits was more like 1000, spread over a week, between several pages. Maybe, possibly 100-200 actual people. Not exactly an abusive user, right?
Oddly enough, I never heard from them again about the matter.
I wonder if that’s what we’re seeing here? Maybe they’d have to also bundle in all nameserver “hits” while they’re at it… and multiply by the number of google “hits” for their name… and add the Bing “hits” too, just in case.
Whatever the answer is, 8.9 million is complete and total fabrication. As little hope as I might have for the unwashed masses intellectual capacity, those few who care would have visited once, laughed, and left. I don’t know anyone who knew about the thing other than myself from WUWT.
Personally, I hold their claim as yet another example of how people in the AGW hysteria industry will outright lie to get attention. Even my acquaintances that are warmist believers are starting to realize their fears are being preyed upon purely for selfish reasons.

Doug Proctor

I tuned in 3 times to see if there was anything to be gained. I gained the knowledge that the priest’s acolytes were preaching to the choir. I saw nothing that was solid, nothing that challenged me to stop challenging the CAGW story. So I clicked off, mostly over to WUWT and Climate Depot to see if there was any live rebuttal going on.
So I am 3 of the many. But how many “unique” viewers? I was watching a program that had a character assert his importance by repeatedly claiming to have “72,000 unique viewers in 8 minutes!”. The “unique” status, though obvious, intrigued me. How many unique viewers would Gore have had? Or RealClimate, or WUWT for that matter?
Unique viewers are the ones that vote. Those are the numbers we need to understand. The movie character was able to determine it – he was on Facebook, I think. Are these numbers discernible?

ShrNfr

@QuickieBurialAtSea You mean you invented some Gore remover? Gosh, I’d buy several quarts of it to rub on some folks I know just to get them to return to near-sanity. Once removed is a proper use of the expression when referring to Gore’s bs in a gullible person’s mind. Both spellings are proper.

Steve Fox

A number of people here have said they visited the Goreathon. OK, joke about rubbernecking a car wreck is good, but think about it for a moment. Your visit, however brief and accompanied by giggling and vomiting noises, is another on the site counter, and is being used as such. The very fact WUWT has a piece on the numbers indicates their importance politically.
Please guys, don’t go there… the site counter doesn’t know you think Al Gore is a twerp.

Spinifers

I watched the last hour of Gorefest and the counter on the main CRP page was at 8.5 million then. That has to be where they’re getting that 8.6 million number.
But it was clear by the end of the first hour that the CRP counter only went up, never down. It was clearly counting every connection, including reconnections, not unique hits. And in the chat/feeds people were complaining like crazy about getting disconnected, at least during the first four hours.

John Whitman

I did not log onto the Climate Reality Project. And I loved every minute of not doing so. : )
John

No wonder the entire country is in a cold snap… the Gore Effect has gone viral.

John from CA

I attended the 2pm PT session and the last session on the 16th and was gobstruck at how low the number of views were. At 3pm PT the site stated just less than 7M views, by the end at 5pm PT it was about 8.6M views. I found it very curious that 1.6M views occurred in the last 2 hours.
The part I find to be telling, 484,371 unique views related to 532,843 total views of the Ustream sessions. This means only 484,371 people actually took the time to view a session and, of the group that did, only 48,472 bothered to view more than once. Subtract the 24k hits before the webcast started and we’ve got a program that turned the audience completely Off.
If we look at the Total viewer hours for all shows; 16165 days, 21 hours, 28 minutes.
Days viewed (16165 ) in minutes = 1440 minutes x 16165 days = 23,277,600 minutes
Hours viewed (21) in minutes = (60 minutes x 21 hours) + 28 minutes = 1,288 minutes
(23,277,600 + 1,288) / 532,843 Total views = 43.69 minutes / view.
(23,277,600 + 1,288) / 484,371 Unique views = 48.6 minutes / view.
Unless the Ustream numbers are incorrect, 24 hours of Climate Reality with Al Gore turned away a majority of viewers within the first 50 minutes of viewing.

John from CA

I don’t use Facebook or Twitter but found this which implies that the video was not streamed to Facebook.
“Starting a day before the event (Sept 13 Central Time) you grant us permission to post on your behalf. We will only post content relevant to 24 Hours of Reality and climate change, and we won’t post more than a few times an hour. You’ll still be able to tweet and use Facebook normally, and you can revoke our access anytime through your Facebook and Twitter settings. After September 15 (CT) we will stop posting any content on your Facebook or Twitter feed and you can revoke our access.”
source: http://storyballoon.org/blog/2011/09/05/climate-reality-project-facebook-twitter/

Good work Charles.
It’s worse than we thought…

@ John form CA, @ CTM: Wow, you numbers suggest that Climate Reality project was truly repulsive! 🙂
We can guess average time on site by subtracting the viewing time of the 17,000 (proposed by CTM) dedicated viewers. Figure a dedicated viewer watched 8 hours, 17,000 * 8 * 60 = 8,160,000 minutes for dedicated viewers. Subtract from 23,277,600 you get 15,117,600 minutes viewed by 467,371 (484,371-1700) casual viewers for an average time on site of 15,117,600 / 484,371 for 32.34 min on site.
That still seems high to me…I spent about that much time on the site and, being an optimist, I foolishly waited for the programming to get better – I can’t imagine many other people being that patient. 🙂
Whatever way you slice it, the 8m viewers seems like a wish statement.

Scott Covert

“Me says:
September 20, 2011 at 1:09 am
How many of us skeptics stopped by to have a look and almost puked after 20 seconds and left.”
I thought about looking at the program, puked for 20 seconds, and turned off my computer. I think I had a better time than yourself.

John from CA

chiefoptimist says:
September 20, 2011 at 11:42 am
That still seems high to me…I spent about that much time on the site and, being an optimist, I foolishly waited for the programming to get better – I can’t imagine many other people being that patient. 🙂
==========
I agree, an average of about 10-15 minutes is likely. The faithful likely left the program running while they slept 🙂
Since they used other peoples Twitter and Facebook accounts and posted to the accounts a few times an hour, the missing 8 or so million views are text related. Its pretty telling when you send 8 million posts over 11+ hours and still can not get people to view the program.
sample Tweets: http://twitter.com/#!/search/ClimateRealityProject

Robert Clemenzi

As I posted before
The live stats at 11pm (not sure what time zone)
8 moderators
15 viewers (logged on)
101 guests
I saw similar values every time I checked. If only about 120 people were watching at any given time then how is it possible to get 8 million hits? Obviously, one of the stats is wrong.

John from CA

Robert Clemenzi says:
September 20, 2011 at 12:42 pm
===========
Al’s Climate Babble supposedly has 700k+ active members. If 100k have either a Twitter or Facebook account and allowed 4 posts/hour for 24 hours it would be 9,600,000 posts.