If you want to know how popular a blog is you can go to Alexa and check its rating.
A week or so ago blogger Tim Lambert listed the ‘Top ten right-wing Australian blogs’ based on their Alexa-rank.
The lower the number the more popular the blog.
Tim Blair blitzed the field with a score of 50,087, followed by Catallaxy at 225,663 and then Gravatt.org at 488,606. Number 10 at a whooping 3,394,951 was the Australian Libertarian society.
A reader of this blog sent me an email asking why I wasn’t listed.
Based on this morning’s rating I would have apparently come in third, with an Alexa rating of 477,565 (and 311,301 in the last week).
I reckon I wasn’t listed because this is not a right-wing blog.
Tim Blair has done a list of popular left-wing Australian blogs and I’m not there either. Then again this is not really a left-wing blog.
This has really developed into a blog for progressive environmentalists.
After all, as Professor David McKnight has explained, the good guys are always the progressives.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer. Perhaps your blog wasn’t listed, because, well, it wasn’t on the radar of those guys?
Your blog came to my attention when you showed up on the Crikey radar, as having some sort of objective position on what was going on with whaling in the Australian Antarctic Territory. I remain incredulous with your blog posts.
You have been careful not to *actually* proclaim *yourself* as a progressive environmentalist. Can one be a progressive environmentalist, by simply advocating “something needs to be done” (progress) regardless of what direction the progress is in? I have no doubt that yourself and this blog advocate progress, but for whose agenda and on what basis? Well, we know that – the IPA and their funders. It pays the bills, right?
Has anybody done a rating/list of environment sceptic blogs? Better make sure you’re not on that. You raise a good question though. Does your blog rate?
Alexa only collects data from users with the Alexa toolbar. This only works with Internet Explorer.
Think, Yes, and Morgan Gallup only measures those with telephones.
Now Richard, why you obviously don’t like this blog but keep visiting it, it does have an Alexa rating – so it does rate.
Jennifer, it’s also widely known that Alexa rankings are easily manipulated. Their ratings can be regarded as fairly meaningless.
Believe me I wonder why I return to your blog. Just before posting that last comment, I edited off my last sentence that said “What am I doing here?”. I can’t stand the idea that some people might actually believe/accept the environmentally negative rhetoric foisted here. I suppose that makes me a bigot?
jennifer my comment above was not attacking your post! (besides which, your phone analogy is a bad one given the high penetration of phones in households v’s the comparatively low penetration of alexa among blog-reading households)
aren’t prominent blogs on alexa more likely to get more attention from alexa users = reinforcement. you could have a lot of non IE or non alexa users, therefore the alexa ratings prob arent that significant. besides I think that when you get rating numbers as high as yours they aren’t statistically valid
Hey, I am new to Alexa and comparing blogs. It was all brought to my attention this morning by a reader of this blog. I have just now installed an Alexa toolbar.
I was really just comparing myself against two of the better known bloggers using their system of comparison. But hey, maybe it is all just an IPA conspiracy.
Richard, I guess you must get something out of visiting this blog; to see how the other half lives?
With regards the environmentally negative rhetoric, some of it is actually an attempt to discuss environmental issues in a realistic and constructive way, rather than spending too much time away with the fairies. Wishing for something that is unattainable, or striving to save one aspect of the environment at the expense of another may not be the best use of our resources. Similiarly, saving or preserving something that is of little consequence because it makes you feel good is pure self-indulgence. If that pointless sense of achievement distracts your/our attention away from something that is actually highly significant, such self-indulgence has a negative environmental outcome. It seems to me that some people can’t distinguish between issues that make them feel good and issues that are of real environmental significance.
Boxer – yes, it has been an eye opener. The environmentally negative rhetoric that I refer to is largely from Jennifer, and I recognise that this does lead to *some* (as you say yourself) realistic and constructive discussion. Perhaps this is actually Jennifer’s secret agenda – a personal conspiracy against the IPA conspirators!?
What you have subsequently said is riddled with assumptions. Who is “away with the fairies”? Who is “wishing for something unattainable”? The people that you don’t agree with I would guess.
Prior to following and participating in some of the commentary in the last couple of weeks, I had no particular stance on whaling. Seeing the issues, factoids and science being discussed, I now appreciate what a farce the ICR is; the disregard for accepted science and law being shown by the Japanese whalers; how much venom there is towards Greenpeace/greens/the left; and the extent to which personal politics and highly questionable motives play a part in this “progressive environmental blog”. It is now clear to me that the whaling going on in the Australian Antarctic Territory is wrong. That’s what I have got from visiting this blog. Still haven’t concluded if it “rates” (in the colloquial sense, Jennifer, of ‘is it any good’).
In the spirit of realistic and constructive dialogue; Boxer – perhaps you would elaborate on what issues you feel to be of “real environmental significance”?
I assume that “environmentally negative rhetoric” is anyone who dares challenge the current orthodoxy of impending environmental catastrophe?
If I had little respect for Jennnifer’s blog I would dump it in an instant. Which is not to say that I find much of its content respectable. Indeed, the futility of the AGW debate claws at the my perseverance and yet I retain a genuine interest in politics and the environment.
To that extent, and in reply to Richard’s “Can one be a progressive environmentalist, by simply advocating “something needs to be done” (progress) regardless of what direction the progress is in?, perhaps a little more could be achieved, than mere rhetorical combat.
Many of Jennifer’s earlier posts challenged for the redefinition of Australian environmentalism. Even a new foundation (AEF) was launched and I have often wondered if the expertise and cognitive capabilities of Jennifer’s blog participants could be harnessed to refine policy positions of aspects of actual campaigns, that might produce the kind of tangible progress that Richard (and no doubt many others) would associate with genuine environmental advocacy.
Hi Jennifer, i like your blog, and i’m sure its popular.
But ‘progressive environmentalist’!?
How about ‘skeptic of environmental orthodoxy’?
Neil,
What you suggest would require participants to move beyond ‘left’ and ‘right’ politics and commit to simply taking an evidence-based approach.
Steve,
Thanks for the positive comment. I was playing on the left’s claim on the word ‘progressive’ …
But, there seems to be limited understanding of my sense of humour and sense of irony, by many readers of this blog.
PS While Wikipedia defines irony:
“Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware, both of that “more” and of the outsider’s incomprehension.”
I don’t mean to exclude anyone, but I do laugh a lot. My favourite post is still my post about superimposing a fish on a graph of climate data – but I sometimes wonder how many readers were laughing with me, at this http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000784.html .
Of course sometimes I am very serious.
As far as the blog being worthwhile, I can’t see why evidence based identification of problems, policies, solutions, and outcomes isn’t a good start, isn’t intrinsically useful, and believe this can ferret out many of the errors of other initiatives. I too find the unnecessary personal comments annoying but they come from all directions, and that’s part of freedom of expression. Honest criticism never does any harm – where there is spin becomes obvious after a while. As far as there being a “hidden” agenda somewhere- where is evidence of that – from Jennifer? From the commentators – those who use pseudonyms should perhaps get rid of them (or justify them) if they think hidden agendas are a big issue and they want to be more credibly “spin-free”.
It’s a great blog Jennifer – free speech all round and the debate’s are always informative , mostly polite and at times , very amusing!
I’ve been reading blogs for as long as they’ve existed and in my view you’ve been able to avoid the pitfalls (so far) which make many of the most popular a big yawn after a while;
1.Many bloggers are just too predictable. It’s a bit like Media Watch ; after a while you don;t really need to tune in to know what they’ll say about any given issue.
2.Such blogs start to attract a coterie of the like minded and the self indulgent re-enforcement of the “line” ceases to be interesting.
3.”Answer the argument before you attack the motive” ( or something like that) was a principle I read somewhere. Many bloggers just can’t accept that someone with opposing views might hold them in good faith.
4.Many bloggers take themselves far too seriously – no sense of humour at all!
All the best!
As far as I can see, this blog is neither right or left wing, though the usual my opinion is more important than yours stuff creeps into comments from time to time.
Usual suspects, whose own thought must not be challenged bigotry occurs.
As for enviro issues if a topic is discussed in posts usually both sides are explored.
Anyway I’m happy that blogs like this rate well, because it means that I’m not alone in the interest.
As for argey bargey from time to time, if that didn’t happen then we would still be travelling in one dimension on a flat earth. Stoning heretics.
Teach, congrats on the blog even the norty kids can come and make sense of some issues.
Detribe – if you are meaning mine, I have linked my blog where my name is in plain site. I just started using Ender when I first started commenting on the ABC forum many years ago and it has become a habit I guess.
The term “environmentally negative rhetoric” has nothing to do with ecology. It is symptomatic of a political tribe refering to statements that are adverse to the political objectives of that tribe.
Iam a third generation forest owner. My grandfather was forced to clear a perfectly good forest on pain of forfeiting his land title and any improvements he made over the prime 15 years of his working life. In spite of this, he set aside areas of forest for their intrinsic ecological worth.
Each generation since, including my children, has made sacrifices to expand that forest to a point where 80% of our net worth, including our superannuation, is tied up in assets of an ecological nature.
We have records of submissions dating from 1959 to 2004 promoting the benefits of retained vegetation in a productive landscape. At no point in any family discussion that I can remember, has there been any departure from the notion that our own well being was inextricably linked to the ecological health of our surroundings.
As Thomas Grey wrote;
“Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, their sober wishes ne’r learn’d to stray.
Along the cool sequester’d vale of life,
we kept the noiseless tennor of our way”.
But like so many of our kind, whenever we come in contact with “committed environmentalists” our flesh begins to crawl. Whenever we hear the word “sustainable” we reach for the axe. For these are the glad rags of a foreign cult. A cult for whom no word is binding, no principle is sacrosanct and no knowledge or effort is respected.
They rarely own land, let alone trees and creeks because they concentrate in highly urban areas. They bear no responsibility for their negligence and weigh no burden of stewardship against any obligation to their forebears and progeny. They eschew procreation but claim to be experts in intergenerational equity.
And worst of all, they are like the hot summer firestorms their policies have promoted, they will never, ever, be part of the solution.
Sounds like you’ve got that committed environmentalist pidgeonhole pretty well worked out for yourself there ian.
i like your writing, its poetic almost – full of emotion – would make a great newspaper opinion piece (not taking p1ss, i’m serious).
There might be understandable historical reasons for your emotion, and i would like to hear more about why
– you reach for the axe when you hear the word ‘sustainable’
– why owning land is a measure of expertise/worth/knowledge/correctness?
– ditto for trees and creeks
– why living in an urban area is a meaningful indicator to you, esp. given that something like 80% of Australians live in an urban area.
– why you think it is significant that the observation ‘they bear no responsibility for their negligence’ might apply to whoever it is you are talking about, in a way that it doesn’t to some farmers, some foresters, some businesspeople, some blog owners, just about anyone?
Your emotion is inspiring, but that doesn’t make your approach to environmental issues and discussion practical or useful, and doesn’t mesh well with the ‘evidence=based’ approach held in high regard on this blog.
I fit your stereotype in many regards, well at least i don’t own land and live in an urban area.
I’m sure if i tried i would have no trouble finding a mind-blinkering stereotype for a 3rd generation forester who lives in a rural area and owns a creek too.
Ian – but are you not a “committed environmentalist” By your words you care about the environment – farmers and foresters can be committed environmentalists as well. A sustainable farm or forest is in balance.
Factory industrial farming or foresting is neither sustainable or balanced and will end with the oil age.
You must have come up against some pretty radical greenies to form these ideas and I am with you as radicals either green or anti-green are seldom correct. The solution for the long term will be somewhere in the middles as always.
Richard
I would see the belief that we can strive for a zero impact upon the environment as unattainable and those who seek such an outcome as being away with the fairies. Our impact is massive and will continue to be so and we should spend more time identifying the things that could tip us into a prolonged collapse and less time using iconic but trivial issues to further political positions.
The whaling thing troubles me as an example. Tim Flannery said (and he is hardly a stooge of the IPA) that hunting minke is of little consequence; they are plentiful and have the intellects of sheep. Up to that point I used to be more in the “whaling is immoral” camp. I now think that if Greenpeace spent the money that they must be pouring into that boat of theirs on establishing sustainable forest practices in SE Asian rainforests, they would achieve something tangible and important. But it would make boring television, so they spend their days dashing about in rubber ducks because those images fill their coffers. They do want to save the planet, but they are not making much difference by saving a marine sheep or two. The anti-whaling campaign has become a means to an end (make Gpeace financially secure so that they can really save the planet), but most people probably think that saving whales is actually making a contribution towards saving the planet.
Similarly, the continuous focus upon the end of all things can be counterproductive. It’s not that I think the planet is totally bomb-proof and couldn’t collapse no matter how hard we try, but “the end is nigh” nonsense just encourages people to enjoy the short term and disregard the future. More productive to seek better ways of growing the economy and reducing the environmental risks at the same time. There is no way we are going to stop China reaching our standard of living and doubling the present level of resource consumption in the process. We won’t go back to mud huts voluntarily and we have to expect others to want a McMansion too.
Back to whaling – I do have concerns about the way whales are killed, and more effort spent improving the technique and less time spent striving for a total ban would seem more productive. The problem with hunting is that it is untidy. Predators normally eat their prey and the prey dies at some point during the meal or during the subsequent clean-up by the scavengers. The natural world is red in tooth and claw, and so is whaling. The Bambi fallacy is a fairy story. I would much prefer to see more effort put into a quick kill and less time trying in vain to stop the practice altogether. I don’t think hunting species recovering from near extinction is acceptable, regardless of the practices used.
My guess is that comments about urban opinion makers refers to the fact that urban dwellers mostly are less affected directly by environmentalist inspired policies than the farmers, who seem to rankle (perhaps for good reason) at the way government red-tape and restrictions hit them directly, and often not seeming to make any environmental sense to them. Most urban people seem to be unaware of this problem. Its similar to the issues created by rich western NGOs passing all sorts of penalties on to the third word poor in the name of precaution. This is not an example of “name calling” and “prejudice”, but perceived grievances that need to be addressed and prevented if resentments are to go away.Its a case of those who invent the rules not being those who most directly bear the costs.
It short it’s politics not science. It’s the reason why Greenpeace operated through Network of Concerned Farmers in the bush.
PS No wasn’t thinking of you Ender- and nice to know you’re upfront – gives you extra credibility in my eyes. The other thing that gives credibility is admission and crrection of errors when they are made.
Hi detribe,
I’m not willing to accept that farmers are somehow more affected by environmental policies than urban dwellers. You could only say that if you don’t work in the property industry, have never tried to build a new house, don’t have a garden, don’t own a car, don’t litter, don’t smoke, dont wear fur, etc.
Perhaps the difference is that farmers livelihood is affected, whereas for urban people it is lifestyle.
And yet, I think it is unfair to compare farmers (a profession) with urban dwellers, which isn’t a profession.
If you Just look at professions, the livelihood of property developers, builders, car manufacturers and most manufacturing industries is as directly affected by environmental policies as farming.
Ian – so you’re a 3rd generation land owner in the Byron Bay area are you. Well lucky you. I’m a 3rd generation labourer’s son – so up yours (mate!). Gets back to cockys and shearers doesn’t it?
Now look what you’ve done – you’ve got me all angry.
“Whenever we hear the word “sustainable” we reach for the axe.”
Careful Ian, they’ll want to ban axes next.
Phil, was that a “Latham” moment?
Aren’t axes already banned? crap, i’ll draft a letter to greenpeace about this oversight tonight….
Why should the likes of Ian meet the radical greens “somewhere in the middles as always”? That smacks of compromising to a radical position that is already unsustainable.
This constant appeasement to any radical elements whatsoever is madness.
As one who spend all one’s life working for them in one way or another – you get a bit tired of the X-th generation higher-than bloody mighty private-school land-holder stuff. Then they put the boot into those suburbanites whose Daddy didn’t leave them a bloody excellent piece of natural resource. We should nationalise the bastards (but we’re too nice).
Anyway – I’m over it now, he says adjusting his shirt collar. Sorry for losing my composure. Thought I was in the Great Northern bar for a moment.
Rog, he shouldn’t. but he should be sure that he finds practical open-minded people with whom to work and associate, and that also means ensuring that you are not on a radical end of the spectrum youself.
Ian’s email above could be interpreted as radical, or, perhaps worse, as elitist, or both.
Why Steve, does Ian come around to your place and berate you over the mess on your kitchen table?
Too many people trying to tell others what to do.
Arn’t we so smug in here
sorry rog, i’m not following you?
No Steve, I see that.
Whats with the “?” inflection at the end of a sentence (gawd I hate that, say what you mean dont deflect it onto someone else).
You have stopped beating your wife?
I’m feeling at lot better now after a Bex, herbal tea and lie down. What is this thread about again? (Apologies for the “?”).
Its about fishing?
heard this bit this morning on the local ABC (down Satan!) about barramundi being imported from Java – they come fresh in cyrovac bags.
Barstards!
its our fish!
rogster,
people like to put question marks on the end of statements in the blogosphere, because it helps convey something about tone. eg. i was trying to convey that i wasn’t having a go at you for not being clear, but that i was genuninely asking a question. sorry to annoy you.
To return the favour, i get annoyed by people who make anal and trivial points about things like spelling and punctuation.
errr Steve – It’s “e.g.” and “i.e.” and capital “I”
(in response to rog:) aust imports macadamias & eucalyptus products too. other countries are leaps ahead of us in developing cultivars of own natives for a variety of uses: wood, land mngt, decorative plants and cut flowers (valuable market), health products etc. Next we’ll be importing roo
Irony, in a nutshell, is implying the opposite (or something contrary) of what your words would normally mean at face value. eg if you said “progressive environmentalists” but actually meant “regressive environmentalists” heh heh.
that’s a bit of a wacky definition of irony (above) from wikipedia. Given that wikipedia is edited by lots of americans, I think that it’s a REALLY GREAT source for a definition of irony.
**News item:
SAN FRANSISCO MAN BECOMES FIRST AMERICAN TO GRASP SIGNIFICANCE OF IRONY
SAN FRANSISCO — Jay Fullmer, 38, is the first American to comprehend the concept of irony.
“It was wierd,” Fullmer said, “I was in London and, like, talking to this guy and it was raining hard and he said, like, great weather, or something like that.”
Said Fullmer: “And I thought, wait a minute, it’s like, no way is it great weather.”
Fullmer soon realized that the other man’s ‘mistake’ was deliberate.
“This guy was pretty cool about it,” Fullmer said.
Fullmer, who is 39 next month and married with two children, aged 8 and 3, planned to use irony himself in future.
“I’m like saying it all the time now.” he said. “Weekend last I was like grilling steaks and I like burned them to shit and I said ‘great weather’.”
Israel grows more Australian flowers than we do; they are handy to the northern markets, dont have the indigenous pests and work harder.
Ironical isnt it?
Steve, here’s a few spare”.. .. .. ..”, insert where best needed
This link to the Latest New Scientist is about PR and polly spin. Slightly off topic but gooood.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8615
No doubt the results of this work will be immediately incorporated into future speech delivery workshops eg to increase the use of personal pronouns + exception words.