Keith Kloor read Tom Friedman's throw away kiss to Joe Romm
“We created a way of raising standards of living that we can’t possibly pass on to our children,” said Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog climateprogress.org.and thought
Eli is not exactly in disagreement with much of this, but he is a look it up kind of guy, so he looked it up on technorati and the Climate Progress is number 3,421, which is pretty good as things go, so the bunny decided to make a league tableThere are plenty of ways to describe Climate Progress.
“Indispensable” is not one of them. The mustache knows better. Unless he’s been living in his own bubble the past two weeks, I have to wonder if something else is going on here.
Real Climate is number 2,791
Climate Progress is number 3,421
Climate Audit is number 7,892
These numbers change with the hour, so take them with a bit of salt. Still, Eli thought it would be fun to look up some of the blogs on the blog rolls of the big three (which one do you think is going to go down in the CBO shakeout)
A Few Things Illconsidered (RC) 57,492
Accuweather Climate Blog (RC) 100,563
Climate Feedback (Nature) (RC) 36,256
Deltoid (RC) 18,791
deSmogBlog (RC) 7,593
Dot Earth (RC) 1,838
George Monbiot (RC) 100,563
In it for the gold (RC) 112,786
Open Mind (RC) 36,256
Stoat (RC) 83,839
and from the other side
Icecap (CA) 73,067
Lubos (CA) 9,751
Prometheus (CA) 27,383
Rank Exploits (CA) 176,452
Warwick Hughes (CA) 259,213
Watts up with that (CA) 2,681
World Climate Report (CA) 26,873
and he got bored Where are you?
UPDATE: So Rabett Labs invested in better software.
I don't know but I'm having big trouble finding you... It seams like your front page don't want to come out of the burrow!
ReplyDeleteI'm at 1,130,984
ReplyDeleteStill some work to do...
LOL Separated at birth?
ReplyDelete"is a look it up kind of guy"
That is exactly the sort of thing I would do
followed shortly after by "and he got bored." (eg "That's curious" http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/climate-denier-science-bought-and-paid-for/ ... I love it
I had no idea Lubos ranked so high ... that's interesting. I wonder what rank correlates with? ease of understanding? length of URL? age? other?
72,397
200,000 ish and 300,000 ish... not bad at all with that low activity... about the same as the most visited pseudo sceptic blog in Sweden.
ReplyDeletethink the rank comes from how many links you get and also depending on how high rank the page linking to you has...
That twit Lubos is more popular than he Nature blog?! Expect Prometheus to fall in rankings. Real Climate removed a link to his blog after Roger Pielke Jr. accused Gavin of "stealing" an idea from Steve McIntyre. (Roger is so pathetic)
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that much of the traffic going to his Pielkiness came from people jumping off the RC page.
"I wonder what rank correlates with? ease of understanding? length of URL? age? other?"
ReplyDeleteOnly the Technorati knows
What is a "Technorati Ranking?"
"A Technorati Ranking relates to the number of sources that point to a particular weblog relative to other weblogs. The more sources referencing a weblog, the higher the Technorati ranking. The Technorati Ranking for a blog is displaying in URL Search results, Blog search results, and is dipslayed in the account profile for all claimed blogs."
and technorati authority??
"Linking is arguably the truest measure of a blog’s influence, and more importantly, in a world without filters or controls, linking is the control....If you publish information that is unprofessional or untrue, other bloggers won’t link to you and you’re out of the ecosystem.**** For this reason, Technorati Authority is determined by the number of blogs linking to your blog. The more links, the higher your authority"
****Yes, indeed. As we all know, nobody ever links to you when you get things wrong or act "unprofessionally" [one mans professional is another man's quack -- HA]
Horatio is at the bottom of the heap (and damned proud of it), but, if'n he ever did get a hankering for that rarefied air at the top of Blog Mountain, like the Rabett, he knows how to burrow. ~@:>
Links are lovely, but tunnels are titillating.
Everybody uses technorati? I guess I'd better sign up then! I've been studiously ignoring technorati for all the years I've been blogging... oh well..
ReplyDeleteNew blog rank: 2,505,917
Old blog rank: 3,324,847
Political diary rank: 4,776,919
I guess it takes a while to move up? :-)
Ah but your G&T number is 1!
ReplyDeleteHoratio, it's what you do in tunnels that is titillating.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIndeed...
ReplyDeleteThe tunnels are lovely, dark and wet
But Horatio has Denialists to get
And miles of "skeptic" traps to set
Miles of "skeptic" traps to set.
I hope for a recount soon; surely up in the 5 digits this week as traffic has tripled...
ReplyDeleteHot Topic is (at the moment) #138,419 on Technorati, but #20 in NZ (local measure), of which I am unfeasibly proud.
ReplyDeleteWrong way up is #2762, edging out RC.
ReplyDelete< sigh> ....... < /sigh>
Well, my new traffic burst moved me up but only a few notches, still stuck in six digits.
ReplyDeleteWhich raises the question of what their algorithm is.
I think they may penalize Blogger sites because trackbacks (which turn out to be a spam channel anyway) don't work. And the algorithm may have a very long memory, so older sites may be rewarded.
So maybe we shouldn't pay too much attention to these numbers. If we could get a half dozen or more participants to gether, we could set up common stats tracking (I use the free version of statcounter) and compare some objective count to Technorati's rankings.
I think the algorithm is (a) number of other blogs that link to yours in the last 6 months (authority number) and (b) how recent those links are.
ReplyDeleteThat's "authority". I am starting to have doubts about the popularity number which they don't define at all.
ReplyDeleteHow does the Stoat best the Rabett? I'd never thought of that. William posts so rarely.
ReplyDeleteThe Rabett has more content and more fury as well - and poetic commenters.
Flavius Collium
ReplyDeleteHow does the Stoat best the Rabett?
Technorati seems to be based purely on links not traffic. If you look at the sidebar of scienceblogs.com, all science blogs link to all other scienceblogs.com with a pull down menu. WUWT changed URL's late last year; technorati doesn't add in links from the old address.
There are all sorts of metrics you can look at if you wish to. The traffic won't bost MT's technorati rank very much, but it does show on Alexa.com.
See Alexa for Tobis
Alexa.com and Compete.com are free services that try to estimate traffic but they only provide statistics for a subset of blogs. ( Alexa won't count scienceblogs.com blogs because they are in sub-directories. Compete won't show data for blogspot bogs or scienceblogs.com ) Both compete and alexa will give incorrect values for everyone, but they can be useful for comparing relative popularity of blogs in the same niche.
Lucia, in your comments on Tobis, you expressed yourself as if you didn't know about the industry funded climate science disinformation campaign.
ReplyDelete"Ok. So, who are the private interests committing malfeasance? Which disagreements fall under the umbrella of “any” controversy?"
If my understanding really is true, here are some documents that explain some of it.
Fossil fuel industry funds certain think tanks who then pay certain people to deny well established scientific explanations which have a lot of evidence behind them. You can do more research yourself, but denying this would be foolish. The same happened with tobacco, and has happened in other cases too. Are you denying this or no?
http://desmogblog.com/research-sponsors-behind-heartlands-new-york-climate-change-conference
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8258
It is mind boggling how anyone who has read a few climate blogs for more than a few weeks can act all "gee, who would they be?" on this.
There's so much material on the net about this, I don't think it's a secret to any sane person with a tiniest clue of the climate politics.
Hence it was easy to use by Tobis. Roger Pielke Jr certainly knew what he was talking about.
There are a lot of other things wrong with your assessments too, this is just one example.
Gravityloss--
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm aware of the current conference. If Tobis was referring to one piddling little conference, he should have said so.
As for the rest that is insinuated in those posts: Don't you think it might be more convincing if Desmogblog or prwatch gave a breakdown for the supposed $47 million telling us the time period, who specifically got money and for what?
Both posts allude to Heartland which does many many things other than climate. Their reps appear regularly on tv news program talking about many non-climate related issues. (This are very frequent guests on the Chicago public stations, but also on national stations.)
Because as far as I can tell, all the evidence for the vast, orchestrated well funded disinformation campaign is similar to what you link: They mention Heartland funding a picayune conference and then insinuate that every penny anyone of the sponsors has ever given to any think-tank at any time went specifically to fund some sort of climate disinformation campaign. Are you under the impression there are no other "conservative causes"? There are tons. Climate is hardly the most important political issue for conservatives. So why would anyone imagine that very much of that money goes to climate?
It's amazing to me that you think people would read those posts and believe those blogs have shown anything to demonstrate the existence of a massively funded disinformation campaign on climate.
That said: if there is such a campaign, I'm sure you should be able to demonstrate it. Instead of linking to these utterly vague unconvincing blog posts, why don't you contact desmogblog and prwatch, and ask for the various funding breakdowns. When you find them, post them at your blog.
When you do, if you want me to read what you discovered, feel free to ping my blog or leave a comment at mine. I don't hang out here much, so it's not likely I'll read your comments here.
Lucia asks "Ok. So, who are the private interests committing malfeasance?"
ReplyDeleteit's really no secret.
Anyone with a brain and a mouse finger can figure this one out.
Union of Concerned Scientists put out the report Smoke Mirrors and Hot air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics
to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science produced by Union Of Concerned Scientists (you know, REAL scientists)
So, Lucia, you say there's not much besides "one piddling little conference"?
ReplyDeleteGet real.
It's in the media as well. Just look at Fox news, Steven Milloy there, they quote "pacific research" etc etc - there's ample evidence.
You know very well what is being talked about. You can pile whatever unreasonable demands of proof and sourcing and "he doesn't talk about this or that" on Michael Tobis - but that doesn't make it justified.
I'm not starting to play your game.
I think this discussion ended, reason being a lack of honesty from your side. You're a truly despicable person who only plays to be innocent and open minded.
Well, we have SoonandBaliuns being funded by the Koch Bros., Exxon and the Marshall Institute,
ReplyDeleteRoger Bate's hit job on Rachel Carson, being funded by Philip Morris to distract the attention of the World Health Organization from tobacco (he may not have gotten the money put directly into his pocket, but certainly looks like it did get thrown close to him),
oh, and for example S. Fred's opus on how environmental smoke is good for your health being funded through the Tobacco Institute
and finally, how the tobacco and asbestos industries sponsored the so called Heidelberg appeal.
Actually we have lots more. And yes, Lucia,hard as it is to trace, not all the tracks have been covered.
Lucia is an acronym for disingenuous??
ReplyDeleteAnon: Based on what you link to, your gripe is one company: Exxon. Is that what Tobis was referring to?
ReplyDeleteMy difficulties with Tobis comment was its lack of clarity.
If someone wants to be clear they are referring to the information in the pdf by the Union of Concerned Scientists, why not write: "Back in the early to mid 90s, the CEO of Exxon didn't believe in climate change and funded groups who agreed with him. He managed to convince others. This is unfortunate, because he was wrong. "
Tobis intimations of some unnamed vast well organized conspiracy without naming detaiis makes it rather difficult for people to know he is referring to a rather unsuccessful one company campaign. It also makes it difficult for people to estimate the amount of money involved-- which seems modest as vast conspiracies go. It also makes it impossible to connect Tobis's intimations to the clearly tendentious articles by the union of concerned scientist, who, not content to provide a 2 page document highlighting real evidence feels compelled to lard the thing up with irrelevancies like the history of tobacco thus expanding it to 26 pages.
If you don't like the fact that I ask Tobis to write more specific accusations rather than flinging around what sound like vague allusions to non-specific conspiracy theories, fine. But when if you, or Tobis believe you facts on your side, it's better to be specific than vague at the outset rather. It's true to suggest those who aren't sure what you specifically are alleging, could have googled to learn what you meant to communicate is both idiotic and lazy. Hoping they will come return to the bottom of a comment thread to read your answer is likely to be ineffective.
Eli: Linking to a bunch of papers showing there was once a conspiracy about tobacco is likely to convince people you don't have evidence to support the contention there is a conspiracy about climate change.
Tobis has complained his favorite bloggers seem to have been ineffective at reaching their goals. Think about it.
Western Coal, the Koch brothers, the list goes on and on Lucia. The reason why the tobacco stuff is relevant, is that the "sceintists" are pretty much the same crew, Singer, Seitz, Lindzen makes an appearance, etc. and the Thnik Tanks are exactly the same. Wake up.
ReplyDeleteLucia says "It's true to suggest those who aren't sure what you specifically are alleging, could have googled to learn what you meant to communicate is both idiotic and lazy."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of idiotic and lazy.
So, Lucia when are you going to actually get around to publishing (ie, in coherent form rather than rambling gibberish with claims that change almost daily) some of your earth-shattering discoveries in climate science?
Lucia is not stupid (though she's not anywhere near as smart as she obviously thinks she is. Tamino skates circles around her)
ReplyDeleteThat just leaves one possibility (and it's not lazy)
hey, maybe lucia should send some of her stuff to "International Journal of Modern Physics B".
ReplyDeleteif Gerlich and Tscheuschner just got their tome "falsifying" the atmospheric greenhouse effect published there, perhaps there is some chance that they would publish Lucia's "IPCC falsified" gibberish as well.
just a suggestion.