The well funded, well organized, global skeptic network laid bare /sarc

Gosh, according to Leftfootforward, we skeptics are just a step away from global media domination. I suppose it didn’t occur to the people that researched this and drew up the network diagram that both sides are about equal in the “networking”. Yet only one side is “bad”.

“A fascinating new study commissioned by Oxfam and produced by digital mapping agency Profero has shed new insights into the way climate sceptics’ networks operate. The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.

Profero’s study analysed online coverage of the “Climategate” debacle that broke last November, tracking its progress from fringe blogs to mainstream media outlets over the ensuing weeks and months.”


Stuart Conway, the study’s co-author, declared simply that “there are no progressive networks” – just hubs of activity here and there, lacking interconnection.

Which one is the "network" and which is the loosely connected hubs of activity?

I have to laugh at that, because when you look at the graph they prepared above, both sides look like “just hubs of activity here and there, lacking interconnection”

About the closest thing to an interconnection that exists is a blogroll link, seen on blogs worldwide. I have one, so does everybody else on that diagram above. Are blogrolls the new network hive mind? Does noting an interesting story on another blog peg me as being a climate community organizer?

Apparently they never considered that maybe, just maybe, the Climategate story spread from blogs to MSM because it was real news?

Of course, it’s all speculation on their part. Nobody at Oxfam or Profero contacted me to ask any basic questions (and I’m betting none of the others either) like:

Are you part of an organized effort? (No – I blog because I like it, it gives me a sense of satisfaction, and I think it is important. For me it is like my old broadcast TV job, but using a different medium to send words and pictures. I started blogging because I had an offer to do so from my local newspaper, who still maintains a blog link to WUWT on their Norcalblogs.com website.)

Are you funded by a central organization, like the Soros sponsored Think Progress/Climate progress blog, the DeSmog Blog’s Hoggan and Associates PR firm, or Realclimate whose servers are funded by Environmental Media Services ? (No – though Climate Depot is apparently funded by CFACT, there’s no central funding that I get or any of the others get as far as I know, but ask them. As I see it we are just a loose knit group of like minded people. The closest anyone could say is a central funding source would be Google Ads, for which the blogs that have them get a few cents for each click.)

Do you answer to or are you guided by climate denier overlords? (No – but my, employees, wife and kids raise holy heck with me for spending too much time in front of the computer reading and writing blogs.)

Did you time your blog post announcing the CRU email hack/leak to influence the Copenhagen Conference? (No – that’s just when the files were dropped in my lap, and I waited two days for confirmation before writing about it. Ask the hacker/whistleblower what his/her motives and timing considerations were.)

It’s funny how somebody can write a social networking study and not ask the subjects being studied any questions. Quality research funded by charitably given British pounds –  surely they could do better. Or, maybe they didn’t want to.

About these ads

250 thoughts on “The well funded, well organized, global skeptic network laid bare /sarc

  1. Hmmm…a Social Networking study that shows no social activity and no knowledge of networking…maybe they should be working in the Climate Science field?

  2. Oh, admit it. You live on an island shaped like a human skull and have armies of flying monkeys at your command (or maybe robots).

    We all do.

    REPLY: No, I have Screeching Mercury Monkeys at my command. Big difference. – Anthony

  3. LeftFootForward is obviously a progressive joke. I quite like it except that their content is baseless and ludicrous when it comes to that tree diagram. The links aren’t even accurate either e.g. W.U.W.T could easily be linked to anything because it takes interesting stories from anywhere. The IPCC has no links to anything except Roger.. *laughs*. Yes it’s not like you could link RC or NASA or Nature or any of the media to them..

    I don’t know what on earth that diagram is supposed to represent, it’s funny though, thanks.

  4. Seems to follow the general pattern, i.e.

    Climatology: Belief->Confirmation

    Science: Observation->Theory->Testing->Improved Understanding

    Science != Climatology

    Where != means “does not equal”

  5. Alarmist projection at its finest:

    RealClimate, funded by unwilling taxpayers and run during work hours by Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, William Connolley, etc., and funded by George Soros through Fenton Communications. Climateprogress, funded by George Soros’ string puppet Joe Romm, etc. And the new “Climategate Chairman,” funded by the heavily pro-AGW Grantham Foundation…

    vs:

    WattsUpWithThat, funded by a few dollars a day in ad revenue, and mostly by voluntary reader contributions.

    Question: Which ones are “well funded and well organized,” and which one is actually serving the general public interest?

  6. What is it about the leftist mind that they feel like they have to control every aspect of human behavior?

  7. What the heck is Lucia doing on the skeptic side!? She’s a self-proclaimed lukewarmer, and takes a decidedly neutral stand on many points. Having read numerous posts at her blog, I have no clue how she can be categorized as a skeptic.

    And the IPCC is in the middle, either neutral or above it all?!?!! Hoo boy!

  8. Hmm… That drawing looks like the MSM Barycentric Model.

    (Sorry ’bout that one, Leif. Couldn’t resist.)

  9. Come on , everyone knows we are funded by Exxon et al. and receive billions of funding whereby these companies have to have two sets of books to hide the billions they are giving us and pay offf the mainstream media ( who are in our back pocket ) to get our message through to the public, Geez!

    Brent in Calgary

  10. That is a disgusting parody of a study, not an actual study. The “studious studiers” might want to re-study their conclusions as to whom is organized.

    I could very easily go ad hominem on Gavin and his fanbois, but I won’t.

  11. Noted at end of thread start:
    ”It’s funny how somebody can write a social networking study and not ask the subjects being studied any questions.”

    Funny or sad or both; not quite sure which.
    One thing I DO know: NOT a surprise; i.e.:
    You were expecting them to produce a methodical, documented, in-depth, objective research and analysis work product ??… NOT.

    Having said the above, let me also stipulate:
    Oxfam has been recognized as ”4-star” charity by Charity Navigator; and is accredited by the BBB and the Institute of Philanthropy. From everything I know they do some good things around the world: Feeding the hungry, and responding to the victims natural disasters and conflicts.
    BUT:
    Oxfam American also now has ”climate change” on top of their ”issues” page; on equal billing with disasters and hunger; along with a feature story about ”environmental justice”. From looking at their website I get the impression that they have acted like a naive and unquestioning child:
    The powers that be that they listened to without question told them that skeptics are all D-worders and ”nutters” in the pay of the big, bad oil companies; out to pillage the world for profit and greed. So they are going on their blissful, starry-eyed and merry way; to save the world from us dark-side skeptics.

    To get a more in-depth flavor of the Oxfam position(s) on ”climate change”, see:

    http://www.oxfamamerica.org/issues/climate-change

    SUMMARY: Maybe they mean well, but good intentions aren’t enough:
    It also matters greatly whether or not you are right. They would have done much better to stick to feeding the hungrey and taking care of disaster victims. . . .

  12. Why is Oxfam WASTING taxpayer funds on media studies? Oxfam Canada received $10M from CIDA last year, ostensibly for global poverty and injustice. I am writing the Minister for Intl Cooperation Bev Oda to investigate why an NGO is funding research far beyond their mission statement and taking a partisan stand on issues when they are, by definition an aid agency.

  13. Perhaps I missed the reasoning that did not include the NGOs like WWF, Greenpeace, etc. They seem to be directly linked to the IPCC. And they have and spread a lot of money around supporting the AGW theory.

  14. The “Supporters Network” has more balls, but the “Skeptic Network has bigger balls.

    Since none of the lines resemble a hockey stick the Data must need to be adjusted.

    Regards -

  15. Thanks for publishing this.

    Oxfam, isn’t that one of the Green UN NGO’s that receive massive funding to keep the poorest of people poor and hungry by denying them access to modern agricultural production methods, like those ugly fossil fuel burning tractors?
    If only the general public would know how Oxfam is squandering their time and resources to produce this kind of crap, they wouldn’t exist for another day.

    So please send out the message!
    The people of the Third World thank you for it!

  16. Just looked at RP, Jr’s blog to see if he noticed. Yes. His ego is apparently healthy enough to interpret it as “center of the universe” rather than lonliness!

    Mwahahaha.

  17. oakgeo (19:36:24)

    You forget, if you dont agree wholeheartedly with them,
    and open your wallet wide for their solar powered vacuum
    then you are a DENYING, BLASPHEMING HERETIC and
    Burning Is too Good for you.

    cheerio

    JimR (a denying blaspheming heretic)

  18. So when do I get the Gazprom-funded fleet of Zil limousines to take me and my bevy of beautiful young secretaries to my luxurious office in the Lubyanka?

  19. I confess, my hands were above the keyboard at all times – – – oops, hold on, my wife is calling.

    BTW, love the chart! I’m going to hang it on the wall right next to the picture of Al Gore – for inspiration! And i’m going to have to cancel my subscription to the WSJ – who knew they were getting all their info from the Huffin(g)ton Post…

  20. I wonder if Oxfam and Left Foot Forward believe the scetpic netwrk is carried only in English. They seems to be unaware thet there are hundred of very important blogs and full website in Spanish, -a languange spoken by more people than is English around the world. Just check our website clicking on my name…

    And what about blogs and websites in Portuguese, French, German, Italian, Swedish, etc.

    But perhaps they don’t care because those who rule the Earth speak English.

    Do you have any idea of sceptical blogs in Chinese? They are the next ones in command… :-)

  21. That’s not right at all, I e-mailed the info to aunt Bessie just about 11:05 no way they could have missed that.

  22. a dood asked:
    *What is it about the leftist mind that they feel like they have to control every aspect of human behavior?*

    For the full answer, you’ll have to head over to http://drsanity.blogspot.com/.

    Briefly, they tend to be people who are afraid to confront their own psyches, their inner selves and their weaknesses. Getting power over others is the only way they can hold onto the image of heroically fighting against the forces of evil, this being carried out in order to avoid seeing into their own withered souls.

    So, in order to compensate for the inadequacies that they cannot admit to in themselves, they must constantly validate themselves as being smarter, better-educated, and of course, more compassionate than “the people”, who they claim to represent, but actually despise.

  23. Don’t see The Economist among the faithful. Also, Geoffrey Lean is a believer at the Telegraph, not Time.

  24. Science Fiction. Proof they are running out of ideas on how to deal with the collapse and are grasping at anything they can hoping to gain some support. Soon they will start eating their weakest.

    Grab a bag of crips and watch the spectacle, it is going to get alot more ridiculous before it gets quiet.

    I love the sound of heads exploding in the Morning.

  25. It makes it very obvious which side has the money.
    Left has a lot of individuals, Right has a lot of organisations, Big organisations.

  26. who knew they were getting all their info from the Huffin(g)ton Post…

    Huffin’ Puffin’ Post?

  27. Oxfam has been corrupt for decades.

    I would never give to them.

    Very little of the collected funds get to the point of need & has been that way for a long time. It all goes in admin.

    Give you an idea.

    My dad died in ’79 & it was going on long before then.

    DaveE.

  28. Anthony

    You should be incredibly proud. Judging from the relative size of the balls, you’re more influential than the NYT, WSJ, NASA, the Met Office, Nature and nipping at the heals of the BBC.

  29. Speaking of Exxon, Mobil, they are missing from the chart. I thought they were our overlords directing our wrath and providing all backing?

  30. What an enormous load of …

    No mention of Greenpeace or WWF on the supporter’s network.

    But, what’s even more absurd, listing the small skeptical network in such a way that it seems to be equivalent to the likes of the BBC, Nature, the World Bank, et al. And the IPCC seems to be set apart as neutral?!! The IPCC, with links to every government pushing the AGW agenda?

    Give me a break already! The skeptical network is a miniscule David next to the supporter’s huge Goliath network.

  31. One of the things that you learn in debating school is that an opponant backed into a corner due to lack of evidence to support his position will attempt to change the reference point of the debate. Introduction of a semi-related issue along with a strong accusation is intended to draw attention away from the central matter and toward a different one. A weak debater will frequently fall into this trap, allowing themselves to be engaged in the discrediting of the often ridiculous charge rather than returning the conversation to the original point.

    If I may, my reponse to Oxfam would be as follows:

    Regardless of how the content in the ClimateGate emails arrived in the MSM, any reading of them reveals collusion, falsification of data, suppression of contrary opinion, political interference and fraudulent scientific conclusions. Is it the position of Oxfam that these accusations are not correct? If so, please provide an analysis of the emails that refutes the conclusions drawn from them. Frankly I find Oxfam’s attempt to divert attention from these matters to be as troubling as the matters themselves. This calls into question not only the fraudulent nature of the science of global warming, but the ethics and motives of Oxfam as an organization.

  32. Oxfam, like pretty much all the UN affiliated NGO’s, long ago abandoned advocacy for the poor they collect money to assist and became a global governance advocacy organization. AGW is just the latest (and most successful so far) “social justice” cause for these folks.

    Even Mercy Corps, which appears to be the least politicized aid organization, has hopped aboard the AGW bandwagon.

    Doctors without borders appears to have the least amount of AGW taint, but I am not certain as their web site has a few stories about it and how it “may” affect their work.

  33. If you just want numbers of skeptics, you could include all of Indea and China as they didn’t believe a word of it from the start. What’s that? 2,465,604,914 people can’t be wrong? (I looked up the populations).

  34. I just noticed a funny error. They apparently can’t distinguish between Richard North and his blog, the EU Referendum.

    Finest research money can buy, yep.

  35. ““A fascinating new study commissioned by Oxfam ”

    Aren’t they the folks always hocking people for funds to feed the starving masses of the world? How many meals for the starving poor could have been supplied for the price of this piece of dreck?

  36. Mr. Watts, you are being charitable in your criticisms.

    Compare the networks:

    One network is mostly a bunch of blogs (no offense, you do excellent work, so do the others).

    The other network has major media outlets and major financial players (BBC, New York Times, World Bank, George Soros and other unnamed financial heavy weights — yes, we know there is a shadowy network of huge money supporting AGW, not to mention government funding to the tune of literally billions of dollars).

    It’s a contest of biblical proportions between David and Goliath.

    We know who won that one — it’s looking right now like a repeat performance.

    Well, in the first contest, there is some thought David had a helping hand from the “big guy” upstairs.

    In this contest this little band of brother blogs has the poor scientific work by the other side — “hide the decline” — and all the rest, ect, plus, excellent work by mostly individuals determined to apply reasonable scepticism and an open-mind to empirical observation & measurement.

    And, frankly, I’d like to think the truth of the physical relationships of the constituent parts of the atmosphere.

    But, hey, that’s what Science is out to find out — what are those physical relationships — that is the question, and, thus, the watch word of the hour.

    And, hopefully, it always will be.

    To a large extent the credibility of Science depends on it.

  37. [snip, way, waaayyyy over the top and would probably set WUWT up for a libel issue]

  38. Oxfam. I wonder how many starving children WEREN’T fed because of their “funding” some basement beancounter to use crayons and a drawing tool to make a graph on 40 or so nodes with edges representing … who knows what? With sizes and positions suggesting … nothing.

    My money for starving children currently goes to World Vision. If they start up with this nonsense I’ll switch in a moment to Compassion or Samaritan’s Purse.

    Nevertheless, the person who put this piece of nonsense together performed a service. How about somebody with a bit of time on your hands (should take a couple of hours) grab this graph and redraw it after a survey of all the “nodes” asking them to declare an estimated total amount of funding from all sources. For those who won’t respond, note this and do a bit of research. Should be easy enough, for example, to get an idea of the total funding for BBC.

    The redrawn graph should have all nodes sized in proportion to their respective funding. You’ll need zoom windows for most of the skeptic side…even if you scale logarithmically. Perhaps a coloring scheme would display better than a size scheme.

    The graph is fundamentally flawed, obviously. Missing on both sides of the graph are key figures and institutions. Where is NIPCC? NOAA? CRU? Why does NASA get a tiny bubble, about half the size of BBC? Does this indicate the author’s acceptance that the alarmist side is 90% propaganda and 10% science? Pielke Sr? What about the US Senate Minority Report? Why is IPCC placed in the dead-center on a dotted line as if it were a neutral entity? What is the meaning of relative placement? If they’re looking for a “denialist” conspiracy, why no mention of that favourite lefty bogeyman, the Heartland Institute? Do the lines connecting bubbles on opposite sides suggest corresponding roles? If so, how does WUWT — whose principal role is to catalog problems in the existing surface temperature superstructure (in other words, a strictly scientific enterprise by amateur scientists) — correspond to “Real Climate”, formed to counter information coming from the skeptic side (a strictly propagandistic enterprise by professional scientists)? Why is there no connecting line or corresponding placement between Corbyn and Climateprediction.net? Etc. A serious effort would have a lot more information, and its representation would be far more useful.

  39. Oxfam serves as yet another of the many NGO front groups for the Marxist-Communist political movements. Oxfam is among the foremost of such organizations to be in the forefront of organizing and promoting the Global Warming, Climate Change, anti-capitalist agendas in furtherance of their stated objectives. Exercising influence upon the reporting of the Mainstream Media (MSM) is one of their stated goals. See for a small and quick sample of the innumerable sources available:

    Marxist media theory & Oxfam’s campaign that international news coverage remains on our TV screens
    I[….]
    The dominant capitalist ideology is the preferred reading in the media. As Marxist-Leninists our perspective draws attention to the political and economic interests promoted in the mass media and therefore the inequalities in media representations.

    For this reason as a Marxist-Leninist we should take concrete action and support Oxfam’s campaign demanding that international coverage remains on our TV screens.

    http://www.midlandscommunists.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147:marxist-media-theory-oxfams-campaign-that-international-news-coverage-remains-on-our-tv-scre&catid=59:personal-articles&Itemid=126

    Bullying is bullying – whoever does it
    Wednesday, 10th February 2010
    Oxfam is a bully. I have several negative opinions about Oxfam: that they have a career ladder which provides large numbers of lucrative jobs and a grandiose set of offices, that a friend working for them in Africa swanned round in a new 4 wheel drive and stayed in smart hotels courtesy of the company but otherwise did not a lot, that they have fallen for the whole Global warming/climate change scam hook, line and sinker, and spent a fortune on a daft advertising campaign about how the poor are going to be drowned in the rising flood waters when the glaciers and the polar caps melt, blah blah, that they are by no means politically neutral.[…]

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/susanhill/5767413/bullying-is-bullying-whoever-does-it.thtml

    Who Is Joris De Bres?
    [….]
    In the late ’90s de Bres became involved in the “Aid Agency” OXFAM as both a trustee and media spokesman. OXFAM, was founded in NZ in 1991 By some of the same old Maoists who had taken over CORSO in the 1970s and ’80s. CORSO was by then a thoroughly discredited shell and a new and more respectable vehicle was needed to solicit the public’s donations and taxpayer funding.

    OXFAM NZ tends to focus its aid into countries that have active revolutionary movements. This is not surprising as its staff, trustees and patrons include a significant proportion of socialists and Marxist-Leninists.

    http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2006/10/who-is-joris-de-bres.html

    Dessima Williams-Just One of Many Socialists Negotiating Away Our Future at Copenhagen
    The Copenhagen “Climate Change” conference is being driven not by scientists, but by politicians-mainly socialist politicians.

    One of the influential players at Copenhagen is Dessima Williams- currently Grenadan ambassador to the United Nations and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.

    Dessima Williams is a “climate change” zealot.
    [….]
    Though U.S. based Williams was a supporter of the Marxist-Leninist, New Jewel Movement, which took power in Grenada in 1979.
    [….]
    Williams also became a leader of the Communist Party USA breakaway group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS).
    [….]

    http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/12/dessima-williams-just-one-of-many.html

    Oxfam is likely to be less neutral on the subject of AGW than Al Gore.

  40. OK, damn I thought my previous post laid the network out bare! ;)

    So here is one that leaked from a very progressive group but it was scrapped at the last minute:

  41. How is the Wall Street Journal on the ALARMIST side? Can anyone point to articles OR editorials they’ve had that support the alarmist view? I’ve read many articles and editorials of theirs and they definitely were quite dismissive of alarmists, but maybe I’ve missed a bunch of pro-warmist ones… Can anyone show me those articles I’ve overlooked?

  42. Size matters. WUWT is much bigger than NASA and about the size of the World Bank. Al Gore is so small he doesn’t even make the chart. Neither does the EPA, NOAA, NCDC, NSIDC, or any or the billion-dollar carbon credit exchanges. Nature Rag is tiny and Vicky Pope is so teensy weensy I had to magnify her ball to read it.

    Looks to me like a handful of independent bloggers have kicked the entire New World Order of aligned governments, vassal scientists, and NGO’s in the spheroids.

    The New Hive Mind wins! Resistance is futile. They will be assimilated.

  43. (z-3) – ball envy, its not how big your ball is, it is what you do with it that counts . . .

    (z-2) – balls all grey? Well, some should at least be green (standing for Big Oil money) and some . . . should be green (for sustainable, clean, etc). Ohhh, that would make them all green. So all of the balls grey does work just as well

    (z-1) – why balls? You would expect some to be oblate spheroids, or tetrahedrons, or gerbils or moles (aka CRU whistleblower) or CO2 molecules . . . .

    (z) – Anthony, you got a lot on your ball!!!!! Congrats . . . . once again it is shown that you ARE THE MSM.

    John

  44. AcORN announced their funeral today. The high ethanol/corn prices starved them to death.

  45. R. Craigen (20:29:53) :

    My money for starving children currently goes to World Vision. If they start up with this nonsense I’ll switch in a moment to Compassion or Samaritan’s Purse.

    I’m with you on that one. They started going on about it a bit, but not in a major way so I stayed with them for the sake of the two children we sponsor. If they overstep, though, I’m out of it, but I’ll warn them first to give them a chance to back down. We all (who support them) should give them a second chance. But not a third.

  46. Well, after Health Care the Dems will use their momentum to go after the Climate Bill.
    The recent flood of frontal attack aimed at the skeptics is all part of the campaign game.
    Never saw such a crappy campaign in my life.

  47. Interesting…note the publicy-funded spheres on the “supporters network”….such as NASA and the MET.

    “Supporters Network” too…what a game in semantics. “I Support AGW.” Huh???

    It is astonishing that this could pass for a study. What scientific purpose does it serve?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  48. Please Please Please add total funding to date for each side of the graph!

    Skeptics Billions?

    And then ask the question: If one side of an argument requires 1,000 times the ammount of funding to proove a theory…… can it be proven at all?

  49. Amazingly, too, Oxfam is apparently on the bandwagon about ending global hunger and policy…while the policies it is supporting [“green” ones] which have, as Christopher Monckton has pointed out, have diverted large amounts of the worlds food production towards bio-fuel, resulting in greater starvation for the world’s poorest.

    What a double standard! Now who is the altruist now?

    Obviously these corrupt individuals are just like the ideologues who run the WWF and Greenpeace et al ad nauseum.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USa

  50. Correction: I said “ending global hunger and policy” I meant “ending global hunger and poverty.”

    It’s late.

  51. As Timothy Ball says, I wish oil companies would pay me so I can afford to buy their product.

  52. Ah yes, that well known, treehugging, Al Gore admiring Wall St. Journal, staunchly supporting climate science against the wishes of its owner, readers and marketing executives.

    I’m surprised Murdoch allows them such leeway.
    Must be the influence of his young, Chinese wife Wendi.

  53. @Anthony Watts (20:22:13) :

    >I just noticed a funny error. They apparently can’t distinguish between Richard North >and his blog, the EU Referendum.

    Anthony, the irony here will be a joy to Dr North, of course, as he is the master of finding these links in the climate sphere. Most notably, the $60 billion WWF story from the other day.

  54. I can’t make much sense of the diagram. Looks to me like a snapshot of a Monte Carlo simulation of a traveling salesman problem or something

  55. So on one side there’s basically a bunch of blogs and on the other the all-powerful mainstream media and the World Bank?

    Why not compare just blogs with blogs? Or media with media. That’d show the disparity.

  56. The Ivory Tower of elitism conveys its message very sucessfully to itself. Witness Judith Curry and her attempt to communicate with the skeptical community…
    “In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news.”

    Even one who wants the data and methods published, is brainwashed by the propaganda perputated.

  57. I have to admit spending way too much time digging raw data up for stations with the longest history I can find in the Western US.
    And getting in my digs on the ‘keepers’ of the data for doing such a lousy job.
    Not a penny has come my way.
    What would I do if I were awarded a grant to do this full time?
    Document all the data that exists and what was lost, what fits together and what has been rendered useless.
    Stations range from pure gold to basket cases.

  58. Progressives against Deniers, left-foot-forward … the AGW scene has become a new playground for all sorts of leftists, uhh sorry … mean “progressives”.
    Saving the world has forever been their specialty, at whatever costs.
    Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot … they all have tried really hard.
    However, the “study” has a similar “scientific” level as AGW itself.

  59. 21 March: UK Tele: Next Parliament ‘last chance’ to stop climate change
    Parliament must also unlock finance for green measures, with incentives and steps to ensure a stable carbon price that makes efforts to cut pollution cheaper than carrying on polluting. ..
    Dame Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam, said: ”The UK must push for new and innovative ways of raising the cash needed to help poor countries cope, rather than repackaging old aid commitments…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7493983/Next-Parliament-last-chance-to-stop-climate-change.html

    no worries…the Tories(?) are prepared:

    22 March: UK Times: Carl Mortished: What happened to Tories and the free market?
    David Cameron’s energy plans show his firm preference for a planned economy
    Consider this. The Tories will take command of energy markets through the Department of Energy and Climate Change in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the National Security Council. Ofgem, the energy regulator, will become “a delivery agency for government policy”…
    He would rig the carbon market with a minimum carbon price to ensure that CO2 is really expensive. He would boost investment in nuclear and renewables and damn coal for eternity. Finally, he would set up a green investment bank issuing green government bonds for public investment in clean energy.
    The question is how all this sits with Tory thinking about the economy, as it has nothing to do with market forces. It is about manipulation, central planning and ministerial control…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7070312.ece

  60. I still say return the conversation to the real issue.

    How about a new version of the chart showing a list of notable comments on the left hand side and an arrow showing it being presented in which ever MSM is thought to have had it first. Then a list on the other side of the inane or evasive responses.

    sort of a “yeah we all a talk to each other. Now… about what those emails SAY…”

  61. No Monckton

    No SPPI

    No John Daly (Dec’d)

    No Niche Modelling

    No Nigel Lawsons group

    No Benny Peiser

    etc

    etc

    …and on and on it goes

    Stupid turkeys couldnt even do their homework properly on this either.

  62. Oxfam – A water melon group professing humanitarian aid ideals when in fact, as its deeds show, its prime interests are elsewhere. The interests of its third world clients are regularly sacrificed to serve its real purpose, the promotion of a Marxist ideological agenda.

  63. Anu (22:04:15) :

    You people write comments for free ?

    A George Soros shell company sends me $5 for every

    22 03 2010
    Anu (22:04:46) :

    comment I write

    22 03 2010
    Anu (22:05:16) :

    here.

    You by chance know of a George-Soros-like skeptic?

  64. Hat Tip to Rick Bradford @ 19:58

    I have been just recently wondering if anyone had done a psychological profile on our Australian P.M. ?

    and

    et voila

    You and condensed Dr Sanity. Kismet.

    That one is going in the file. Thanks

  65. Humm? I am curious, does the “neutral” IPCC have the same relationship with climate audit that they have with the NY Times as revealed by climategate? (I think not)

    The cogent point that socialist leaning goverments worldwide support and promote the agenda of the IPCC and use billions of tax payer dollars is worth repeating. The article is meaningless except to reveal bias and agenda.

  66. D. Patterson (20:30:11) :

    Oxfam serves as yet another of the many NGO front groups for the Marxist-Communist political movements. […]

    That’s where I read it in history of …

    LEFT FOOT FORWARD! MARCH! MARCH! MARCH!

    (Or was it boot?)
    Seems it was maybe in Italy or SS or Hitler Youth… Anyone recall of reading of that same chant?

  67. Smokey (19:31:09) :

    “Alarmist projection at its finest:”

    “RealClimate, funded by unwilling taxpayers and run during work hours by Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, William Connolley, etc., and funded by George Soros through Fenton Communications. Climateprogress, funded by George Soros’ string puppet Joe Romm…”

    I would have thought Joe Romm was a sock puppet?

  68. Dave Stephens (20:54:54) :

    “How is the Wall Street Journal on the ALARMIST side? Can anyone point to articles OR editorials they’ve had that support the alarmist view? I’ve read many articles and editorials of theirs and they definitely were quite dismissive of alarmists, but maybe I’ve missed a bunch of pro-warmist ones… Can anyone show me those articles I’ve overlooked?”

    The WSJ Opinion section is still dismissive of AGW and periodically has major pieces by the likes of Richard Lindzen et al. However they now have an “environment” writer who tends to present the standard “alarmist” “news” items in the main body of “Section A”, without providing balancing skeptical views and comments. He seems to have toned it down slightly after I wrote him an email last year but his pieces are still badly unbalanced and essentially give the standard BS story.
    Lately, they have also had special advertising pages & sections contributed by Organizers and “Energy Companies”. It seems that the WSJ under Murdoch is keen to make $ from “environmentalists” and businesses of any kind. Only the Opinion Section is immune from playing to anyone. And of course they publish letters from all kinds.
    If Obamnable now takes up “Greenhouse Gas Pollution” & “Global Warming”, we’ll soon see where the WSJ really stands.

  69. “Quality research funded by charitably given British pounds…”

    Minor correction, if I may. Oxfam is one of a number of British charities that these days gets a significant amount of income not just from voluntary donations but also from involuntary donations, i.e. taxpayers’ money that’s being hosed at them by government departments and public sector bodies. 2007/08 was the last FY for which their accounts are available online, when it seems that more than 25% of their income – approximately £80 million – was money “from govt & other public authorities” (£70.1m) and “DFID Partnershop Programme Agreement” (£10.4m). The DFID is the Department for International Development, a government department with Cabinet level representation.

    I’m no longer a UK tax payer but it still boils my **** when I see a so-called charity getting a large proportion of its income from money taken from taxpayers at the point of a virtual gun (it becomes a literal one if you resist paying strongly enough). Often the agendas of these ‘charities’ parallel those of the government, so there’s often a cycle of lobbying the government (with taxpayers’ money given by the government) in order to persuade the government to do what it probably intends to do anyway (or why else the bunce?) but might fly better with voters if they can point to pressure from all these altruistic types in the so-called charities.

    In short whatever this research cost it’d be fair to say that the British taxpayer coughed up for a good chunk of it. Yeah, money well spent… not. That Britons are pretty used to this kind of thing is no excuse at all.

  70. “Profero has shed new insights into the way climate sceptics’ networks operate.”

    Oh! What evil and oil will we find coursing through it’s vile veins?!

    “Quality research funded by charitably given British pounds – surely they could do better. Or, maybe they didn’t want to.”

    Or maybe they just don’t know what it is anymore. Objective reporting? Whoever heard of such a thing?! Sounds like something a skeptic would say, and we all know that skeptics are funded liars. Well, sir, we here at Oxfam refuse to let our pure opinions be tainted by objectivity! (note to self: Skeptics are paid by a company called “Big Objective Reporting, Inc”. Opinionate on this in next report)

  71. Oh, and one more thing… Why aren’t Steve Milloy and John Brignell up there? I found WUWT through one or the other, and I think they both link here as well.

    Some study this was!

  72. They totally missed the fact that Stephen Mosher and I are roommates, or as someone over on open mind called it, how incestuous all the deniers are.

  73. I guess from an English point of view, one of my concerns would be the impartial BBC having direct links to RealClimate but no links whatsoever to sceptics

    so much for impartiality

    perhaps they could refund my license?

    /Mango

  74. You should really read Left Foots accompagnyig article, it’s at least as funny, for instance where he calls his supporters to “Link to some of the dirt dug up on sceptics’ funding by SourceWatch; “.

    Also, Mosh has great comments in the comment section below (at least they were there a few hours ago)

  75. Acorn’s demise was announced today. Couldn’t all those old Acorns be converted into nice Green biofuel?

  76. The sceptic network is so tight. When the mails hit the email box we organized a worldwide teleconference. We pulled in the best brains from the republican party, CEI , Shell oil , the tea party movement , the royal order of barycentrists, to decide how we would break the story. It was a well orchestrated machine.
    Mosher on the phone with Mcintyre reading fricking mails to him. Charles calmly making coffee. JeffId out hunting.

    Question: How many skeptics downloaded the mails to READ for themselves?
    how many alarmists read the mails to construct the best defense?

    how come they don’t get that we like to see for ourselves.

    now here is a funny one:

    Raise your hand if you believe in democracy.
    Raise your hand if you believe in a consensus of scientists?

    Now how to you think readers of Alarmists sites would answer those questions.

  77. “he closest anyone could say is a central funding source would be Google Ads”

    Ah ha! Google denialists have been funding your pseudo-science all along! I knew Big Google would stand in the way of cap and trade since the skyrocketing electricity costs (to save the PLANET!) would hurt their bottom line!

  78. If they’d done a weighed diagram it would be pekinese on the left hand side vs mastodon on the right.

    Look at all the organisations on the RHS, papers, journals even government orgs like the Met Office. Mate, you’re outnumbered.

    I do like Roger Pielke Jr’s blog posting, you may be outnumbered but he’s the eye of the tornado.

  79. I used to donate small amounts of money to Oxfam on a monthly basis until I found out that they were advocating a reduction in consumerism in the UK because of climate change. I wrote to them telling them I thought it was none of their business and would be stopping my donations. Coincidently Children in Need another charity to which I make a small donation rang our home and spoke to my wife about us providing an extra donation for Bangladesh. My wife asked the caller what Children in Need’s position was on climate change and he told her they had strict instructions not to discuss climate change with their donors.

    Someone should send this diagram to the Chairman and Director General of the BBC they will be flattered that they are considered the centre of the AGW movement.

  80. What a load of balls!

    I’m sure this is based on a consensus and the science is settled.

    This appears to have been written and reviewed using the same stringent peer review methods as those used by the IPCC.

    At least they have the realists down as sceptics (or skeptics) as opposed to deniers.

    The only serious issue that this raises is why a charity and taxpayer are allowed to commission this sort of disingenuous rubbish

  81. Few volunteer blogs against World bank, Met Office, biggest mas media, government-funded giants like NASA and top scientific bodies like Nature.

    Oh and the mother Nature is missing on the left side.

  82. What a joke, the IPCC neutral!!! That’s a bit like putting some Nazi judge as neutral on Jewish claims.

    And I love the way the “legally unbiased” £4billion BBC and the Guardian are drawn as comparible to this website (a few $thousand) and the climatedepot.

  83. So this study is by Oxfam who contribute to Working group 3. Someone let me know when WUWT are invited to participate on the equivalent working group for the forthcoming AR5.

    Personally I was disappointed not to be mentioned in this report as surely the $5 million dollars a week I receive in funding from Big oil is pretty significant?

    If I get this much just think how much WUWT and CA must be getting. I also hear that Jeff Id over at TAV has just taken delivery of his sixth Ferrari.

    tonyb

  84. Why does the ‘Skeptic Network’ have bigger balls than the ‘Supporters Network’?

    Because they sell more tickets.

  85. We skeptics are scattered and highly varied in the ways we are able to contribute to the effort to debunk the Al Gore/IPCC predictions of climate catastrophy. We have no organization, alliance or formal leadership group. But clearly two centers of power have brought us somewhat together and unified our efforts. They are first, the Minority staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works under Senator Inhofe when Marc Marano was leading the charge and second and most influencial Heartland Institute under Joseph Bast. Heartland brought us together for its conferences and there relationships and work groups became connected. Meanwhile SPPI (Bob Furguson) and Junk Science (Steve Milloy) have lead the charge in Washington. But scattered around the nation and the world and communicating through blogs and emails and a few phone calls, we all continue to do what we do best. The chart above doesn’t begin to cover the bases and as for the lines of connection, in reality they are mire threads.

    There is no significant central source of funding and therefore no central leadership or power within our lose knit group. And, frankly, I like it that way.

    It has to drive Al Gore nuts as we swarm around him.

  86. MangoChutney (00:14:40) :

    The BBC has no links to sceptics because their own pension funds are heavily invested in carbon trading firms.

  87. Greg Cavanagh (20:07:19) :

    It makes it very obvious which side has the money.
    Left Right has a lot of individuals, Right Left has a lot of organisations, Big organisations.

    There, fixed.

  88. Looks like Profero is now in damage control mode:

    http://www.profero.com/unsimplify/index.html

    Some excerpts:

    “Update on the Oxfam online research project into climate change related conversation

    “Who we are & what we were commissioned by Oxfam to do

    “We are Unsimplify, a stand-alone company operating under the Profero umbrella, we’ve been working with Oxfam for a number of months on a project to assist them in helping to make sense of how the growth of online peer-to-peer news generation has and could in the future impact their campaigning activities.

    […]

    “What we set out to do was to help Oxfam’s campaigns team make sense of key online conversations and news generators around climate change and international development issues and their dynamics in order that they might question, revise or support their existing mental models for campaigning and to support decision making and facilitate a culture of inquiry and curiosity amongst the campaign team.

    “If this sounds complex and challenging then that’s intentional because what Unsimplify does is complex, hence the name. ”

    With a name like that, I guess their mission in life must be to make the simple complex! … But wait, there’s more …

    “A small group of dedicated people coming from a diverse range of positions and perspectives but working together as a loose federation held together by shared values and beliefs succeeded in accomplishing the most impressive PR coup of the 21st century.”

    This “PR coup of the 21st century” which was accomplished by “by single-mindedly applying concerted and consistent pressure at critical junctures in the media ecology”

    But that aside, I think “loose federation” is a somewhat more reasonable depiction of the graphic – which Unsimplify calls a “map” – than LeftFootBackward’s [?!] “extraordinarily well-networked”.

    Unsimplify continues the spin, of course … but those were the highlights that jumped out at me (well, that and the fact that they felt it necessary to mention that they “didn’t examine the entire myriad of Facebook groups”)

  89. They’ve got Geoffrey Lean in The Times, but he’s a Telegraph columnist. They’ve also left out The Independent on their Supporters Network, which makes up the BBC-Guardian-Independent global warming propaganda axis.

    The editorial board of The Independent:

    EDITOR IN CHIEF
    Mike Hulme
    University of East Anglia, UK

    EXECUTIVE EDITORIAL BOARD
    Perceptions and Communication of Climate Change
    Irene Lorenzoni
    University of East Anglia, UK

    INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
    Tim O’Riordan
    University of East Anglia, UK

    I wonder how rigorous being in charge of “Perceptions and Communication of Climate Change” is?

    This is not science, this is manipulation. See Mike Hulme’s writings about the same – i.e. “post-normal science”.

  90. That leftfootforward blog is so idiotic, it might single-handedly explain why AGW believers have been such a failure at arguing their case.

    Furthermore, there’s a lot of people uncritically falling for the original claim…I guess the main result of this exercise is that there’s definitive proof that AGW suckers(*) are born one per minute…

    (*) no, I am not claiming every AGWer is a sucker 8-)

  91. Well that’s one thing they’ve got right – the BBC at the hub of all the alarmist activity, and like most of the others funded by tax.

  92. “DENIALIST OVERLORDS”! Wow, that evokes my childhood, scaring myself reading comics my Dad disapproved of up in the treehouse I and my ‘gang’ of ten-year-olds had built, by the light of a candle stub.
    This Oxfam exercise does nothing except demonstrate, once again, that the inmates truly are running the asylum and the scary part is that some people believe their mad utterances. Obviously, the nutters who published this sad excuse for a survey never had a chance to play ‘cowboys and Indians’ or any other politically-incorrect childhood game and are are only just arriving at the developmental level of pre-adolescence due to their Marxist upbringing and are acting out pre-teen scenarios.
    Anthony, I suspect that the big balls in the schema suggest adulthood!

  93. Why is the IPCC considered the center of the debate in that image? Shouldn’t that ball read “AGW” instead? The IPCC belongs a few inches to the right of the MET Office, I’d say, as they are stark raving mad.

  94. Sloppy …. veeeeery sloppy … but helpful if it shows the world as they see it!

    WWF and Greenpeace both are indeed major players. But what about (just off the top of my head) …

    Munich Re? Grantham Institute(s)? Woods Hole Research Center? British Council? TERI? Friends of the Earth? Geneva Group? GEF? DFID/FCO? DECC? Carbon Trust? Carbon Disclosure? Economist Magazine? Energy Foundation? IIED? Oak Foundation? Climate Action Network? European Climate Foundation? Euiropean Environment Bureau? Natural Environment Research Council? Global Research Alliance? University of East Anglia? UNEP? WMO? UNFCCC? HSBC’s Climate Change Centre of Excellence? Deutsche Bank? Commonwealth Council? Children’s Investment Fund Foundation? Ecofin Research Foundation? Yale University? Catalyst project? Climateworks? Soros Climate? Carbon War Room? Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development? Asian Development Bank? Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)?

  95. ” ZT (19:27:48) :

    Seems to follow the general pattern, i.e.

    Climatology: Belief->Confirmation

    Science: Observation->Theory->Testing->Improved Understanding

    Science != Climatology

    Where != means “does not equal”

    science + climatology = scientology!

  96. It’s a war plan,
    and those circles on the left are targets. You are all about ready to get bombarded. They’ve been patiently planning and they are getting ready to gut you all out.
    I wonder how many of you will be still lauging by the end of the year.

  97. I really enjoy articles like this!

    The British Met Office is not represented anywhere on the Supporters Network.

    The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body (IPCC) relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment was the basis for the climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

    When ex-WWF Robert Napier became chairman of the Met Office he started to steer it into the climate change arena. This is clear from his words in the first annual report after he became chairman.

    In spite of the fact that it has resources second to none, its success rate at seasonal forecasting has been worse than coin tossing. So, it’s seasonal forecasting is rubbish, but it thinks it can do regional climate change projections on 25km grid out to the end of the century.

    This announcement by the Met Office came on the same day they threw in the towel on seasonal forecasting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8551416.stm

    “Met Office seasonal forecasts to be scrapped: The Met Office is to stop publishing seasonal forecasts, after it came in for criticism for failing to predict extreme weather. It was berated for not foreseeing that the UK would suffer this cold winter or the last three wet summers in its seasonal forecasts.”

    The other report about finding “the fingerprints of man-made global warming” (http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=3174) is just the cover to bury the bad news that they are getting out of the seasonal forecast business.

    Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office and President of the Royal Meteorological Society clearly said in the parliamentary committee that the Met office uses the same model for weather forecasting and climate projections. She claimed that the climate projections must be OK because the models are tested for robustness twice a day (doing the daily weather forecasts). She really did say that to the committee, and it wasn’t a ‘mis-speak’ on her part because she says the same in a written document as well:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/in-depth/ask/julia-slingo.pdf

    “At the Met Office we use the same model to make weather forecasts as we do to make our climate predictions, so every day we are testing the model and saying, ‘how well did we do with the weather forecast?’ We know that on many occasions our weather forecasts are incredibly skilful and that’s increasingly giving us confidence that the science in our models is fit to do this ‘crystal ball gazing’ into the future to say what will happen to our climate as we go really into uncharted territory.”

    That is unequivocal: the Chief Scientist says that they use the same model for weather forecasting and climate projections, and thus the accuracy of the weather forecast is ‘verification’ of the robustness of the same model for climate projection. No verification or test of robustness could be applied if they were different models. Both in the extract above and to the parliamentary committee she made the point that the climate models are OK because they are tested on a daily basis doing daily weather forecasting. Believe me, Slingo has spent years on the computing aspects of climate prediction, so if she’s wrong on this one she shouldn’t be in her job: she’d either be ignorant, deluded, or trying to hoodwink parliament and people.

    Of course, what this shows without a shadow of a doubt is that since (if we can believe the Met’s Chief Scientist) the same model is used, then the climate projections must be factored into the weather forecasting because the same model is serving both – the weather is simply the diurnal, seasonal and annual variation on the inexorable climate trend determined by natural variation and anthropogenic forcing.

    So it’s no wonder that climate has failed to march in step with the climate projection, that the Met’s seasonal forecasts are consistently wrong: they must by now have a warm bias in them by including the climate trend, which is factored into the model as increasing, but which in reality is flatlining. This is a divergence problem between the pre-suppositional data fed into the model (based on AGW dogma) and the reality.

    The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails. The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

    But now it turns out that the British government is attempting to silence the Met Office…

    The British government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be “seized upon by climate change sceptics”.

    And you might have thought that they were only interested in science, not political hackery!

    _________________

    Before I end, let’s not forget James Hansen’s contribution to the global warming fraud. Neither James Hansen nor GISS appear here with any balls, so I’ll fill in the details…

    The main U.S. data supplier is NASA’s GISS, and the principal involved at GISS is, of course, the notorious Hansen. He has simply refused to release the basic data behind NASA’s bungling, even in the face of perfectly lawful Requests for Information. That will soon change, but won’t affect Hansen’s dubious career as he is now 68, and has already been thoroughly denounced by his immediate superior. It may be recalled that it was GISS that made the claims that the hottest years on record were in the last 10 years, and then recently revised everything and said, “Oh! Wait a minute, the hottest years were actually in the 1930’s”. This was after their testimony to Congress that the hottest years were “during the last 10 years”.

    The GISS charlatans have never officially corrected their Congressional testimony, but they did issue a very discrete and obscure announcement (probably, in the monthly West Iowa Farmers’ Almanac). What is GISS doing in meteorological studies you may ask? Because Hansen decided to become “involved”. This is the same bozo who lead the famous group in the 1970’s who were predicting that the Earth was “entering a new ice age”. Never forget thtat NASA has made a number of incredible errors in its day, even in its own field of expertise.

  98. I just love the implied equivalence of the Beeb and Climate Audit, and WUWT and the Grauniad (although I think WUWT’s”readership” is probably higher than the Guardian’s) . It is also of interest how small the role of the Met Office is shown in this, considering that their discretions are the focus of the “study” (I am unhappy with the phrase study since this implies studious activity, whereas IMO it is an opinion piece).

    I also think the Telegraph’s Louise Gray and Geoffrey Lean will be dismayed to see that newspaper shown on the sceptic side.

  99. OXFAM???

    I am truly on the verge of giving up giving to charities.

    Nobody gets money from me now without a grilling of where the money goes and what projects they are involved in.

    (Within my means I’m pretty generous by nature, having given £1000’s to charity).

  100. Anthony,
    Do you and Richard North feel you have a “Bulls Eye” on your backs?
    In picking out the enemy sides picks out targets.

    They still haven’t realized that one side is questioning the science of the other side. But the other side is attacking for even questioning them.
    This is not about having an open science with clear figures to follow how the research came to their conclusions.

    This is about “How Dare You Question Our Authority”.
    Not sincere science gathering and sharing as it should be.

  101. I run my own graphic design business in the UK and would be more than happy to re-create and publish (totally gratis) a more accurate two-sided ‘network’ than Oxfam’s example – except for three things . . . .

    Firstly, the warmist have a ‘front line trench’ at the battle zone – known as the IPCC. I would insist that artistic licence allows me to ‘nudge’ the IPCC 2cm’s to the right of the neutral zone. Then, behind their line is not only the list of conglomerates and organisations mentioned, but (as we know) every government of the world, it’s quangos, carbon trusts, offsetters, and finally its mythical wizards and a small group of dendro-cracker-chinese cookie-ology-scientists, etc. Therefore to the right of the neutral zone, the enormous diagram would extend to about 350 x sheets of A4 paper printed landscape – which logistically will provide instant revenue for Epson’s global sales of ink cartridges because every ‘non-believer’ will want to print a copy and stick it on their wall!

    Secondly, our side of the diagram does not have a front line ‘trench’ in the warzone. To balance the diagram, it would be nice if the United Nations gave us an IPTNCCUD (Intergoverment Panel on Totally Natural Climate Change either Up or Down), thereby supporting our cause and by publishing the real unmanipulated science on our behalf.

    Thirdly, and lastly, the orientation of the final diagram is open to debate. Should it be top-down? Or, may be flipped horizontally with us on the right and the pressure of the left ‘same belief for all’ shown on the left. Even better, all the ‘warmists’ in the middle surrendering – surrounded by us winning our fight for the truth? Victory at last!

  102. hro001 (01:55:55) :

    Another of Profero’s entities is named the Social Media Lab. The business is organized to outsource public relations contracts to subcontractors.

  103. P Gosselin (03:19:04),

    Absolutely right. Now that the über expensive health care bill has passed, insuring tens of millions more at taxpayer expense, they must find a way to pay for it. The tried and true method is to scare the populace into opening their wallets to avert a ginned-up looming disaster.

    Cap & Tax is their chosen method, and it’s already in the works. The enviro lobby now plays kissy-face with the people they so recently demonized, big business, so together they can make working people pay through the nose for their plans: click

  104. Yesterday I commented elsewhere: “Not directly relevant to this item but I can’t get into Notes & Tips so I ask it here. My question is: If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? etc.”

    A couple of people kindly responded with factual answers which showed me that I had not explained why I was asking. My purpose was that I would like to be able to say to those supporting AGW that if this gas of which they are so afraid was actually bright red, for instance, it would be so insignificant as to be invisible so how can it be so worrying? I am sure that many of the misinformed, especially the young, are completely unaware of the relative concentrations of gases around them and have no idea what a few hundred ppm actually means physically.

    A bit like putting a pint of red fluid into a swimming pool and seeing it disappear in seconds, I think that some sort of visual demonstration would help to show how stupid all the fuss is. For instance if one had a bag of sand with a million yellow grains and 350 black ones in it I would expect the black ones to be impossible to see at a glance. Does this make sense or am I barmy?

    [Reply: some folks have trouble seeing Tips & Notes. The problem can usually be fixed by re-sizing your screen size. ~dbs, mod.]

  105. Some of the flaws with this anlaysis.

    There needs to be a colour coding indicating the nature of the entities. BBC, Guardian on one side – large commercial media entities.

    The bubbles should be scaled to reflect resources. The BBC should be a massive bubble, dwarfing WUWT (no disrespect Anthony!) and Cimateaudit etc.

    Why aren’t the networked links between the IPCC and Realclimate, CRU etc. not highlighted. These are absolutley crucial.

    Ditto, where is are the academic journals and links betwen those, lobby groups, acaedmic institutions and Bogosphere?

  106. What on earth is this Climate Despot? Never heard of it until I read this story. It’s certainly not central to anyone I have discussed it with. What a heap of bollocks that diagram is.

  107. Note that even the alarmists are admitting their network is heavily under the authority of government organisations (BBC, World Bank etc)

    I note that 3 of the biggest propagandists there, the Guardian, BBC & Treehugger have barred me permanently & Realclimate has censored more than once. So some networks are more controlled than others.

  108. I forgot to Thank You Anthony, for the science quest you requested.
    I thought to start at the beginning of the Popular Science which showed some very facinating research being done back in the late 1800’s with their experiments and conclusions.

    What I found was a confirmation to one of my very strong theories in print on the circulation cycle of the planet in 1875. This science was never brought forward and expanded upon. Definately would have changed our knowledge of climate today along with the advancements we should have had.

    The other thing you have allowed is the interactions of thoughts, ideas, knowledge, etc. to be shared and bantered around. Now try talking to physicists who minds are so closed that if “It Ain’t In A Book, It Ain’t True”.
    On a couple of occasions I’ve made them look stupid as some hard factual science they totally missed and thought the science was made up.
    Like Salinity changes from oceanagraphers. Mind you, I’ve had a politican say that an oceanographer is not a scientist.
    It is when you look at the definition in the dictionary.

  109. When commenting on this it is difficult to know where to start, and when to stop!

    It is good that they acknowledge and show the BBC bias – by it’s charter it should be on the centre line, as all mainstream media should be in an ideal world. While blogs are becoming more influential, people have to actively search them out, which is very different than simply watching TV.

    One big omission is Wikipedia, which allows no non-AGW entries. It is interesting to read this man’s attempts to update it :

    http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Wikipedia_on_Climate_Change

    I do like these forms of charts – I would like to charts showing the funding of organisations, one for research funding, one for businesses profiting from AGW, etc. Even the media chart above could be updated to be comprehensive, possibly by country.

  110. Notes From Skull Island:

    Brian Martin, in his wonderful online booklet Strip the Experts, wrote that if your opponents:

    have a financial interest in what they are promoting, exposing it can be very damaging.

    This is line of attack has been very successful for the warmists in the past, which is why they constantly recur to it. But the recent skeptical attack has been mostly an indignant blogger-led populist revolt against increased and unnecessary taxation and regulation (fewer barbecues, etc.) and elitist presumption.

    If our side were well funded and well organized, it would have the following characteristics:

    1. There’d be a slick umbrella site like HufPo under which all dissident bloggers could shelter, cutting their costs, increasing ad revenue, and simplifying and standardizing the process of surfing the deviationist blogosphere, especially for visiting journalists. The effect would be to considerably “amplify” the dissenters’ voices.

    2. Failing that, there’d be enough $ for individual sites to ensure that, for instance, Climate Audit would have been able to handle to traffic-surge in the wake of Climategate, instead of being overwhelmed. (How’s that unpreparedness agree with “well organized”?)

    3. There’d be a PR agency to “package” stories emerging from the blogosphere and articles in scientific journals or contrarian columnists and feed them to media sources in easy-to-read, pre-edited form. (Or at least an unincorporated online network of funded individuals performing a PR function.) This is a topic that is so complex and filled with jargon that it desperately needs such pre-chewing to get the MSM to swallow it. But what do we have? Only Climate Depot, which provides leads, but no packaging.

    As Mike Haseler wrote, “it’s blatantly obvious to me that the press need to be fed stories almost ready for publication, you can’t expect them to take highly technical writing and try and make sense of it!”

    BTW, another contra-factual is Climategate. There was no pre-planned media-coordination involved in the matter. There was no campaign to alert them to its importance, nor any professional packaging of the story for them. No one gave Fox a heads-up. As a result, MSM coverage of the event was nil.

    (As for the idea that the leak was “timed” to disrupt Copenhagen, that’s equally absurd. The story gained no MSM coverage at all for the first two weeks, because that’s how long it took to ascertain that the e-mails were legit and to untangle the rat’s nest of e-mails and shed some light on them and the Read_Me file. It took about four weeks for the scandal to really heat up, with outraged commentary finally appearing in some middle-of-the-road venues. Any professional media consultant would have advised leaking the documents six to eight weeks earlier than Nov. 20. By that time, attendees reservations and trip-plans were cast in concrete.)

    4. There’d be a centralized, regularly updated, annotated, topically divided, web-wide index of useful “ammo” skeptical or skeptic-supporting articles). If I, or anyone, were cat-herder in chief, this would be one of the top items on the agenda.

    5. There’d be a repository for “quotes of the day” from blog commenters. (These get lost in the noise after a week or so otherwise.) Here’s an example, from Willis:

    “First, my thanks to all the prospective henchdudes and henchbabes out there, a map to my hollow volcano lair will be emailed to you as soon as I get one. Well-funded mercilessness roolz! I demand a volcano lair!”

    6. There’d be extensive book tours for every skeptical book published, to gain exposure in multiple markets via interviews in the local press, etc. Such tours could be extended for many months, well beyond any rational “payback” in book sales, if the real aim were to get media exposure – for instance by challenging local warmists to debates on the premises of the newspaper or broadcaster, etc. The funding for such a tour could easily be concealed.

    7. Certain fringe or off-topic comments would be “moderated” out, because they step on people’s toes and don’t play well in Peoria. E.g., New World Order theorizing, bolshy bashing, boot-the-UN and tar-and-feather-‘em remarks, and most attribution-of-motives comments. Populist “venting” of all sorts would be toned down; instead the stress would be on sweet reasonableness and out-reaching to the average citizen and opinion-leader. Any media pro would advise that course, especially one with a big funder behind him (who wouldn’t want to be tarred by association with tin-hat opinions (if news of a link ever came out)). Such a “mainstream” tone and mindset would be the fingerprint of any top-down campaign on a scientific topic.

    8. Not only would there be more stylistic similarity, but the content would be less idiosyncratic as well. There’d be evidence of a “script” or list of talking points that skeptic commenters were following, instead of the typical home-brew assemblage of arguments.

    9. There’d be an astro-turfed tag-team of high-stamina commenters assigned to Win the War for Wikipedia by out-shouting and out-censoring Connolly and Co. They’d also go en masse to Amazon and give warmist books a thumbs-down and engage in comment-combats there as well. But the dissenters in such venues have been an outnumbered, disorganized rabble.

    10. There’d be much more stress on arguments would move the masses and that don’t take a degree to understand. I.e., arguments about the costliness, technical impracticality, and political unenforceability of mitigation strategies, and about the ineffectiveness of massive CO2 emission-reduction in the atmosphere even if all those obstacles were of no account.

    If skeptics were truly Machiavellian, or guided by political “pros” behind the scenes, they’d be hitting these popular hot buttons. They are where the warmists’ case is shakiest — and it’s always a good strategy to focus on the opponents’ weakest points and pound on them endlessly. Instead, these topics make up only 10% or so of the skeptical thrust. Most dissenters devote most of their energy to talking about weather events, dissing believers, and arguing about technical and scientific matters.

    11. There’d be an extensive online collection of opposition research, such as warmist predictions waiting to be shot down by contrary events. Such opposition research is so valuable a tactic (as is now being shown) that no political or PR consultant would have failed to insist on it.

    E.g., a score of warmist predictions of less snowfall would have been at hand to counter Gore’s claim that the models predicted more snowfall. Similarly, the IPCC’s Assessment Reports would have been scoured for flaws and nits long ago. Instead, it wasn’t until Glaciergate that we got on its case in any semi-organized fashion.

    12. There’d be an online point-by-point rebuttal of all the “How to Talk to A Skeptic” talking points, not just scattered counterpoints to a few of them. And there’d be a Wikipedia discussing those points and more in fuller detail. Lucy Skywalker is trying to assemble these, but it’s obviously an unfunded effort.

    Big Oil? Baby Oil is more like it. Ologeneous overlords? My companions and I on Skull Island laugh until we vomit.

  111. I hope WUWT has persmission to exist by purchasing carbon offsets for all this activity. At .10c a ton…we may have to have a contribution drive ‘share-a-thon’.

  112. Here is a dynamic animation of the East Anglia emails between various scientists [including Michael Mann]. You can clearly see the escalation when they get excited about losing control of their journals and strategizing about how to keep skeptics and the hated Steve McIntyre out of the loop. Notice the dates as the emails ramp up. Compare this with the amateurish graphic in today’s article: click

  113. Just trying to divert the attention from the few bankers families that drive all the business of world wide kool-aid manufacture and its facilities located in…:-)

  114. Smokey (05:17:18) : It just doesn´t work, CRU is in FREE FALL around its Barycenter at East Anglia, according to Dr.S….angular momentum is evenly distributed among its satellites. :-)

  115. The stupid – it gets bigger every day. Any idiot looking at that bogus chart will see little blogs on the skeptic side and massive media organs and governmental agencies on the supporter side. And they can’t even get the data right. The Wall Street Journal is a “supporter?” Did anybody at Oxfam peer review this “study?” The WSJ editorials have been uniformly condemning the duplicity of the AGW crowd.

  116. I like how the IPCC is in the “middle”, like some sort of moderate organiaztion. That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are…..

  117. This comes across as a smug and slightly disturbing exercise in vacuity, but it does help illustrate the siege mentality of the AGW movement. Enhancing this childish ‘us and them’ attitude within their community allows them to cast their opponents as a sinister enemy. They need to believe skeptics are a well funded, well organised ‘movement’ – to create figure of hate in their own minds – otherwise they would be forced to accept and consider rational arguments alongside mounting evidence that contradicts their position, and the AGW hypothesis would begin to crumble. If the AGW hypothesis crumbles, lots of its strongest proponents will face humiliation and possibly financial hardship (research grants, column inches, government subsidy etc). Some people will even lose a way of life and a religion.

    The authors believe they’re offering some sort of profound insight into a world, which they, the guardians of environmental wisdom are exclusively privy to. All they are really doing however is presenting a simplified and error-ridden version of the totally obvious. My subscription to Oxfam is now being redirected to a charity that does not get involved with politics and alarmist propaganda, and is interested in actually helping people in trouble.

  118. The people who did the study described the skeptic side as:

    A small group of dedicated people coming from a diverse range of positions and perspectives but working together as a loose federation

    .
    The Leftfootforward post – written by people who disagree with you – called you

    extraordinarily well-networked and interwoven, with sites like Climate Audit and Climate Depot acting as hubs for a wide range of other individual pundits and bloggers.

    Nowhere in either the study or the Leftfootforward post is there any mention of top-down coordination, oil company financing, structured organization or any of the other canards you complain about. The Leftfootforward post noted “how effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites.” That’s it. That’s what they mean by “well-networked.” Do you disagree?

    If there’s something specific in either the study or the Leftfootforward post you disagree with, you should quote it and make a specific argument. Why just make up straw men and knock them down? I have a hard time seeing how that could even be fun, let alone something that would advance your case.

  119. Snooker is a game of Chess, but with movable round balls. Mostly soft and gental effort. Where vertually nothing is “inconvienent”.

  120. I noticed the Wall Street Journal is on the supporter side. This can’t be right.

    I also noticed that the NYTimes, the BBC are on the supporters side. Shouldn’t these two be in the middle (objective?)

    I’m not surprised that the World Bank is on the supporters side given that their position is to support development of third world countries. Their view is that they see fossil fuels being used for growth by third world and developing countries for the next four decades.

  121. It would be instructive to relate the size of the balls on this chart to the financial funds of the organisation it represents, once, of course various “charities” have been added in. That would give us an idea of the power behind each lobby. I only hope that the ball created by Anthony’s pension fund would be big enough to write “WUWT” across it, compared to the bank balance of, say, IPCC, Greenpeace, BBC…

  122. Kate (01:53:37) :

    “The BBC has no links to sceptics because their own pension funds are heavily invested in carbon trading firms”

    Of course! Silly me!

    /Mango

  123. Apparently there’s a bunch of people who are having a hard time figuring out this “network”, what with all the “This, that or the other site isn’t on there”, or “How come soandso is listed on the **** side?”.

    Guys… the answer is written right at the beginning of the article:

    “Profero’s study analysed online coverage of the “Climategate” debacle that broke last November, tracking its progress from fringe blogs to mainstream media outlets over the ensuing weeks and months.”

    Therefore, if you didn’t cover the Climategate issue or (apparently) the Profero folks think you played a minor role… you’re not on the diagram.

    Although, that said… these Propero guys REALLY suck at their research as they are missing some key players in Climategate, and they have attributed more influence to sites that should have possibly been less and vice versa.

    Also, they include folks like JefID at TaV and Jo Nova, but Climate Progress, Deltoid, Grist, Skeptical Science, Tamino, Lambert, Quiggin, etc.. are not there.

    Pfft. Whatever.

    Doc

  124. Not much Canadian content on this network diagram. Where’s the Financial Post which is attached to Canada’s real national newspaper, the National Post? Terrence Corcoran, Peter Foster and Lawrence Solomon have been excellent reporters of skeptical news; the Financial Post has given McKitrick and MacIntyre a great platform in the MSM. Confirmation Canada does not count in the great scheme of things.

    While I disagree with the ridiculous weightings given to the skeptics with regard to power and influence (as compared with BBC, World Bank and Real Climate – but isn’t the Guardian somewhat over-rated?) I almost have to agree with the size of the balls for the skeptical side. But WUWT should be a little bigger (definitely bigger than Climate Depot)!

  125. Gee, the World Bank, BBC and the Guardian are pretty big elephants in the AGW room. They certainly command big media impact in terms on choosing the story. At least we kept Exxon, Shell and big coal hidden from their view, heh heh heh.

    Actually, for those who know how to do this stuff it would be a good study to redo. Oxfam indeed. The organization had mixed results in helping feed the poor before becoming part of the political machinery of economy-destroying causes ( a crazy thing to destroy the set-up that provides them with their funding and goods – the USA being the world’s largest giver of aid by far). I remember while working as a geologist in Nigeria in the 1960s, I used to buy rice in the marketplace from a cardboard drum that said “A gift to the people of Nigeria from Oxfam”. They charged the locals two pennies a cup of rice and me five pennies – I guess that’s where they contributed to the economy in the best way. Oxfamers I tell this story to don’t believe me, and get quite testy about it. I guess they think I’m paid by Big Oil to make this stuff up.

  126. The Wall Street Journal should be viewed as two completely separate data points. The editorial staff is definitely on the skeptic’s side and has been for years. I know; I read nearly all their editorials daily.

    The news side of the paper, however, is firmly liberal. It only seems conservative to people because the paper is necessarily business-oriented. This actually makes it a very good read because one does tend to get both sides of issues if you read most of the general news and editorials.

    I’ve written several letters to the news side recently telling them that their liberal bias on global warming is causing them to miss the unravelling of one of the biggest scams ever attempted, so far to no avail. Their news department follows developments rather than digging into them, so while they’ll report on Climategate (after a significant delay) they will do no reporting to get the real story. If there are some enterprising reporters there, they must be very, very frustrated.

    Incidentally, a couple of studies that compared the type of sources cited in news articles confirmed that the news pages of the WSJ have nearly the most liberal slant of all major U.S. papers. That is, it was shown that they rely more heavily upon liberal sources to document their stories.

    Anyway, I wasn’t surprised to see the WSJ on the Alarmist’s side, but they really should have put the WSJ editorial section on the Skeptic’s side. And the IPCC in the middle, and above it all? Give me a break.

  127. So what’s new? Oxfam had a question. They paid charitable money you donated to a company called Profero to get the answer they wanted. It doesn’t matter that the answer has no basis in fact or reality.

    It’s done all the time. Even universities do it. That’s why the towers aren’t so ivory coloured anymore.

  128. Just follow the money

    “New York Governor Patterson last week announced a plan to divert $90 million in funds raised from New York’s share of RGGI auctions to deficit reduction. The reaction was not positive from environmental NGOs, who are understandably concerned about the “precedent-setting nature of this move.””

    10 states pay carbon pollution indulgences into funds. They are to be spent in talking up polution and creating remedies we call taxes. Some people are under delusion thinking environmental taxes are for environmental cleanup or some other confused eco agenda.

  129. What happened to that graph of interconnections for climate scientists?

    The “family tree” for their PhDs, along with collaboration on papers, working together at institutes, etc.

    I have this feeling they are very inbred…

  130. Roger Knights: Notes From Skull Island:

    A great list.

    But I would add to that list: “common terminology”. E.g. here is a list of replacements I would insist we all use:

    Climate scientists => climate forecaster (don’t suggest it is based on science)

    Alarmist => “Believer” (don’t suggest there is anything to be alarmed about – highlight the fact that it is simply up to individuals to believe or not believe because there is no evidence)

    Sceptic = “scientifically sceptic” (highlight that science is inherently sceptic)

    Global warming = “Natural climate variation”. (warming suggests a trend, variation tells people that the climate changes naturally)

    anthropogenic global warming = Manmade Global Warming (Don’t fall for the believers trick of making all this bogus nonsense sound “scientific” — its a change in temperature which anyone can understand — and so everyone can see a miniscule).

    etc.

  131. This reminds me of a survey that was carried out among the teachers of my school. Some organisation came into the school and asked us to keep a record of who we received emails from and who we sent emails to. The they wrote a big report about our social networking. LOL. And they went away laughing all the way to the bank.

  132. Smokey, the CRU emails graphic is both brilliant and beautiful, in a wierd kinda way – put me in mind of long-legged spiders stalking other spiders.

  133. We need to ignore the facts about this networking chart and accept it for what it is: the world view of the people producing it.

    For example, I didn’t get upset when I first saw this:

    http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/72-the-world-as-seen-from-new-yorks-9th-avenue/

    It was simply someone’s world view. It would have been pointless to explain the Hudson River is not the same size as the Pacific Ocean. Or that Texas is larger than 10th Avenue.

    What is revealing is the prominence placed on WUWT and Climate Depot in the minds of these people. If you think about it, they feel nothing happens on the Skeptical side of the Universe without first passing through one of these two blog sites. Also, notice that all other science is trivialized as a small ball. This indicates whoever drew up this diagram feels “Science Blogs” are small potatoes in the AGW believer network.

    Of course, IPCC is elevated above the fray, sort of like the Medieval concept of God floating above the turmoil of the earthly domain.

    Attack the credibility of IPCC and the whole thing collapses. If you do attack the IPCC, you will be placed in the same category a middle ages monk would have placed a critic of the triune God-head: on the fire stake.

  134. I’d be careful. From what I can see, “Leftfootfoward” is a SATIRE site.

    The people cited are all bogus. The names are BOGUS.

    It’s like the ONION.

    They actually have a following of leftists who don’t realize (actually left = NO
    HUMOR at ALL..) they are being scammed.

  135. This is actually useful because it shows you what websites they consider a threat, the fact that they are absolutely confused about the Wall Street Journal and believe Pielke Jr. to be the center of the universe may actually work in our favor.

    The largest skeptic sites are,

    1. Watts Up With That?
    2. Climate Audit
    3. Climate Depot
    4. ICECAP
    5. Junk Science

    The reason ICECAP and Junk Science do not get talked about by them is because they do not have commenting and ICECAP is frequently featured on WUWT. Climate Depot is popular because Morano is a scourge of the left having worked for Sen Inhofe and Rush references him a lot.

    Climate Realists while a good site is not that trafficked based on the lack of comments.

    There are some news sites they missed,

    Canada Free Press
    Fox News
    NewsBusters
    The Washington Times

    They also missed a bunch of popular blogs,

    Climate Science
    Climate Skeptic
    The Reference Frame
    World Climate Report
    Roy Spencer
    Jennifer Marohasy (popular until she stopped posting this year)

  136. Those behind pushing the alarmist CAGW agenda just don’t ‘get’ why scepticism is growing like wild-fire. The ‘big lie’ has failed and with it all credibility in their strange mix of socialist fascism they wish to foist upon us.

    If they are foolish enough to continue pushing it they, and their bought politicians, will deserve everything they get. They must always remember that we are many, but they are few.

  137. Roger Knights (05:02:51) :

    Fantastic stuff. Cut n’paste it to save my kids the bother of ever going to a PR or ‘news management’ class.

  138. It’s interesting that media outlets are listed as “supporters.” It’s one thing to feign objectivity, but to be so bold as to admit the media are biased says it all. Just a progressive philosophy masquerading as science.

  139. Hey all, just dropped by to see when our meeting was. I managed to book us a room in the bunker with Cheney.

    Are we serving dead kittens again this year?

  140. The Wall Street Journal has been wrongly classified as p[art of the support network. The Journal is one of the few honest and ethical print and electronic newspaper in the US. It also happens to be #1 in circulation, having supplanted USA Today and NYT.

    Moreover, the Journal has published numerous factual and fair news and opinion articles about AGW. I read the Journal every day. In my view they are skeptical because it is the only supportable position regarding AGW.

  141. Oxfam is just another government supported socialist hack organization. You shouldn’t expect anything else from them.

  142. Don’t know who their graphic artist was, but clearly not too experienced with communication design.
    The spheres that denote organisations have been given importance and weight of influence by their graphical size… Hmm…
    So we see that Climate Depot is the same size as both the IPCC and BBC
    Treehugger and the World Bank share size two…
    And NASA is comparable with George Moonbat in size three…
    But the devil is in the organisations left out (apart from huge spenders like WWF and Greenpeace) which are namely:
    The 193 governments that flew to Copenhagen for a jolly…

  143. Seems to be a missing ball or two for that nest of biologists cum climatologists at Stanford U.

  144. When I made my annual contribution to Oxfam I certainly did not think they would waste my money on such a stupid enterprise!

    ” A fascinating new study commissioned by Oxfam ”

    Guess what, my contribution to Oxfam will move to some other area where real needs are recognised.

  145. @Paul Daniel Ash (06:11:10) :,

    ‘I have a hard time seeing how that could even be fun, let alone something that would advance your case.’

    Why would you think we have a ‘case’ to advance?

  146. I’ve seen charts like this from undergrads who’ve discovered a bit of freeware.

    And doesn’t it give the lie to the recent claims that sceptics are winning over the MSM? We can use this as evidence that we aren’t! ;-)

    cheers David

  147. “Those behind pushing the alarmist CAGW agenda just don’t ‘get’ why scepticism is growing like wild-fire.”

    Scepticism is growing and suggests similarities to the spread of Protestantism in the 16th Century. Then, you had an all powerfull central Church – the Church of Rome – who pronounced on the holy scriptures through the infallibility of the Holy Father.

    Who is the Roman Church of global warming today? Who hands down the equivalent of infallible “Papal Bulls” while attacking non believers as “deniers”? But the modern Lutherians have arrived and have firmly nailed their protest to the door. Expect ritual burnings at the stake to follow soon.

  148. ROFL It is good to know how objective and neutral the anti science mag Nature is, equal that to the public funded organization NASA, and playing in the same pool as the world bank.

    The nutty greenies don’t know much about the disorganized and fuzziness of the internet, the come and go as you please, pay/donate if you feel like it, ad hoc, mentality. Maybe it’s because they themselves are so well organized and well funded so they probably think everyone else has to be too, because they cannot fathom any other reality…. as usual.

  149. Shouldn’t the skeptics be on the “right” and the “supporters” be on the “left”
    of the diagram, or maybe I am just stereotyping?

  150. LOL

    “Blackboard
    . |
    AirVent
    . |
    ClimateAudit
    . |
    WUWT
    .|
    etc.”

    Now that’s just too d*mn funny !!!!!!

    Right up there with “A Vast RIght-Wing Conspiracy”

    LOL

    .
    .

  151. Havent they forgotten the real culprit’s here? The driving force?

    The Tyndall Center, pluss all the Tyndall-center wannabe’s in each western nation? Like the Bjerknes Center in Norway? They are the ones getting the grants.They are the ones popping up in the newspapers with new reports about some silly new modelled effect, like Norway will soon be flooded.

    Which will not happen if you look at the data.

    They are also the ones supporting the IPCC with “Lead Authors”, making silly reports,again based on models.

    And the strange thing is that IPCC themselves concluded in 2001 that models couldnt predict anything that is unlinear, with coupled feedbacks, and chaotic.

    When will the journalists understand that all the scary stories from these people comes from models, not from real life?

  152. cbdakota (19:43:26) :

    Perhaps I missed the reasoning that did not include the NGOs like WWF, Greenpeace, etc. They seem to be directly linked to the IPCC.

    Has it not been in the news a lot recently how much of the IPCC reports is based on “studies” from both the WWF and Greenpeace.
    For example, himalayan glaciers, and the Amazon rain forest, not to mention Africa’s vegetation.
    Yes, the IPCC “central” position is laughable, but the exclusion of WWF and Greenpeace is unjustifiable given the amount (and wieght given to them by the IPCC) of the IPCC’s reports based upon these two groups “scientific studies” (from memory approximately 60 in AR4).

  153. OXFAM !? One of the greediest and cynical “non-profit” charities on Earth.

    Last time I passed one of their shops in the UK , they were shamelessly exploiting the current AGW hysteria with a sign like ” Start fighting GW here, come in and donate”.

    It was known 20 years ago that only about 10% of what Oxfam collect gets to the needy. Most goes in executive wages, “expenses” and paying huge sums to London interior designers to relook their supposed charity shops to look like TopShop.

    It now seems another way to waste the money well-meaning people donate is to pay for one sided studies and propaganda so they can continue to say ” Start fighting GW here, come in and donate”.

    Disgusting.

    Mind you, even TERI Europe is a registered charity with the charity commission in London.

  154. Bryan (08:47:30) :

    When I made my annual contribution to Oxfam I certainly did not think they would waste my money on such a stupid enterprise!

    May I suggest that such donations in need of a new home and good for all cause go to various sceptical blogs.
    Then maybe “we” climate sceptics might become a bit more organised as stated on this thread several times “we” so desperately need to be, to help halt the stupidity (at best) of AGW
    ASAP.

  155. ***********************
    Paul Daniel Ash (06:11:10) :
    Nowhere in either the study or the Leftfootforward post is there any mention of top-down coordination, oil company financing, structured organization or any of the other canards you complain about. The Leftfootforward post noted “how effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites.” That’s it. That’s what they mean by “well-networked.” Do you disagree?
    ***********************
    OK there, Captain Oblivious. They’ve demonstrated the subtle point that skeptics use the Internet. Yep, that’s really a profound insight.

  156. I’m not sure if I’m alarmed or amused that no one has read either the Leftfootforward post or the Profero study and noticed that it doesn’t say anything about control or financing.

    The people who did the study described the skeptic side as:

    A small group of dedicated people coming from a diverse range of positions and perspectives but working together as a loose federation.

    No “organized effort,” no “central organization,” no “climate denier overlords.”

    Why make up things to complain about?

  157. ******************************
    Justin Ert (08:39:35) :

    Don’t know who their graphic artist was, but clearly not too experienced with communication design.
    The spheres that denote organisations have been given importance and weight of influence by their graphical size… Hmm…
    So we see that Climate Depot is the same size as both the IPCC and BBC
    Treehugger and the World Bank share size two…
    And NASA is comparable with George Moonbat in size three…
    But the devil is in the organisations left out (apart from huge spenders like WWF and Greenpeace) which are namely:
    The 193 governments that flew to Copenhagen for a jolly…
    *******************
    That’s right. They need to include a ball for caviar companies and one for champagne companies.

  158. The graph above looks like a bipolar structure, two sides with Dr.Pilke Jr. at the center, why?

  159. Joe Papp (07:55:49) :

    I’d be careful. From what I can see, “Leftfootfoward” is a SATIRE site.

    The people cited are all bogus. The names are BOGUS.

    I can’t see any evidence of that. What names are bogus? And the sole hint of satire I’ve come across is their assertion that “We are a non-partisan blog”, which is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.

    Leftfootforward looks like a typical smug, self-satisfied, right-on collection of Latter-Day Marxists who probably believe socialism hasn’t really been tried yet. The only thing bogus about them is the juvenile ideology they peddle.

    The Onion it ain’t.

  160. I’m not sure how to say this, public forum and such . . . but does Al Gore know that his ball is missing?

  161. Paul Daniel Ash:

    Nowhere in either the study or the Leftfootforward post is there any mention of top-down coordination, oil company financing, structured organization or any of the other canards you complain about.

    If you’re right, and it looks as though you are, then the headline and some of Anthony’s paraphrases (“well organized”) were unjustified. However, those are criticisms of our side that are commonly made, in books published recently by Monbiot and James Hoggan (the Climate Coverup), in a much-referenced UCS study, on many websites, and by al Gore and several warmists like Mann recently. We just expected that this was more of the same.

    (So my “Notes from Skull Island” is a rebuttal to those critics. It’s something I’d intended to write for months, and this was the trigger.)

  162. Anthony, Richard, Steve and all those interested in this issue. A huge thank you for running these blogs and exposing the massive forces behind the climate change scam. You have done the public a great service.

    This particular article and the follow on comments were very informative on the crooked behaviour within the UN, governments in general and their paid acolytes.

    As for the diagram, well even a cursory glance reveals that it is nothing more than amatuerish, a bunch of well informed children could have done better.

    On another note and in line with others I have abandoned the charities I once readily contributed to, including the WWF, the Woodland Trust, Oxfam, Save the Children etc. The reason for this evolved over time, but was essentially determined by the growing perverseness of these bodies. A joyless, if necessary, decision, though it is hardly agreeable to learn that my taxes are now routinely used to sustain what are now corrupt advocacy groups.

  163. Roger Knights (10:47:15) :

    If you’re right, and it looks as though you are

    It’s not about what I think. Look at the links yourself. Anthony links the Leftfootforward post he critiques in the original piece. I linked Profero in my comment. I’ll do it again: link.

    Look for yourself. Make your own judgment. It’s why I (half-jokingly) refer to myself as “agnostic” rather than warmer or skeptic: it’s too easy to get caught up in the herd.

    I maintain it’s better to make specific arguments than broad assertions. If you disagree with Monbiot, for example, say why, and refer to actual statements they made rather than strawman generalizations.

    It makes for better and more interesting argument, especially for the (seemingly infinitesimal) group of us trying to reach a reasoned conclusion about all this.

  164. Looking at the chart,

    Skeptical network composed almost entirely OF single blog and forum owners.I am one even though I am not on their silly list.

    Thus run mostly out of their own pockets with donation help.I pay all my own bills for my blog and forum.Although I am in need of a professional theme that matches the subject matter of my forum and that will cost money.Maybe I can ask Exxon for some of their pocket change?

    He he…

    Generally civil and fair and even list AGW believing sites in the links column.I do that for both groups at MY blog.

    Supporters network composed mostly of corporate groups and media.

    Thus run mainly on corporate or tax money.

    Too often bombastic and censorious and rarely if ever have links to skeptic websites.Joe Romm banned (I thought Richard was civil enough to stay) Richard S. Courtney (who is a member at my forum) and then joined my forum to see what Richard is doing? He never has posted after looking around.

    The contrast is obvious.

    I will also state from personal experience that the few alarmist scientists I have been in communication with (I am civil) are often insulting and dismissive.

    I no longer attend their blogs because of their attitude.They act like nincompoops there.

    But very different with a number of skeptical scientists I have been in contact with,who are civil.

    I am pleased that blogs such as this one take it seriously in maintaining a civil ATMOSPHERE,thus maintaining credibility as a place that debates can still occur.

  165. The closest anyone could say is a central funding source would be Google Ads

    That’s it. This means that Al Gore, a Google board member, is secretly a skeptic

  166. PS: Here’s a 13th item for my “Notes from Skull Island”:

    13. The Oregon Petition Project would have been handled professionally. I.e., there’d have been no short-sighted tactics such as use of NAS-lookalike typography, no claim that the signers constituted “a meaningful representation” (let alone that the consensus was on the skeptics’ side), no claim that all the signers were scientists (when some were technologists and dentists, etc.), and no implication that the signers had all been vetted. A skilled propagandist, such as one hired by King Coal, would have avoided such a transparent over-reaching, which threw away the petition’s effectiveness by handing the opposition a chance to counterpunch effectively.

  167. I would not include the Daily Telegraph in the sceptic camp – it devotes a page weekly to Geoffrey Lean, a good journalist but definitely a warmist. The Sunday Telgraph does provide a page for Christopher Booker and so could well be numbered in the sceptic camp.

    What is so sad is that the Charity Commission has been put under the control of a rabid left wing socialist who is willing to permit “charities” such as Oxfam, the RSPB and WWF to spend money on warmist propaganda exercises. What makes it even worse is that many of these “charities” obtain funding from the taxpayer to help produce this spin.

    While Oxfam does provide aid, particularly in the form of disaster relief, it is not so easy to find out how much of its budget actually goes on providing this aid and how much is spent on dubious propaganda.

  168. Gary Hladek writes,

    “Wow, I was totally unaware of some of these skeptical sites! Thanks, Leftfootforward!”

    I know of at least 100 skeptical sites I have visited over the years,some of them go defunct but most continue in some way.

    Jonathan Drake,who is listed in the above chart as part of an alleged skeptic network (a member of my forum) runs this blog:Questioning climate and is a scientist.His recent entry shows the possibility that there is satellite drift errors on measuring Arctic ice cover that not being accounted for.

    http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate

    He deserves a visit.

  169. Janice (10:45:43) :

    I’m not sure how to say this, public forum and such . . . but does Al Gore know that his ball is missing?

    ROFL

    So he was down to one?

  170. Paul Daniel Ash (11:07:57) :

    Roger Knights (10:47:15) :

    If you’re right, and it looks as though you are

    It’s not about what I think. Look at the links yourself. Anthony links the Leftfootforward post he critiques in the original piece. I linked Profero in my comment. I’ll do it again: link.

    OK, OK, I’m sure you’re right. (There have been overstated headlines and article-summaries on this site before, and I need look no further than your say-so to know that you’re correct.)

    Look for yourself. Make your own judgment. It’s why I (half-jokingly) refer to myself as “agnostic” rather than warmer or skeptic: it’s too easy to get caught up in the herd.

    Agreed. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I try to correct overstatements here from time to time, or at least to “second” such corrections when they are made, as I did with yours. I raise my eyebrow once per fortnight, I estimate.

    I maintain it’s better to make specific arguments than broad assertions. If you disagree with Monbiot, for example, say why, and refer to actual statements they made rather than strawman generalizations.

    If you were referring to my own reference to Monbiot, I didn’t need to quote the “actual statements” he’s made that there has been some funding from Big Oil, etc., direct and indirect, to the skeptical side, because I wasn’t denying them.

    My argument was against his claim, and that of many warmists recently, that such funding and guidance has been fueling and strategizing the effective elements (bloggers, book authors, and debaters) on the skeptical side in recent years. Such statements are common knowledge: several prominent ones have been made recently, for instance by Mann, Gore, Hansen (in his book), and the NAS-blogging NYT-ad designing warmists. That claim is very implausible, for the reasons I listed. I.e, if there had been such top-down direction, many things on the skeptics’ side would be very different.

  171. Well I’m not a skeptic anyway; so no use them looking for me. I’m quite sure that they simply have the science all wrong.

    Which is not the same as saying, they have all the science wrong.

    ” It’s the Water; Stupid ! ”

    Assuming that a small effect like having CO2 slow down the exit of surface emitted LWIR, is going to cause a runaway heating effect is just silly; you have to ignore the possibility that there might be competing processes that simply won’t allow that to happen.

    It isn’t any government regulations that has prevented the earth’s surface temperature (average) from ever going higher than +22 deg C.

    And nothing we can do is going to force it to remain at 57 deg F; or whatever they say is the correct safe value for continued human life on this planet.

  172. Roger Knights (13:03:22) :
    I need look no further than your say-so to know that you’re correct.

    Um. I’m not sure if this is droll sarcasm or not, but what I was trying to say was don’t just take my say-so.

    If you were referring to my own reference to Monbiot, I didn’t need to quote the “actual statements” he’s made that there has been some funding from Big Oil, etc., direct and indirect, to the skeptical side, because I wasn’t denying them.

    I was referring to it, but not trying to shift to a discussion of Monbiot per se. Though I don’t understand “I didn’t need to quote the “actual statements” he’s made… because I wasn’t denying them.”

    My point there – which was a minor one – was just that it’s more interesting to me to read something like “Monbiot was wrong when he said in his essay “Blah Blah” that Big Oil did blah blah blah.” (Well, you know, without the blah blahs.)

    The generalization “skeptics are paid shills for industry” is as tiresome as the generalization “warmists think all deniers are paid shills.” Some skeptical organizations are fronts, and some warmists do think it’s all a conspiracy. But not all.

    Generalizations don’t aid in understanding anything, and it’s more fun when you name names, anyway.

  173. Paul Daniel Ash (10:06:38) :

    I’m not sure if I’m alarmed or amused that no one has read either the Leftfootforward post or the Profero study and noticed that it doesn’t say anything about control or financing.

    The people who did the study described the skeptic side as:

    A small group of dedicated people coming from a diverse range of positions and perspectives but working together as a loose federation.

    No “organized effort,” no “central organization,” no “climate denier overlords.”

    Why make up things to complain about?

    That’s a strawman argument. We read and understood what they had to say. We’ve also read and understood what their clients Oxfam and others had to say when they made statements linking the skeptic blogging community to what they derisively refer to as Big Oil and so forth. It doees not take a genius to understand that Profero, Leftfootforward, Social Media Lab, et al are highly compensated to serve as hired guns in an upcoming socialist-Marxist PR campaign to smear the reputations of people who have the temerity be skeptical and/or critical of the AGW alarmism community and its political agenda.

  174. D. Patterson (13:48:20) :

    That’s a strawman argument. We read and understood what they had to say

    How is it a ‘strawman argument?” Do you know what the term means? Anthony said the post says X. You can go to the post and see that it doesn’t say X. It’s a very simple argument that can be proved or disproved. If I’m wrong, show how I’m wrong. Specifically

    It doees not take a genius to understand that Profero, Leftfootforward, Social Media Lab, et al are highly compensated to serve as hired guns in an upcoming socialist-Marxist PR campaign to smear the reputations of people who have the temerity be skeptical and/or critical of the AGW alarmism community and its political agenda.

    That’s an assertion. Show that they are “highly compensated.” Show that there is a “socialist-Marxist PR campaign,” whatever that is. Otherwise, you are doing exactly what you are complaining they are doing: smearing.

  175. Paul Daniel Ash (13:41:19) :

    My point there – which was a minor one – was just that it’s more interesting to me to read something like “Monbiot was wrong when he said in his essay “Blah Blah” that Big Oil did blah blah blah.” (Well, you know, without the blah blahs.)

    (I assume last phrase should have read, “than Big Oil did blah blah blah.”) Well the second is more interesting to ME, so hard cheese.

    The generalization “skeptics are paid shills for industry” is as tiresome as the generalization “warmists think all deniers are paid shills.”

    Yes, and I’m trying to cut down, with my list, on the plausibility of the first generalization, so that it is employed less frequently. As for the second, it’s a strawman: I never asserted or implied that “warmists think all deniers are paid shills,” but rather that many warmists (I named several prominent ones) have recently made the claim that the skeptics movement is “well-funded and well-organized.” Can you see the difference between those two claims? If not, everyone else can.

    Some skeptical organizations are fronts, and some warmists do think it’s all a conspiracy. But not all.

    If you’re insinuating that I implied “all,” show me where. (You can’t.) All I said was that the claim was “common” (= “some”) and that it had been used by (some) warmists as an effective talking point.

    Generalizations don’t aid in understanding anything, …

    Utter nonsense.

    and it’s more fun when you name names, anyway.

    My take on that: You’d rather shift the focus of the debate to an area where the warmists can score points (there IS dirty money on the skeptics’ side and Monbiot & others can prove it), and away from one where they are weaker (its effect is minimal).

  176. I draw my image of the skeptic/alarmist confrontation from the War of the Worlds. A conquering alien army is defeated by an intrepid microbe counterattack.

  177. Roger Knights (14:32:57) :

    Roger, it seems to me that you think we’re arguing, but I wasn’t ascribing the points you dispute to you personally. I’ll try to be clearer in my wording.

    (I assume last phrase should have read, “than Big Oil did blah blah blah.”) Well the second is more interesting to ME, so hard cheese.

    I’m afraid you’re going to have to explain to me what “Monbiot was wrong when he said in his essay “Blah Blah” than Big Oil did blah blah blah” would mean. It makes no sense in the grammar that I was taught, but “hard cheese” on me I guess.

    I never asserted or implied that “warmists think all deniers are paid shills

    I did not mean to accuse you personally of that, and by generalizing about generalizations I pretty much stepped all over my own point. Apologies.


    Generalizations don’t aid in understanding anything, …

    Utter nonsense.

    Nice.
    That was sly sarcasm, right?

    You’d rather shift the focus of the debate to an area where the warmists can score points (there IS dirty money on the skeptics’ side and Monbiot & others can prove it), and away from one where they are weaker (its effect is minimal).

    No. The whole “who is more paid off” foofaraw itself is a distraction. My point was about making an argument and backing it up. A post, with links, that claims an article says something it does not – and a bunch of people going off, making it clear that they haven’t read the linked article – is the opposite of that.

    It’s not a warmer/skeptic thing. It’s a true believer thing.

  178. Jerome:
    R. Craigen (20:29:53) :

    My money for starving children currently goes to World Vision. If they start up with this nonsense I’ll switch in a moment to Compassion or Samaritan’s Purse.

    I’m with you on that one. They started going on about it a bit, but not in a major way so I stayed with them for the sake of the two children we sponsor. If they overstep, though, I’m out of it, but I’ll warn them first to give them a chance to back down. We all (who support them) should give them a second chance. But not a third.

    Precisely. When they start wasting sponsor’s money there’s no point paying out. I sponsor a child in Mauritania and have voiced my concerns about some aspects of how they run the program there. But if they start throwing MY money at climate nonsense, I’ve got better things to do with that money.

    World Vision is a fundamentally good organization that is under a great deal of pressure from the left. The trouble with the far left (I won’t put all lefties in this category) is that they think EVERYTHING can be arrogated to “the cause”, which is a great big amorphous blob. So give money to help AIDS research … it goes to “normalizing homosexual lifestyles” in kindergartens — say what!!! Give money to feed or educate starving children — it goes to feeding climate paranoia instead. If World Vision gets swallowed by this black hole I’ll shed a few tears for the millions of children harmed by it, and move on to a responsible charity that knows how to stick to its mission.

    I don’t mean to point a finger at World Vision or any particular charity … I intend to apply this rule across the board. I’ve already applied it to Oxfam.

  179. ****************
    Paul Daniel Ash (15:01:31) :
    It’s not a warmer/skeptic thing. It’s a true believer thing.
    *****************
    Looks like a socialist thing to me.

  180. [snip – I won’t have my name and the word “socialist” in the same sentence. You are entitled to your opinion, but I’m entitled to protect my values. – Anthony]

  181. Paul Daniel Ash said

    ‘I never asserted or implied that “warmists think all deniers are paid shills.’

    Paul, I am quite willing to be a paid shill. Can you please tell me who I apply to?

    Tonyb

  182. Paul Daniel Ash (15:01:31) :

    Roger Knights (14:32:57) :

    Roger, it seems to me that you think we’re arguing, but I wasn’t ascribing the points you dispute to you personally. I’ll try to be clearer in my wording.
    ……..
    The whole “who is more paid off” foofaraw itself is a distraction. My point was about making an argument and backing it up. A post, with links, that claims an article says something it does not – and a bunch of people going off, making it clear that they haven’t read the linked article – is the opposite of that.

    The actual article, as you note, didn’t deserve the headline it was given here. As I’ve said, that sometimes happens here, for instance most recently on the “Mean Greens” study, which dealt only with hypothetical Greens. I can understand why you want to rub Anthony’s nose is this boo-boo. I also have preached here about a dozen times over the years (well, over 20 months) that our side must avoid overstatement, as it is bad policy in the long run, and energizes the opposition.

    But I wouldn’t call my post a “distraction.” I’d call it directly relevant to the key words in the headline, “well funded, well-organized.” I’ve been needing a “peg” to write up my thoughts on that claim, so I seized the opportunity. At worst, it’s a minor tangent, which often occur in threads on most sites.

    RK: I never asserted or implied that “warmists think all deniers are paid shills”

    I did not mean to accuse you personally of that, and by generalizing about generalizations I pretty much stepped all over my own point. Apologies.

    Good to hear that.

    RK: (I assume last phrase should have read, “than Big Oil did blah blah blah.”) Well the second is more interesting to ME, so hard cheese.

    I’m afraid you’re going to have to explain to me what “Monbiot was wrong when he said in his essay “Blah Blah” than Big Oil did blah blah blah” would mean. It makes no sense in the grammar that I was taught, but “hard cheese” on me I guess.

    My remark makes sense in contest of the full quote, which read:

    PDA: “it’s more interesting to me to read something like “Monbiot was wrong when he said in his essay ‘Blah Blah’ than Big Oil did ‘blah blah blah.’”
    ……………
    ………………

    PDA: Generalizations don’t aid in understanding anything, …

    RK: Utter nonsense.

    PDA: Nice.
    That was sly sarcasm, right?

    Maybe I should have said, “Now YOU’RE making a generalization.” That would have been milder. But, of course, I was irritated at your seeming insinuation that I’d implied that “warmists think all deniers are paid shills.” You have to take that into account. And you also have to take into account that abrupt rebuffs are not uncommon here. (Leif: “You’re rambling, spare us, quit digging.”)

    Plus, of course, your sweeping statement WAS utter nonsense. :-)

  183. I won’t have my name and the word “socialist” in the same sentence.

    Jim was the one who said you sounded socialist. I was just pointing out the surrealism.

  184. D. Patterson (04:10:37) :

    [in response to my (01:55:55) assertion that Profero appeared to be in damage control mode with “Unsimplify” ]

    “Another of Profero’s entities is named the Social Media Lab. The business is organized to outsource public relations contracts to subcontractors.”
    ===

    This would make sense, particularly since the Unsimplify page is a “standalone” – accessed from a Mar. 22 “News” item on the Profero home page, but with no links back – or forward. [see http://www.profero.com/unsimplify/index.html ]

    To my mind, this would suggest that the page was put up in somewhat of a hurry. OTOH perhaps as a “standalone company operating under Profero”, Unsimplify’s virtual presence requires no more than a “standalone” page, unlinked to anything else in the cyberuniverse (with a connection evidently unknown even to Google prior to yesterday!)

    FWIW, Social Media Lab does not seem to be featured on Profero, but (unlike Unsimplify) the the Profero association has been known to Google for some time.

    Pure speculation, of course (not to mention the possibility of “confirmation bias” on my part), but perhaps Social Media Lab created “Unsimplify” for the damage control exercise necessitated by LeftFootForward’s “scoop”.

  185. *******************
    Paul Daniel Ash (18:03:37) :

    I won’t have my name and the word “socialist” in the same sentence.

    Jim was the one who said you sounded socialist. I was just pointing out the surrealism.
    ************************
    Actually, I wasn’t very clear. The orgs that paid for and created the silly balls chart are socialistic in nature. Sorry if there was a mix-up.

  186. Paul Daniel Ash (14:14:23) :

    D. Patterson (13:48:20) :

    That’s a strawman argument. We read and understood what they had to say

    How is it a ’strawman argument?” Do you know what the term means? Anthony said the post says X. You can go to the post and see that it doesn’t say X. It’s a very simple argument that can be proved or disproved. If I’m wrong, show how I’m wrong. Specifically

    It doees not take a genius to understand that Profero, Leftfootforward, Social Media Lab, et al are highly compensated to serve as hired guns in an upcoming socialist-Marxist PR campaign to smear the reputations of people who have the temerity be skeptical and/or critical of the AGW alarmism community and its political agenda.

    That’s an assertion. Show that they are “highly compensated.” Show that there is a “socialist-Marxist PR campaign,” whatever that is. Otherwise, you are doing exactly what you are complaining they are doing: smearing.

    Are you so blind, deaf, and dumb that you cannot read, hear, and say what is found on Profero’s own Web pages? Profero touts their success. They tout their award winning accomplishments in the PR industry. They tout how they have work locations around the world from London and Rome to Singapore and Sydney. When you go to their Web presence describing “Who We Are”, they tell you about their past successes and clients such as the British Army, British Marines, Pepsico, Buena Vista Entertainment, Ch. 4, NBC-Universal, etc. Media marketing campaigns of these types are by no means cheap and inexpensive. Read the PR industry news articles about the activities of Profero, its associates, and their PR accomplishments. They are scoring big contracts with some of the world’s major corporations and governments. Follow the money to their associates and read their online biographies and resumes. They are pefectly happy to tell you how successful they are, which translates to how such major PR and marketing makes Profero and/or its associates highly compensated members of the marketing industry. Their stated UK Fee income alone is stated to be more than £6 million year to March 2000. Surely you are not going to read that stuff and come back to us with a rejoinder that they are low paid minimum wage workers barely eeking out an existence as they extol the glitzy wares and services of the British Government and the world’s largest NGO and mass media clients?

    Oxfam is clearly an organization managed and operated by known Marxist-Communists with clear preferences for providing aid in locations where Marxist-Communist insurgencies have been underway. Oxfam is a client of Profero. Clearly stated is the goal of Profero and its subcontractors to assist Oxfam and its Marxist-Communist leadership to exert a negative PR (public relations) impact upon the very group of people Oxfam and Profero are identifying as “key” members of the climate skeptic community responsible for revelation of the Climategate documents. They use bafflegab to provide rhetorical deniability of the methods they intend to use, but Oxfam and their fellow promoters of AGW have not been shy about smearing the reputations of skeptics before. So there is good reason to anticipate a renewed usage of their past smear tactics in the near future.

    Oxfam is an organizatioin with a leadership and membership including significant representation from the various Marxist-Communist political organizations. Oxfam’s AGW and certain other political activities are the same activities advocated and conducted by the same Marxist-Communist organizations supported by some of Oxfam’s members and leaders. Oxfam not only supports the AGW agenda also advocated by the Marxist-Communist organizations, it actually participates in its formulation and execution. Oxfam hired Profero and its subcontractors to determine the best means by which the climate skeptics and their negative influence upon the marketing of AGW can be neutralized by a PR and marketing campaign.

    All of the above is readily found in the news and on the Web pages of the organizations mentioned. Consequently, they are substantive statements of the evidence to be found from the subjects’ own statements and the news reports obtained from the subjects of the articles. They are obviously not a bare “assertion” as you so incorrectly stated. Now which part did you fail to comprehend?

  187. No far. My blogs not on the chart. gotta work harder.
    Andrew Bolt will be peeved they missed him.
    Actually its a useful chart. I missed two major links, must book mark them.

    Can you buy the monkey patch anywhere, I want one?

    Green wash money for all! Actually if there really was any green wash money the greens would be all over it. I’m sure any competent green capable of wearing a suit could talk their way into grabing a few million. Then they could spend it on solar etc. What court would enforce a ‘green wash’ contract. The Judge is not going to penalise anyone for “Not” wasting the money! The real evidence that there no money is that the greens haven’t looted it.

  188. It’s deeply disappointing that something that a client has paid money for would be so inadequate and so full of poor spelling – I never found such generous clients.

    Years ago I remember a human network modelling tool that run on a Sun station (I think it was called Netmap) – it was initially developed for police and intelligence services and was then made available for analysing corporate networks and culture. That was genuinely impressive – this not so much!

  189. More add-ons to my “Notes From Skull Island”:

    14. There’d be a place for the reposting of the “highlights” of WUWT and other skeptic sites, and also such sites would have editors who would retroactively (after a month or so) do flagging and/or highlighting of outstanding posts within those threads. This would encourage posters to do better and make it easier for newcomers and journalists to effectively skim our sites and notice our better arguments and facts.

    Such editorial work could be done by people who have good judgment and lots of knowledge of the issues, like Pamela Gray, Lucy Skywalker, etc.

    15. There’d be a reposting of “negative highlights” from warmists’ sites in which the unsavory qualities of their leading lights and hatchetmen were on display. Call it, maybe, “Quoted Without Comment” or “Get a Load of This.” It would make an impact on fence-sitters.

    16. There’d be a spiffy ad campaign consisting of short spots (20 to 40 seconds) that would focus on making one quick jab at the warmists. There should be a standard format for these ads, such as a common tag-line, music, lead-in, graphics style, etc. The touch should be light, with the aim of making the spots entertaining. The ads should also be “different,” to get around viewers’ defenses, and to make the message “sticky.” Care should be taken to avoid overstatement, and to make qualifications where necessary, to forestall counterpunches.

  190. Besides the silliness of the diagram, the quality-accuracy is so low that it seems it was done by a middle schooler who just wanted a passing grade for some science project related to climate change. A person was paid for this; that tells you a lot about the integrity of the sponsor and participants.

  191. I hope WUWT has persmission to exist by purchasing carbon offsets for all this activity. At .10c a ton…we may have to have a contribution drive ’share-a-thon’
    —————————————————————
    Woopps.. almost said ‘Share-a-thong’ which would have been way too close to
    Copenhagen/Teri for our modest tastes here at WUWT!

  192. Looking at the general chart of things; the AGW is really going to boil down to who has the biggest balls. I swear the political calculation is that modern, comfy, suburban/city dwelling men are not going to get off their duff to rally against their AGW scheme and as that is the case; they can do and say and pass anything they want.

    Lets all follow through with writing our MPs or Senators as discussed prior.

  193. a dood asked:
    *What is it about the leftist mind that they feel like they have to control every aspect of human behavior?*

    Rick Bradford 19:58 provided one answer and a link

    Here’s my take.

    Leftists believe that “community” is more important than individuals – together we are stronger etc. It is a paternalistic world view that thinks they know what’s best, and will enact schemes to take your money from you and decide where it should be spent for the comunity (i.e your) benefit.

    The “rightist” (I dislike this label but it will do for now) believe that the individual knows best what is right for them and that by acting cooperatively a better outcome can be achieved for any given problem. The inherent independant thinking of this group explains why they are so much better in the Internet environment, as in so many other areas.

    Succinctly put – we of the right believe in equality of opportunity (and that individuals will maximise their performance in this environment) – socialists believe in the equality of outcome and will tinker and manipulate to try to achieve this impossibilty. The consequence of course is that they are conflicted, forever doomed to fail in their endeavours, forever throwing more and more resources to fix the world.

  194. I don’t like to typically comment with respect to style, but I think some color could help with the graphic. I think it would be valuable to add color for independent sites, major media outlet sites and government sites. It think it would tell a different story.

    Stu

  195. Here’s one more item to my list in “Notes From Skull Island”:

    17. There’d be a copy editing & peer review service to vet our side’s books prior to publication, since any flubs will be seized on by warmists to discredit the entire work, as happened to Plimer’s book. Instead, dissenting books continue to be produced in an unsupervised fashion. For instance, in Steve Goreham’s just-out (and excellent) Climatism!, I found two obvious spelling errors in just an hour’s skimming. (“Forego” for “forgo” and “principle” used where “principal” was needed.)

Comments are closed.