Ah yes, the tired old you are irrelevant because are funded by big (coal, gas, oil, wood, propane, butane, electric, peat, Exxon-Mobil take your pick) gets turned into a peer reviewed paper. What will they think of next?
Ironically, this is published in the Journal of Business Ethics and is titled:
Astroturfing Global Warming: It Isn’t Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence
Charles H. Cho, Martin L. Martens, Hakkyun Kim and Michelle Rodrigue
Abstract
Astroturf organizations are fake grassroots organizations usually sponsored by large corporations to support any arguments or claims in their favor, or to challenge and deny those against them. They constitute the corporate version of grassroots social movements. Serious ethical and societal concerns underline this astroturfing practice, especially if corporations are successful in influencing public opinion by undertaking a social movement approach. This study is motivated by this particular issue and examines the effectiveness of astroturf organizations in the global warming context, wherein large corporate polluters have an incentive to set up astroturf organizations to undermine the importance of human activities in climate change. We conduct an experiment to determine whether astroturf organizations have an impact on the level of user certainty about the causes of global warming. Results show that people who used astroturf websites became more uncertain about the causes of global warming and humans’ role in the phenomenon than people who used grassroots websites. Astroturf organizations are hence successful in promoting business interests over environmental protection. In addition to the multiple business ethics issues it raises, astroturfing poses a significant threat to the legitimacy of the grassroots movement.
Kid blogger Chris Mooney over at the Intersection Blog of Discover Magazine writes about it and says:
The website for each condition, respectively, consisted of a ‘‘Home page’’ with links to five other pages pertaining to global warming and the organization’s activities. In the grassroots condition, these were labeled as ‘‘About us,’’ ‘‘Key issues and solutions,’’ ‘‘Why act now?’’ ‘‘Get involved!’’ and ‘‘Contact us.’’ Similarly, in the astroturf condition, the pages links were labeled as ‘‘About us,’’ ‘‘Myths/facts,’’ ‘‘Climate science,’’ ‘‘Scientific references,’’ and ‘‘Contact us.’’ All of the content was based on information found on real-world grassroots and astroturf web-sites ….
A further manipulation consisted of disclosing information regarding the funding source that supported the organization. The organization’s name in all websites, regardless of the condition, was ‘‘Climate Clarity.’’ In each of the funding source conditions, all web pages within the condition specified who funds the organization (donations, Exxon Mobil or the Conservation Heritage Fund). The ‘‘no disclosure’’ condition did not have any information on funding sources anywhere within the web pages.
So, they setup fake websites to gather fake data. Nice. Not only that, they “borrowed” content from other websites to use on these “fake” websites, apparently without citation or attribution, lest that taint the results. Sounds like a job for John Mashey and “Deep Climate” aka Dave Clarke. I’m sure they’ll get right on the case like they did with Wegman.
So, this study seems perfect for a business ethics journal. Glad to see that the study of opposite views fits in to this trend recently published by Security Week.
Cybercriminals Creating 57,000 Fake Web Sites Every Week
I was going to do an analysis of the paper, but commenter Nullius in Verba did such a good job already I’ll just repost his comment from the Discover blog.
Nullius in Verba Says:
Mmm. So we have one website with “fluffy” headings like “why act now” and “get involved”, and another site with evidence-related headings like “climate science” and “scientific references”, and people were more persuaded by the one with the science. Why might that be, do you think?
I’m not quite sure what characteristic of astroturf sites this is supposed to be testing. If the only difference is whether funding sources were disclosed, it would indeed test the extent to which people were influenced by ad hominem considerations. But there also appear to be material differences in the content? Is the claim supposed to be that astroturf sites are more likely to use headings like “climate science”? This study does not, on the face of it, make any sense.
I’ve got an uneasy feeling that the difference was that “grassroots” was simply used to label pro-AGW and “astroturf” to label anti-AGW, and what this study is really showing is that giving them information on scepticism made people more doubtful of AGW. The “astroturf”/”grassroots” labelling would then be entirely misleading – propaganda dressed up as science in other words. There are of course many genuinely grassroots sceptical sources, and several prominent pro-AGW astroturf sites.
It would therefore be helpful to make it clearer what the distinction between “grassroots” and “astroturf” being tested actually was, and how it follows from the different types of authors. Because if they really did just label all sceptics as “astroturf”, this is even worse than the usual fare. I’m hoping it’s not true, and I’ve just misread the description. Did they in fact have both pro- and anti-AGW in both categories?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It would be interesting to check out which political party the researchers donated to. Ah..let me guess.
I’ve been banned from commenting on some forums for espousing scepticism. Someone would ‘out you’ as an astroturfer and get the ear of the moderators. There really is a phony was against sceptics out there as they know they are losing the science battle.
These guys wouldn’t be involved in the surveys that if you don’t give the predetermined “correct” answer you are considered uninformed, are they?
Nullius in Verba does not go far enough. The “study” is to prove a preconcieved notion. Not to find out any meaningful data. It is like the “97%” study that is so bandied about by the drive-by greenies as proof of their own ignorance. They can quote an impressive number (or fact or study) without knowing anything about it, because it fits their agenda. Astroturf is being done by the warmists – who must accuse skeptics of it in order to divert attention from their antics. The study is just another attempt at the diversion.
Sounds to me like a – if not colossal – at least huge waste of money, time, and effort. And what will it ever “prove”?
This thing actually got published somewhere other than someplace like DKos or HuffPo? What a child like worldview. “Grass roots social movements” are always good and “Corporations” are always bad. just wow…
Seems to me I’ve seen a few “astroturf” books out there on the subject of climate as well…
‘Astroturfing’, or posting ‘paid reviews’, is actually unlawful under UK (and possibly European) trading standards legislation.
See this legal judgement, here: http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=12016
Wonder if it applies to the fake web sites that are UK based?
“and astroturf web-sites ….”
Names plaese
What would this make lukewarmer sites? Weeds? Crabgrass? Pavement?
We got back in the land of needed conspiracy, unable to understand why the world does no think as they do and unable to accept that people can fairly and accurately hold views on AGW that don’t support the dogma . They fall back on to the idea , it must be down to a conspiracy and behind any conspiracy must be some ‘evil power’, so a real surprise as all religions need a ‘evil opposite’ to justify themselves .
The odd thing is ask them to tell you why anyone would bother to organize any astroturfing of web sites like the Guardian, and they fall flat , becasue lets be honest setting aside the ego’s of some on those on these web sites, they in reality have has much influence within the general population as slightly surprised mouse .
But surely if you can’t think of why anyone would bother to organize any astroturfing its not great leap of logic to suggest that no one really is.
It is obvious that reversing the experiment – just swap all the players and positions, would be considered a ‘skeptical act’. Interesting to think about.
I agree that preconceived notions were found, and that they did not explore the obvious best course of action which is ‘independent investigation of truth’. They used canned skepticism and canned warmist pulp. That is a couple of steaks short of a satisfying meal.
The object is really the idea that becoming fully informed is better than listening to one side of an argument. But that still does not go far enough. It is not a contest a-la-Americana of two hostile, opposing political viewpoints (though one could get that impression sometimes from these erudite pages!) but much more a seeking after truth. As people tend to see only part of the elephantine topic that climate change is at a time, one needs necessarily to read the opinions of many parties to the discussion to see who who talks turkey and who talks ‘litter’.
So, the fully informed become equivocal – how proper!
R. Gates says:
July 11, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Seems to me I’ve seen a few “astroturf” books out there on the subject of climate as well…
________________________________________________________________________
Pity you never actually read them.
A great talk between 2 physicists
http://trainradio.blogspot.com/2011/07/professor-richard-lindzen-on-global.html
Re: Sam Hall
how about “Watts Up With That?”??
What are the odds that this study was done with gubment money?
Hold on…Bear with me a second.
Who decided which was an Astroturf website, or a Grassroots website?
We conduct an experiment to determine whether astroturf organizations have an impact on the level of user certainty about the causes of global warming. Results show that people who used astroturf websites became more uncertain about the causes of global warming and humans’ role in the phenomenon than people who used grassroots websites.
Surely if the person who proposed the question above was skeptical of global warming they would have had the grassroots websites showing a skeptical view?
Talk about pre-conceived results.
{PS I am a non scientist, if my line of thinking is incorrect please point out where I went wrong. Thank you}
From the actual study abstract;
“Astroturf organizations are fake grassroots organizations usually sponsored by large corporations to support any arguments or claims in their favor, or to challenge and deny those against them. They constitute the corporate version of grassroots social movements. Serious ethical and societal concerns underline this astroturfing practice, especially if corporations are successful in influencing public opinion by undertaking a social movement approach. This study is motivated by this particular issue and examines the effectiveness of astroturf organizations in the global warming context, wherein large corporate polluters have an incentive to set up astroturf organizations to undermine the importance of human activities in climate change. We conduct an experiment to determine whether astroturf organizations have an impact on the level of user certainty about the causes of global warming. Results show that people who used astroturf websites became more uncertain about the causes of global warming and humans’ role in the phenomenon than people who used grassroots websites. Astroturf organizations are hence successful in promoting business interests over environmental protection. In addition to the multiple business ethics issues it raises, astroturfing poses a significant threat to the legitimacy of the grassroots movement”
How do you know this isn’t the work of big oil? Maybe they want to find out how well their efforts to fool people into believing Climate Change isn’t a problem are working? Just like they tried to pretend tobacco doesn’t cause cancer.
The acknowledgement portion of their paper:
More than one environmental tie there.
My respect for ‘science’ just keeps on growing.
From SpringerLink’s full text “preview” (the first page, barely legible), I think it says in part
So much for neutral observers. Send it over to RealClimate, a fine grassroots site the “researchers” likely approve of.
I wonder who did the peer review work.
So who are the authors?
The Journal of Business Ethics describes the authors as being:
* Charles H. Cho, ESSEC Business School, Avenue Bernard Hirsch, BP 50105, 95021 Cergy Pontoise Cedex, France
* Martin L. Martens, Faculty of Management, Vancouver Island University, 900 5th St, Nanaimo, BC V9R 5S5, Canada
* Hakkyun Kim, Department of Marketing, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455, de Maisonneuve Blvd., West Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada
* Michelle Rodrigue, École de Comptabilité, Faculté des Sciences de l’Administration, Université Laval, 2325, rue de la Terrasse, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
With one exception, we can blame this one on French influence. VC Island U. was established in 1969 as Malaspina College and was upgraded to a university in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Island_University
Can someone please tell me why any energy company actually needs to promote “denial” of climate change ?
As far as I can see even “greens” are still driving their cars – OK they use hybrids if they can afford it but it’s all energy from hydrocarbons mostly.
The people of the less developed world can’t wait to get a car if their economic circumstances allow it – remember China a few years ago – the nation on bicycles – well that is changing as fast as it can.
The fact is everyone wants the freedoms that cheap available energy provides.
If you want an argument over whether population control is needed, whether centralized government is needed etc then have that argument – don’t try to obfuscate that argument behind a panic over what we are doing to our environment behind some dubious “science”.
Besides – we’re all going to die some time so no-one can really profit from evil as the alarmists continually accuse “big oil” of doing.
From where I sit the vast majority can’t get enough of energy – cars, motorbikes, jet skis, travel, thrills, warmth, air conditioning, computers, internet, etc etc etc
Who wants to give all that up unless it is PROVEN to be necessary.
Personally I think as an intelligent being we need to work out how to limit uncontrolled population growth but I cannot condone any form of genocide or dictatorial world government and that is what I see the green agenda as.
Why does Mooney continue to promote this type of junk? Isn’t there a limit on how many times you can embarrass yourself in one month?