Why social media is important in the #climatewars

I noted today that WUWT just passed 6000 followers on Twitter, and 15,000 followers of the blog by email. About the same time, WUWT reached 5000 likes on Facebook. A few years ago, I never much thought social media was worth much, but seeing how Michael Mann and Bill McKibben have been using it to their advantage, my view on the importance of it has changed.

For them, social networking is glue for the cause, it keeps their base in line and comforted with missives they want to hear. A good example is this recent tweet from Bill McKibben to a follower due to this WUWT story where I call out McKibben for some nonfactual regurgitation, and mention the reaction of one his followers who is too mentally cocooned to look for herself. She gets comforting words from the leader of 350.org: 

mckibben_andrea_tweet

Now, I’ll be the first to tell you that you can waste a lot of time on Facebook and Twitter, but they have their value. The value for skeptics has been underutilized in the past, and I aim to change that in 2013.

Here is what you can do to help get the word out this year.

1. If you don’t have a Twitter account or Facebook account yet, get one. They are free, and you can turn them off at any time if you just get tired of them.

Signup: https://twitter.com/   facebook.com

2. Follow some of the biggest climate mouthpieces on both Twitter and Facebook, such as Bill McKibben and Michael E. Mann.  Here are the links:

McKibben on Twitter: https://twitter.com/billmckibben

McKIbben on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bill-McKibben/116439015075458

Mann on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann

Mann on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist

From these, you’ll pretty much get the entire spectrum of people in the ClimateMedia Complex they run with, making it easier to find and follow others.

3. You can optionally follow WUWT on Twitter and also on Facebook

Some others to follow are RyanMaue, Marc Morano, and Andrew Revkin. Again you can pretty much get the entire spectrum of followers from their accounts.

4. When you see climate alarmism in action, Tweet or Facebook post something to counter it, or simply ask a question asking how such claims can be supported. Be polite, don’t start a flame war.

5. Watch Mike Mann immediately ban you, like this reader discovered:

From: alice
Sent: Tue Jan 01 11:18:37 EST 2013
To: morano
Subject: Michael Mann

Just had the weirdest thing happen.
I posted a very mild comment on Michael Mann”s FB page regarding his criticism of an article by Gil Spencer.
I merely pointed out that Spencer is saying that the Supreme Court upheld the right of people to criticize public figures.
I came back to edit the comment and I saw that I am blocked from his page.
He only wants people who agree with him to post.
Now there”s a true scientist for you.
Happy new year, Alice

Save those screencaps, rinse and repeat.

6. Learn how to use hashtags to your advantage

As Andrew Revkin recently observed, “blogs are important”, but so is social media, and skeptics have not taken advantage of this arena that much.

There’s no better time than the present #armyofdavids.

About these ads
This entry was posted in media and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Why social media is important in the #climatewars

  1. Gene Doebley says:

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Watts-Up-With-That/110272895662047?fref=ts&__req=d&rf=133172440046388#

    Are there two WUWT? This one has only 317 likes.

    REPLY: It appears that one is a doppelganger – Anthony

  2. normalnew says:

    added people to my twitter. wasn’t in use anyway :)

  3. Barry Woods says:

    I can certainly recommend twitter, for getting to know people that would not perhaps not make comments on sceptic blogs.
    If you are polite and civil, interesting dialogues and debate can start, and continue been elsewhere beyond the confines of 140 twitter chars.

    thanks to twitter, I’ve had lunch with Mark Lynas and a certain Oxford Professor (who dared to foi CRU, and hopefully got across that sceptics/lukewarmers are not all the cliched ‘oil funded deniers’ that so many people lazily repeat without thinking. If they know you, as a rational sensible adult this is much harder to do.

    One very interesting twitter story started here..
    http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/

    and carried on here.
    http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

  4. zbcustom says:

    I too found a comment deleted from Mann’s Facebook page. In the comments on Mann’s diatribe on the WUWT calender and the ensuing libels about Big Oil and Heartland funding, I posted an ambiguous (as I thought) remark – “This is all too sad.” This was promptly disappeared. Now I think that my comment could have been taken either way, as an expression of support or as an expression of criticism. Which brings me to my question:
    Is it possible that these groups maintain a database of posters on skeptical sites that they can use to delete and so deprive skeptics of oxygen on “their” sites?
    Or have I strayed from the sceptical to the cynical?

  5. Chris D. says:

    Glad you saw the light, Anthony.

  6. BradProp1 says:

    Sorry Anthony, but social media the likes of FB and Twitter I find very disturbing. I find too many people that have literally centered their lives around the crap. They become truly “Social Morons”. I will never fall into that black hole. But, I will still follow you on this great site where knowledge, facts, and sanity reigns. ;)

  7. Mark Nutley says:

    I would sooner chop off my left nut that use twatir. You are already on my facebook, but again, I would sooner lose a bollock than friend Mann or that ilk. Sorry Anthony, but even I have standereds.

  8. Barry Woods says:

    And I completely forgot to put my own twitter address ! ;-)
    https://twitter.com/BarryJWoods

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    Bill McKibben is right. Climate skeptics have to be doing what we do as a hobby because we can’t eek out a living from it.

  10. Ulrik says:

    What you need to get on Favebook is EdgeRank. Most fans dont der your posts simpelt bevares they never male it to their Wall In competition with all the other posts out there.

    You need to post stuff that people like, comment and share. The more likes, shares and comments a post on FB has, the higher that posts EdgeRank becomes and the more likely it will be that it will be posted on someone’s wall and the larger the reach will become = exposure = more fans!

    Normally large pictures with little text seems to get a lot of EdgeRank. Also simple but provocovatibe messages.

    Long sentences with complex meanings normally don’t work.

    You can test it out yourself and see what gains the most attendance. Also you can try to acquire fans through ads. With some decent ad targeting I would assume you could get below 1$ per fan. Remember that each fan has around 200 friends that also see that fans wall and their likes/comments.

    Anyhow, there is a lot to gain. I work with web and social Analytics as a senior consultant and have quite extensive knowledge in that field. Let me know if you need some advice ;-)

  11. Ulrik says:

    Ok, sorry my phone translated half that post to Danish :-)

    It was meant to say that most of your posts do not make it to people’s walls because it competes with all other posts in EdgeRank.

    So basically EdgeRank is how relevant is the post to me x likes x shares x comments divided by a factor on how old the post is.
    Shares is worth more than comments which is again worth more than likes.

  12. tommoriarty says:

    Anthony, this is an excellent post. Frankly, I have avoided twitter and facebook, because I have perceived them to be venues for fluffy narcissism. I used to have the same perception of blogs, but that perception was changed in large part by WUWT. I started my own very minor blog (ClimateSanity) partly because of the positive influence of WUWT.

    So I am inclined to follow your advice about facebook and twitter. But there are some things I worry about. I do not want to spend alot of time sorting through the uninformed and/or emotional nonsense I expect to see. I do not want to make myself a target for vitriol. Maybe these concerns are unfounded. I guess I will give it a shot.

  13. PaulH says:

    Gosh, one of my New Year’s resolutions is to “unfollow” all of those annoying, self-indulgent and otherwise uninteresting people I’ve allowed to clutter my twitter feed. McKibben and Mann would blow my resolution before it even starts. ;->

  14. Contrarians’ absence from Clicktivism would not be happening if we were in fact well organized and well funded. It’s another item to add to my list in “Notes from Skull Island” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

  15. Chris D. says:

    Anthony, I just checked and saw that your last Facebook post was Nov 10th. You used to post a status with each new WUWT post. Also, none of your Facebook posts can be shared via the norma Facebookl “share” mechanism. One has to create a new post using your URL. Is it because your security settings block sharing? You might want to look into that.

    REPLY: not sure what page your are looking at, but that’s not what I see . URL please. You may have the “fake” WUWT setup by haters. – Anthony

  16. beesaman says:

    Been blocked by Mann since he didn’t like me calling him out on a number of factual inaccuracies, mainly revolving ariund him being a hypocrite. Roger Harrabin (@rharrabin) is also another one to keep an eye on as he spins the enviroloon message for the BBC. Fascinating looking at who they follow…

  17. Anthony Watts says:

    @tommoriarty I agree there’s a lot of nonsense on Twitter/FB, just respond to stuff that catches your eye. You can’t view everything.

  18. John in L du B says:

    The impoversihed Dr. Mann is doing this for a living but the big oil well-funded and well-organized skeptics are doing this as a hobby. Clearly this little exchange hasn’t started Andrea Angulo thinking for herself yet.

  19. Ross says:

    Can I just add: please be careful? A thin-skinned comedian in the UK responded to a negative post about him by urging his fans to go and flame the poster, or ‘fly my beauties’ as he put it. The poor negative poster was practically cyber-nuked and the comedian found himself in trouble.

    Just sayin’.

  20. I maintain a number of social media accounts, twitter and facebook etc. as part of my other, non science, life. I must admit I post once or twice a day and follow several hundred others but never read anything that appears from twitter and only comment on facebook stuff that is important or family. Takes about 20 minutes a day, the effects of which are probably nil but if that generates a few customers probably worth my effort. More on topic here I remain skeptical of the effect. I do tweet about my philosophy of science blog but since I don’t read the incoming stuff have no idea about responses. I also suspect my readership is too “old” to be into social media much if at all.

  21. Gras Albert says:

    Anthony

    Just as with web sites, an increasing number of social media accounts are managed by third parties on behalf of the individuals or organisations who ostensibly ‘own’ them, often under a commercial arrangement.

    Just as WUWT & RC are managed by a moderation team so will be many activist social media accounts, especially those for individuals who are so important to the ‘science’ that tolerating any contrary opinion, let alone entering a debate, would be considered a waste of their valuable time.

    Bear in mind that sock puppetry is not limited to message board & blog comments

  22. climatebeagle says:

    and have perseverance, I’m still trying over three months later to obtain the reference that backs this statement:
    WILLIAM COLLINS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: “Look at how warm California has gotten, four or five degrees hotter than our historical climate.”

    Dr. Collins has never replied, PBS NewsHour said they would look into it, but that was in Sept. Even the PBS Ombudsman (who has been responsive) can’t get an answer from NewsHour.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec12/climatechange_09-17.html

  23. climatebeagle says:

    I see the same as Chris D, last article is from Nov 10th. Using the link provided in the article:

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/wattsupwiththat/133662869999306

    Did you privacy settings get changed?

  24. Alan Clark says:

    Welcome to the 21st century new tweeters. Expect that Mann and McKibbin will block you instantly but interestingly Al Gore will put up with all manner of abuse. The value is that while Mann may block you, you still get to converse with his followers and some pretty productive discussions ensue. You’ll find that most of the Mann and McKibbenites have no idea of some of the more inconvenient information such as the recent IPCC AR5 draft “hide the decline” graphs. I’m sure that I have brought many to tears with my patented “Before you throw your usual “WUWT is not a credible source” straw-man, please note that the chart is from IPCC AR5″.

    It’s a blast!

  25. Chris D. says:

    Hmm – Anthony, it must be an iPhone (what I typically use) thing vs the larger platform that I am using now. iPhone doesn’t display the “share” option for the page whereas using the laptop does. Odd. However, I am correct that the last status posted was Nov. 10:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/wattsupwiththat/133662869999306?fref=ts

  26. stricq says:

    I would much rather see WUWT on Google+ as I don’t have a Facebook or Twitter account.

  27. CodeTech says:

    Same with me… last item on Facebook page is Nov 10, and that was linking directly from the FB link on THIS page.

  28. David Ross says:

    This seems as good a time as any. I’ve just started a climate related blog. The first article (the first of 2 or 3 parts) is about the Mann vs. Steyn defamation case and what Mann has been up to on his Facebook account. I had written it to submit to WUWT but Anthony has stated that he doesn’t want to quote the offending text here. Which I totally understand. But it is impossible to write anything in-depth about the case without quoting it.

    Anyway, this is the link for anybody that is interested.

    QTCV http://qtcv.wordpress.com/

  29. philjourdan says:

    If you raise enough hackles, your accounts will be banned as well. Facebook and Twitter are not equal opportunity sites. They have their own agenda, and the people that are going to get their information from it are exactly like your example:

    “I like peace, you know”. Forgetting the blood shed to get to that point.

    As Calvera (Eli Wallach) said ” If God didn’t want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.”

  30. mpainter says:

    philjourdan says: January 2, 2013 at 11:29 am

    If you raise enough hackles, your accounts will be banned as well. Facebook and Twitter are not equal opportunity sites. They have their own agenda, and the people that are going to get their information from it are exactly like your example:

    “I like peace, you know”. Forgetting the blood shed to get to that point.

    As Calvera (Eli Wallach) said ” If God didn’t want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.”
    ================================
    He wants them sheared, most definitely. So let’s be goats.

  31. David Ross says:

    My biggest concern about Facebook and especially Twitter is that it tends to dumb down any debate to bite sized chunks. Yes, it’s great for keeping people informed so long as the information is minimal. And, yes, you can reach a lot of people but what kind of audience does it consist of? People with an attention span of two or three lines of text at a time. [And, yes I do appreciate the irony of what I just said in two or three lines of text.]

  32. Godric says:

    Who in there right mind would want to sign up and follow Mann and McKibben and his ilk on FB or anywhere? One look at the drippy infantile exchange between McKibben and Andrea whats her face tells me all i need to know. If others want to fight them. Good. You do a stirling job keeping your cool dealing with the mentalist made-up rent seeking drivel that they spew ALL the time. Im not interested in gadgets and (un)social media, it bores me. Just as well the good fight is not left to me. Keep up the good work

  33. Cam_S says:

    I don’t know about Facebook or Twitter…
    Seems they both get used mostly for mundane, stupid things.
    One of my favorite cartoons for Facebook and Twitter;
    http://s146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/cam_shaft/?action=view&current=thefuture.jpg

  34. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    Cannot get the hashtags link to work

  35. Josualdo says:

    Ulrik says:
    January 2, 2013 at 10:09 am
    Ok, sorry my phone translated half that post to Danish :-)

    Lol. I relate easily to that! I guess all people who dont have English as their device’s language do. I regularly fight my tablet.

  36. James Allison says:

    Great idea Anthony and I’m sure that many regular readers will embrace the social media as an alternative way to get the message across. At the very least Michael Mann will be too busy blocking people that he won’t have time to do any more of that particularly bad science he has been previously won’t to do.

  37. Josualdo says:

    Cam_S says:
    January 2, 2013 at 11:55 am
    I don’t know about Facebook or Twitter…
    Seems they both get used mostly for mundane, stupid things.

    That was my opinion back then. Then I reminded myself that the use of a thing is what I do with it.

  38. Big Trev says:

    I just followed the link to Mann’s FB page and will follow for a while. But when you read the nastiness of the commenters one feels a little unclean. Those who follow the AGW creed have a different tone to the comments you read on this site or others like Jo Nova. I think it is why people like me feel hesitant to take on these guys directly as it gets personal, nasty and downright ugly very quickly – really it is sinister.

  39. Gunga Din says:

    “1. If you don’t have a Twitter account or Facebook account yet, get one. They are free, and you can turn them off at any time if you just get tired of them.”
    ==================================================================
    I don’t have either but I was on Facebook briefly. I don’t know how twitter works and maybe facebook has changed since then but if you do get a facebook account and then drop it, your “friends” will not be told you have cancelled your account. They’ll be told you dropped them as “friends”. I’d suggest putting up a notice a week or so before telling them you plan to cancell to avoid misunderstandings.

  40. I went to Mann’s facebook and twitter accounts and can’t imagine getting up every morning to the dreck and hyperbole that he spews. It would mess up my day from the word go. You are a stronger man than I, Anthony.

  41. Alan Clark says:

    David Ross Says:

    Contrary to your perception, I actually find that the links to information outside of Twitter and Facebook are the valuable resources. As I mentioned previously, I can give people a quick jibe and then a link to a full article or web-page. Whether they travel through or not is anybody’s guess but I routinely follow the links from my twitter pals and often come across some real gems.

  42. john robertson says:

    It may be a premature assumption that, what Twits around McGibbon and Mann do, have any resonance in the real world.
    What little of the twit-world I have scanned , brings mutual admiration society to mind.
    I find these so nauseating that I do not think contrary comment necessary.
    When the Mann is making an ass of himself, why would I interfere?

  43. Tom Murphy says:

    If a published pro-AGW researcher or apologist was truly interested in discussing or debating the multiple facets of climate change, then I’d add them to my Twitter and Facebook (not that I often use either). But after my posting credentials were pulled at two, pro-AGW web sites for linking to alternative, peer-reviewed papers, I understand AND (more importantly) accept that such a person is neither a dedicated practitioner of the scientific method nor an honest proponent of reviewing all the available data. Instead, they have seemingly embraced a subjective belief system, which acknowledges a revealed truth (i.e., faith) rather than an objective truth (i.e., reason).

    A number of prominent people have staked their professional reputations, careers, livelihoods, and (reportedly) lives on (1) the notion that catastrophic climate change is occurring and (2) humanity is responsible. A person cannot back away from such an entrenched position without having a serious and possibly damaging break with reality. Debating them via any medium is likely to be frustrating and ultimately pointless.

  44. Tom Jones says:

    I hate to rain on your parade, but far and away the most interesting thing about WUWT is the kind of lengthy analysis that won’t come close to fitting in 140 characters. I’m a lot more interested in the stuff that set Ms. Angulo off than I am in witty comments to her.

  45. Had my own Twitter page since 2010 but barely knew how to use it more effectively until recently. Set up my new FB page relating to it just a few weeks ago and now I have over 70 Friends, many who are the ‘celebrities’ of the skeptic side:

    https://twitter.com/questionagw
    https://www.facebook.com/russell.cook.7334

  46. paul matthews says:

    I agree that twitter is worthwhile.
    Other people to follow include
    Roger pielke jr
    bishop hill @adissentient
    tamsin edwards @flimsin
    lucia
    and of course paul matthews @etzpcm

  47. Ian H says:

    Although I have a FB account (mostly so that I can friend my kids) I never use it. Despite this it is disturbingly accurate in terms of its knowledge of my social network. The amount of information this company holds on ordinary people makes big brother look like a complete ignorant wimp. The world seems to be trending towards corporate dictatorship and whereas governments have run very inefficient dictatorships, corporations seem to be frighteningly efficient at it.

  48. Gene Doebley said (January 2, 2013 at 9:29 am)

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Watts-Up-With-That/110272895662047?fref=ts&__req=d&rf=133172440046388#

    Are there two WUWT? This one has only 317 likes.

    REPLY: It appears that one is a doppelganger – Anthony…”

    Apparently, it’s a re-direct from wiki. Maybe you need to go there and set the correct re-direct location.

  49. David Ross says:

    Alan Clark wrote:

    Contrary to your perception, I actually find that the links to information outside of Twitter and Facebook are the valuable resources. As I mentioned previously, I can give people a quick jibe and then a link to a full article or web-page. Whether they travel through or not is anybody’s guess but I routinely follow the links from my twitter pals and often come across some real gems.

    Point taken. I agree social media functions best as lists of links to other places where more information and better discussion can be found. But I am still resistant to using them. I do not trust Facebook in light of their past behaviour regarding privacy and other issues.

    But as Anthony points out, you cannot ignore them if you want to participate in a battle for public opinion.

  50. David Ross says:

    Ian H wrote:

    Although I have a FB account (mostly so that I can friend my kids) I never use it. Despite this it is disturbingly accurate in terms of its knowledge of my social network. The amount of information this company holds on ordinary people makes big brother look like a complete ignorant wimp. The world seems to be trending towards corporate dictatorship and whereas governments have run very inefficient dictatorships, corporations seem to be frighteningly efficient at it.

    I agree. Orwell got it wrong. Big Brother didn’t force himself on us. We created him. There is no coercion. Some people willingly divulge anything and everything to everybody. Even if you are more careful, others can easily connect the dots and build a comprehensive picture.

    But, it’s not all bad or one-sided. Orwell portrayed a nightmare world where every living room is monitored by video surveillance. The opposite happened. It is the authorities who are monitored like never before. No policeman can beat up a suspect without the fear that someone will capture it on their cell-phone and post it online within minutes.

    A common revolutionary symbol is the raised and clenched fist. They should change it to a hand holding an iPhone.

  51. Interesting thoughts. The importance of social media isn’t just being recognized by the climate activists though: One of Simon Chapman’s comrades in arms, a Marita Hefler, recently published a study titled, “Tobacco control advocacy in the age of social media: using Facebook, Twitter and Change.” I wrote and explained that I was an activist working with a grassroots online group on tobacco control issues in the US who believed that the internet was going to be a very important part of that battle in the years ahead, but that I had no funding to purchase studies.

    I asked for a courtesy copy and she nicely responded, “I would be happy to forward a copy, but would you be able to provide some more information about your group including name, contact details, website etc?” Unfortunately, once I supplied her, quite honestly, with my details, she suddenly cut off communication. Finally, after three or four emails to her over the course of a week or two she responded with: “Thanks for sharing your details. I have no interest in assisting you or your group.”

    So much for her happy offer to share her research. Evidently the details of how to use the social media effectively in advocacy work, whether it be regarding climate change or tobacco control, is seen as important enough information that it’s good to keep it out of the hands of the opposition.

    - MJM

  52. “5. Watch Mike Mann immediately ban you, like this reader discovered:”

    Yup. When I pointed out to Lord Mike a while back on FB that he is NOT a Nobel Peace Prize winner, I was immediately banned. For telling the truth. How does that work, Mikey Baby. And he is still claiming he is on publicity material, I gather.

  53. TomTurner in SF says:

    Perhaps Facebook management can assist in eliminating the fake WUWT page on Facebook.

    Anthony’s Facebook page is “wattsupwiththat”

    The fake page on Facebook is “Watts Up With That?”

    We need complaints to Facebook management to eliminate the fake one. Searches on Facebook for “watts up with that” should point to Anthony’s real Facebook page.

    It was frustrating for me: I went to Facebook and searched for “watts up with that” and of course was pointed to the fake page. Anthony’s page “wattsupwiththat” was NOT offered as a search result. It was only after returning to this article at WUWT and clicking a link that I finally got to the real WUWT Facebook page. It didn’t occur to me to spell Anthony’s page without spaces as “wattsupwiththat”. If we want more subscribers to Anthony’s Facebook page, this problem should be solved. Anthony already includes a link to his Facebook in the sidebar.

  54. John Silver says:

    Twitter……maybe.
    Facebook never.

  55. Sam the First says:

    I’ve been posting links to the best and clearest pieces on WUWT on my Facebook page for years. The problem is that those people who NEED to read the articles I post up, never do so: they refuse to be informed. One guy, an Obama activist I’ve known for forty years, actually ‘de-friended’ me on Facebook for trying to educate him about climate science. He’d been posting Gore-produced alarmist links onto my page.

    You can take a horse to water…. These people really are religious zealots, and I know if any of those who adhere to the AGW meme were reading the stuff I put up, they would not still be posting alarmist rubbish on their own pages – but they do, all the time. These are university or college educated people by the way and include teachers, artists and writers. It’s beyond frustrating.

    Still, its worth the try; something might get through at some point…

  56. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I don’t know if others will agree when I make this comment – but it is intended to be constructive.
    First, the social media outlets are IMHO, mostly for people who have little time, and want to feel like they are contributing, when really, they have very little time or interest to actually bother to ‘know’ about the subject matter. I find them tedious, and in the same vein as having FB ‘friends’, who you never meet, never ‘get to know’ and never actually ‘discuss’ anything with them or ultimately learn anything except passing trivia! Genuine people have genuine friends and genuine ‘interaction’ – not some virtual exchange of ‘ideals’ and throwaway conversation.

    Hence, ask yourself the question (if you were Mann, say, or any of the so called experts) – would you rather have 5000 uneducated, unknowledgeable people ‘following’ you – or as few as say, ten REAL people, prepared to help and actually UNDERSTAND the subject matter, perhaps to even engage it critical but constructive debate?
    I know my answer…

    So, my point extends to suggest that WUWT is pretty ‘exclusive’ – mostly in its moderation policy and range of subject matter, (compared to the SkS type shite) – and it is this that sets it above the rest in terms of credibility AND approachability. Do we ever wonder why Mann doesn’t actually come here and defend himself? Could it be that he cannot do so in an open fashion? and instead needs to build his own little safe haven somewhere, where no one can enter without approval!?

    I think it is perhaps a double edged sword, Anthony – and one which could end up a waste of time and reduce the skeptic credibility. What if the ‘greenies’ decide to swamp such social media feed, taking up your time and effort, and those of all of us, who bother to rebutt ‘dogma’ or ‘dogmatic statements’ – in essence, you could end up simply providing a further mouthpiece for their shite – and at the same time appearing as having to rebutt the majority (which of course, isn’t realistic, but you get the idea!).

    just my immediate thoughts….

  57. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @Kev-in-UK

    “Do we ever wonder why Mann doesn’t actually come here and defend himself? ”

    By saying what, exactly? “Here are my notes”? “McIntyre and McKittrick had it right all along”?

    Crikey.

    I will start to listen when he decides to bring down the whole rotten edifice by revealing in the first person what we know he knows. If he doesn’t, someone else from the inside will, even though they be long in the tooth when it happens.

  58. David Ross says:

    Anthony wrote:

    REPLY: not sure what page your are looking at, but that’s not what I see . URL please. You may have the “fake” WUWT setup by haters. – Anthony

    There are also several fake web sites (that I won’t name) that use various degrees of phishing to target WUWT. These are not parody sites, but there are several of those as well. Those that I’ve come across end up making fools of themselves.

    Don’t sweat it Anthony. If you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target.

  59. David Ross says:

    Kev-in-Uk wrote:

    Hence, ask yourself the question (if you were Mann, say, or any of the so called experts) – would you rather have 5000 uneducated, unknowledgeable people ‘following’ you …

    Sorry, I can’t resist.

    Answer: Yes, and the perfect exemplar is Kelly Anspaugh, Mann’s “interesting and entertaining Facebook friend”. (‘Educated’ -yes, ‘knowledgeable’ -no, unless it’s about … well put it this way: he is to literature what toilet humour is to five-year-olds).

  60. David Ross says:

    TomTurner in SF wrote:

    Perhaps Facebook management can assist in eliminating the fake WUWT page on Facebook.

    These people are stealing Anthony’s and WUWT’s identity.

    There is a channel to report Facebook phishing, although it appears to be more concerned with phishing of email adresses and personal info. (But remember Greenpeace’s “we know where you live” threat and Peter Gleick’s specific targeting and dissemination of personal info.)

    Today, Facebook is proud to announce the launch of phish@fb.com, an email address available to the public to report phishing attempts against Facebook. Phishing is any attempt to acquire personal information, such as username, password, or financial information via impersonation or spoofing.
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-security/new-protections-for-phishing/10150960472905766

    Also
    http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/08/facebook-wants-to-hear-about-phishing-scams/

    A Google search of “facebook identity theft” yields lots more information.

    For example:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45067276/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/facebook-case-tests-identity-theft-laws/

    Also regarding Facebook’s malevolent use of private information (from earlier comment), see this: http://www.sileo.com/ftc-facebook-complaint/

  61. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    January 3, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    Well, that’s kind of my point – if he had ‘something’ to defend, with constructed and valid arguments – he would be here! But he isn’t because there is little validated merit in his work – so it cannot be defended!
    I don’t like the argument from authority – it is both morally wrong and scientifically wrong. A true scientist likes nothing more than someone to challenge his work and to be GRATEFUL if his work is still standing at the end of the day – because it ‘temporarily’ proves he is right – and he then sits and waits for the next challenger!
    If the social networking sites were working as per this blog – these people (Mann et al) could not hide behind ‘followers’, and would be exposed because they could not hide behind the authority standpoint – but in the end all the networking type sites are doing is allowing them to build little self perpetuating empires of dedicated believers! That is not science – in any way shape or form – and it is not anything that these people should be proud of.
    Similarly, I don’t think the skeptic movement would gain from taking a similar stance – if it’s the same as say, Manns attitude (with strict control) – it will be open to ridicule – and if it is run like WUWT, it will be open to abuse.
    The way I see it – and I may be looking through rose tinted glasses – when folk come to this site, they have the opportunity to ask genuine questions and get genuine answers (as far as practical) and the real scientists here are proud and pleased to the provide some of their time for genuine people (but obviously not trolls!). I just don’t see that being the same for a social networking type environment but maybe I’m just naturally skeptic……

  62. Alice says:

    8571 likes for Romm’s FB page. 5518 likes for WUWT. Step it up people!

    Romm has a post about social media today. I wonder how he got that idea.

    So cool that I was mentioned in this post. I’m the one who got blocked from Mann’s FB page (he has 1584 likes)

    Cheers!
    Alice

  63. Alice says:

    PS. Is this true? “While every major denier blog has seen stagnating or declining traffic, Climate Progress had its best year yet in 2012. Overall, traffic is up 30% to 50% on most days.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/

  64. David Ross said (January 3, 2013 at 3:12 pm)

    “…Anthony wrote:

    REPLY: not sure what page your are looking at, but that’s not what I see . URL please. You may have the “fake” WUWT setup by haters. – Anthony

    There are also several fake web sites (that I won’t name) that use various degrees of phishing to target WUWT. These are not parody sites, but there are several of those as well. Those that I’ve come across end up making fools of themselves.

    Don’t sweat it Anthony. If you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target…”

    Yes, and some of those “parody” websites (such as the one run by Russel Seitz) are only because their own pathetic attempts at a website were spectacular failures.

    Ever wonder why some sites don’t have a “Blog Stats” (number of views) listing?

    They know that they can’t compete with this: 135,416,697 views.

    If they think that 140 character twitter posts and Facebook “likes” is the way to win, well, more power to them.

    And to Mike Mann’s constant deletion of postings and banning of posters, remember who his “friends and peers” are – the people who run RC, Open Mind, SkS – they only post in places where they control the narrative and comment sections.

  65. TomTurner in SF says:

    Regarding fake “Watts Up With That?” pages at Facebook and perhaps elsewhere too, actor Tom Cruise was able to get control of a fake page called “TomCruise.com.” The following is quoted from the Wikipedia article about Tom Cruise.

    “In 2006, Cruise sued cybersquatter Jeff Burgar to obtain control of the TomCruise.com domain name. When owned by Burgar, the domain redirected to information about Cruise on Celebrity1000.com. The decision to turn TomCruise.com over to Cruise was handed down by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on July 5, 2006.”

  66. TomTurner in SF says:

    Cybersquatting:

    1.) Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting

    From Wikipedia:
    “Efforts to curtail cybersquatting in social media

    “Social networking websites have attempted to curb cybersquatting, making cybersquatting a violation of their terms of service.

    “Twitter

    “Twitter’s “Name Squatting” policy forbids the cybersquatting as seen in many domain name disputes, like “username for sale” accounts: “Attempts to sell or extort other forms of payment in exchange for usernames will result in account suspension[9].” Additionally, Twitter has an “Impersonation Policy” that forbids non-parody impersonation. An account may be guilty of impersonation if it confuses or misleads others; “accounts with the clear intent to confuse or mislead may be permanently suspended.” Twitter’s standard for defining parody is whether a reasonable person would be aware that the fake profile is a joke[10]. Lastly, soon after the La Russa suit was filed, Twitter took another step to prevent “identity confusion” caused by squatting by unveiling “Verified Accounts[11].” Usernames stamped with the “verified account” insignia indicate that the accounts are real and authentic.

    “Facebook

    “Facebook reserves the right to reclaim usernames on the website if they infringe on a trademark[12]. Trademark owners are responsible for reporting any trademark infringement on a username infringement form Facebook provides. Furthermore, Facebook usernames require “mobile phone authentication[12].” In order to obtain a username, the individual needs to verify the account by phone.”

    Also, there are several links at the end of the Wikipedia article.

    2.) An attorney website: http://cybersquattingcases.com/

    Several cases are discussed. One case: “Cybersquatting Victory: Chris Bosh Wins Some 600 Cybersquatted Domain Names and Turns Them Over to the NBPA”

    3.) Link from Harvard Law School: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/domain/CaseLaw.html

    A quote: “As noted in the introduction, the existing case law has developed under two primary causes of action: trademark infringement and dilution. In addition to reviewing the basic elements of infringement and dilution, it is important to keep in mind that the goal of trademark law is to promote the orderly functioning of the market through avoidance of confusion and deception. Unlike other forms of Intellectual Property, trademark law is not designed to reward the owner of the right or as an incentive to create the intellectual property in the first place. See the Theories of Intellectual Property orientation materials for additional information.”

    Two more paragraphs:

    “The case law in the area of cybersquatting is fairly settled. With only one possible exception, no cybersquatter has won a court case against an intellectual property holder anywhere in the world. Despite this strong trend against cybersquatters, new instances of cybersquatting continue to arise. For instance, Intel recently filed suit against the registrant of http://www.pentium2.com which leads to a pornographic web site. Typosquatting also continues to occur. Two recent cases include the wwwpainewebber.com litigation (note the absence of the “.” between the www and painewebber) and the suit by Microsoft and MSNBC against the registrants of misrosoft.com and mnsbc.com for infringement.

    “When confronted with such bad faith behavior courts have stretched existing law in order to prevent the cybersquatter from maintaining control over the domain name. Traditional trademark infringement analysis would not have covered many cybersquatting cases. Often cybersquatters register the domain name but do not post a web site under that name. Thus there can be no likelihood of confusion as required for trademark infringement. In such cases, the trademark holder would have to rely on a dilution claim. Additionally, even where a web site has been posted, it often was not commercial and thus seemingly didn’t meet the “use in commerce” requirement for both infringement and dilution.”

    4.) WIPO NEWS & EVENTS

    “Cybersquatting Hits Record Level, WIPO Center Rolls out New Services”

    “Geneva, March 31, 2011
    “PR/2011/684

    “In 2010, trademark holders filed 2,696 cybersquatting cases covering 4,370 domain names with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center) under procedures based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), an increase of 28% over the 2009 level and of 16% over the previous record year, 2008 (annex 1). Parties took advantage of user-friendly online facilities such as the WIPO-initiated paperless eUDRP, the Legal Index of WIPO UDRP Decisions, and the Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (WIPO Overview) to assist their case preparation and submission.

    ““The WIPO Center is the leading provider of domain name dispute services and provides a rich range of resources for users and the general public. The just-released major update to the WIPO Overview is an excellent illustration of these resources and reflects the long experience of the WIPO Center,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. The freely-available WIPO Overview is a unique tool used by parties, counsel and others around the world to find their bearings in cybersquatting jurisprudence (annex 2). “The revised WIPO Overview distills panel findings in thousands of domain name cases filed with WIPO since its launch,” added Mr. Gurry.”

  67. TomTurner in SF says:

    Here is the link to WIPO for # 4.) above: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2011/article_0010.html

  68. E.M.Smith says:

    Do remember that The Feds want to archive email and ‘social media’ for a few years for their dredging pleasure and that the providers (Facebook / Google / whatever) feel free to sell your information..

    So only use those media if you are willing to accept those kinds of terms. Anything you say can and will be used against you by the government and large corporations… for years to come…

  69. David Ross says:

    I’m reminded of that cheesy ’80s TV series: Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, where someone from last century is transported to the the 25th one. A central aspect of the plot was:

    As there were no traceable personal records for him, he was uniquely placed … to help Earth Defense foil assorted evil plots to conquer the planet.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Rogers_in_the_25th_Century_(TV_series)

    The series was exceedingly cheesy but that point seems prescient now. The more information you put online, the more you make yourself a target.

    Eh … like this comment.

    Note to future Googlers: Despite taking care to keep my personal details off-line, and battling the ‘evil warmist plot to conquer the planet’ I’m not a Buck Rogers wannabe : )
    [sarc/]

  70. rhwoodman says:

    Wish WUWT had a Google+ page and/or community. I do NOT use Facebook. I do use Twitter … too much according to my wife. :-)

Comments are closed.