Why social media is important in the #climatewars

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

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?

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. 😉

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 😉

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.

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…

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.

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!

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

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/

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

“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.

Twitter……maybe.
Facebook never.

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….

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.

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/

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

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.

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.”

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