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 The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.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 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.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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?

George Turner

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

Bill DiPuccio

Conspicuously absent: ICECAP, Climate Science (R. Pielke Sr.), Quadrant Online


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.

Funding for skeptics? Really?!! Sign me up, please.


Seems to follow the general pattern, i.e.
Climatology: Belief->Confirmation
Science: Observation->Theory->Testing->Improved Understanding
Science != Climatology
Where != means “does not equal”

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…
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?


The monkey story is really funny. Thanks for the laugh.

a dood

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


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!


Hmm… That drawing looks like the MSM Barycentric Model.
(Sorry ’bout that one, Leif. Couldn’t resist.)

Brent Matich

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

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.

Methow Ken

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.
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:
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. . . .

Rich Day

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.

How is the Wall Street Journal on the “Supporters Network” side?
Here’s a good summary of their Editorials and Op’Eds:
seems pretty skeptical to me…

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.


Poor Roger Pielke, Jr! He looks so lonely there all by himself!


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 –

R. de Haan

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!


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!


oakgeo (19:36:24)
You forget, if you dont agree wholeheartedly with them,
and open your wallet wide for their solar powered vacuum
Burning Is too Good for you.
JimR (a denying blaspheming heretic)


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?

Milwaukee Bob

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…


So which is worse? Being a climate denier or a climate liar?


Isn’t the Wall Street Journal on the wrong side?

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… 🙂


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.

Rick Bradford

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
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.

Did somebody actually get paid for creating that diagram?

Son of a Pig and a Monkey

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

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.

Greg Cavanagh

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

Roger Knights

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

Huffin’ Puffin’ Post?

Pete H

A walk down a UK high street on a Saturday morning….
Rattle rattle..” Care to donate to Greenpeace sir”?… “Expletive deleted!
Rattle Ratlle.. “Care to donate to the WWF sir?…..”Expletive deleted”!
Rattle rattle.. “Care to donate to Oxfam sir?….”Expletive deleted”!
And on and on!

David Alan Evans

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.

Dave Wendt

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.

Greg Cavanagh

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

Leon Brozyna

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.

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.


It looks like a hocky stick to me

Doug in Seattle

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.

Greg Cavanagh

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).

Dave Wendt

““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?

James F. Evans

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.

Cavanagh (20:14:30) :
Speaking of Exxon, Mobil, they are missing from the chart.

Connecting them to CRU, then to the IPCC.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

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

R. Craigen

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 Etc. A serious effort would have a lot more information, and its representation would be far more useful.

D. Patterson

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
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.
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.[…]
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.
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).

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