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 The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.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.
I have to laugh at that, because when you look at the graph they prepared above, both sides look like “just hubs of activity here and there, lacking interconnection”
About the closest thing to an interconnection that exists is a blogroll link, seen on blogs worldwide. I have one, so does everybody else on that diagram above. Are blogrolls the new network hive mind? Does noting an interesting story on another blog peg me as being a climate community organizer?
Apparently they never considered that maybe, just maybe, the Climategate story spread from blogs to MSM because it was real news?
Of course, it’s all speculation on their part. Nobody at Oxfam or Profero contacted me to ask any basic questions (and I’m betting none of the others either) like:
Are you part of an organized effort? (No – I blog because I like it, it gives me a sense of satisfaction, and I think it is important. For me it is like my old broadcast TV job, but using a different medium to send words and pictures. I started blogging because I had an offer to do so from my local newspaper, who still maintains a blog link to WUWT on their Norcalblogs.com website.)
Are you funded by a central organization, like the Soros sponsored Think Progress/Climate progress blog, the DeSmog Blog’s Hoggan and Associates PR firm, or Realclimate whose servers are funded by Environmental Media Services ? (No – though Climate Depot is apparently funded by CFACT, there’s no central funding that I get or any of the others get as far as I know, but ask them. As I see it we are just a loose knit group of like minded people. The closest anyone could say is a central funding source would be Google Ads, for which the blogs that have them get a few cents for each click.)
Do you answer to or are you guided by climate denier overlords? (No – but my, employees, wife and kids raise holy heck with me for spending too much time in front of the computer reading and writing blogs.)
Did you time your blog post announcing the CRU email hack/leak to influence the Copenhagen Conference? (No – that’s just when the files were dropped in my lap, and I waited two days for confirmation before writing about it. Ask the hacker/whistleblower what his/her motives and timing considerations were.)
It’s funny how somebody can write a social networking study and not ask the subjects being studied any questions. Quality research funded by charitably given British pounds – surely they could do better. Or, maybe they didn’t want to.
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?
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
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…
vs:
WattsUpWithThat, funded by a few dollars a day in ad revenue, and mostly by voluntary reader contributions.
Question: Which ones are “well funded and well organized,” and which one is actually serving the general public interest?
The monkey story is really funny. Thanks for the laugh.
JimB
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.)
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.
Noted at end of thread start:
”It’s funny how somebody can write a social networking study and not ask the subjects being studied any questions.”
Funny or sad or both; not quite sure which.
One thing I DO know: NOT a surprise; i.e.:
You were expecting them to produce a methodical, documented, in-depth, objective research and analysis work product ??… NOT.
Having said the above, let me also stipulate:
Oxfam has been recognized as ”4-star” charity by Charity Navigator; and is accredited by the BBB and the Institute of Philanthropy. From everything I know they do some good things around the world: Feeding the hungry, and responding to the victims natural disasters and conflicts.
BUT:
Oxfam American also now has ”climate change” on top of their ”issues” page; on equal billing with disasters and hunger; along with a feature story about ”environmental justice”. From looking at their website I get the impression that they have acted like a naive and unquestioning child:
The powers that be that they listened to without question told them that skeptics are all D-worders and ”nutters” in the pay of the big, bad oil companies; out to pillage the world for profit and greed. So they are going on their blissful, starry-eyed and merry way; to save the world from us dark-side skeptics.
To get a more in-depth flavor of the Oxfam position(s) on ”climate change”, see:
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/issues/climate-change
SUMMARY: Maybe they mean well, but good intentions aren’t enough:
It also matters greatly whether or not you are right. They would have done much better to stick to feeding the hungrey and taking care of disaster victims. . . .
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:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574101605007432.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecond
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 –
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!
Mwahahaha.
oakgeo (19:36:24)
You forget, if you dont agree wholeheartedly with them,
and open your wallet wide for their solar powered vacuum
then you are a DENYING, BLASPHEMING HERETIC and
Burning Is too Good for you.
cheerio
JimR (a denying blaspheming heretic)
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?
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?