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 The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.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.
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.
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 http://drsanity.blogspot.com/.
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?
REPLY: Yes.
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.
It makes it very obvious which side has the money.
Left has a lot of individuals, Right has a lot of organisations, Big organisations.
Huffin’ Puffin’ Post?
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!
Oxfam?
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/6468-charity-begins-with-climate-change
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.
DaveE.
Anthony
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.
Speaking of Exxon, Mobil, they are missing from the chart. I thought they were our overlords directing our wrath and providing all backing?
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
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.
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).
I just noticed a funny error. They apparently can’t distinguish between Richard North and his blog, the EU Referendum.
Finest research money can buy, yep.
““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?
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.
[snip, way, waaayyyy over the top and would probably set WUWT up for a libel issue]
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 Climateprediction.net? Etc. A serious effort would have a lot more information, and its representation would be far more useful.
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:
Oxfam is likely to be less neutral on the subject of AGW than Al Gore.