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 The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.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.
So on one side there’s basically a bunch of blogs and on the other the all-powerful mainstream media and the World Bank?
Why not compare just blogs with blogs? Or media with media. That’d show the disparity.
It’s apparent why the skeptical side is winning the argument. WE have bigger balls.
The Ivory Tower of elitism conveys its message very sucessfully to itself. Witness Judith Curry and her attempt to communicate with the skeptical community…
“In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news.”
Even one who wants the data and methods published, is brainwashed by the propaganda perputated.
I have to admit spending way too much time digging raw data up for stations with the longest history I can find in the Western US.
And getting in my digs on the ‘keepers’ of the data for doing such a lousy job.
Not a penny has come my way.
What would I do if I were awarded a grant to do this full time?
Document all the data that exists and what was lost, what fits together and what has been rendered useless.
Stations range from pure gold to basket cases.
Progressives against Deniers, left-foot-forward … the AGW scene has become a new playground for all sorts of leftists, uhh sorry … mean “progressives”.
Saving the world has forever been their specialty, at whatever costs.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot … they all have tried really hard.
However, the “study” has a similar “scientific” level as AGW itself.
21 March: UK Tele: Next Parliament ‘last chance’ to stop climate change
Parliament must also unlock finance for green measures, with incentives and steps to ensure a stable carbon price that makes efforts to cut pollution cheaper than carrying on polluting. ..
Dame Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam, said: ”The UK must push for new and innovative ways of raising the cash needed to help poor countries cope, rather than repackaging old aid commitments…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7493983/Next-Parliament-last-chance-to-stop-climate-change.html
no worries…the Tories(?) are prepared:
22 March: UK Times: Carl Mortished: What happened to Tories and the free market?
David Cameron’s energy plans show his firm preference for a planned economy
Consider this. The Tories will take command of energy markets through the Department of Energy and Climate Change in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the National Security Council. Ofgem, the energy regulator, will become “a delivery agency for government policy”…
He would rig the carbon market with a minimum carbon price to ensure that CO2 is really expensive. He would boost investment in nuclear and renewables and damn coal for eternity. Finally, he would set up a green investment bank issuing green government bonds for public investment in clean energy.
The question is how all this sits with Tory thinking about the economy, as it has nothing to do with market forces. It is about manipulation, central planning and ministerial control…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7070312.ece
I still say return the conversation to the real issue.
How about a new version of the chart showing a list of notable comments on the left hand side and an arrow showing it being presented in which ever MSM is thought to have had it first. Then a list on the other side of the inane or evasive responses.
sort of a “yeah we all a talk to each other. Now… about what those emails SAY…”
Congratulations, Anthony, on being as big as the World Bank and the BBC!
No Monckton
No SPPI
No John Daly (Dec’d)
No Niche Modelling
No Nigel Lawsons group
No Benny Peiser
etc
etc
…and on and on it goes
Stupid turkeys couldnt even do their homework properly on this either.
Oxfam – A water melon group professing humanitarian aid ideals when in fact, as its deeds show, its prime interests are elsewhere. The interests of its third world clients are regularly sacrificed to serve its real purpose, the promotion of a Marxist ideological agenda.
Anu (22:04:15) :
You people write comments for free ?
A George Soros shell company sends me $5 for every
22 03 2010
Anu (22:04:46) :
comment I write
22 03 2010
Anu (22:05:16) :
here.
You by chance know of a George-Soros-like skeptic?
Hat Tip to Rick Bradford @ur momisugly 19:58
I have been just recently wondering if anyone had done a psychological profile on our Australian P.M. ?
and
et voila
You and condensed Dr Sanity. Kismet.
That one is going in the file. Thanks
Humm? I am curious, does the “neutral” IPCC have the same relationship with climate audit that they have with the NY Times as revealed by climategate? (I think not)
The cogent point that socialist leaning goverments worldwide support and promote the agenda of the IPCC and use billions of tax payer dollars is worth repeating. The article is meaningless except to reveal bias and agenda.
Wow my humble skeptic forum is still not on their dartboard,this despite the fact that Joe Romm is a member (BloggerJoe).
LOL
D. Patterson (20:30:11) :
Oxfam serves as yet another of the many NGO front groups for the Marxist-Communist political movements. […]
That’s where I read it in history of …
LEFT FOOT FORWARD! MARCH! MARCH! MARCH!
(Or was it boot?)
Seems it was maybe in Italy or SS or Hitler Youth… Anyone recall of reading of that same chant?
Hey, where’s Sen. Jim Inhofe’s balls?? He won’t be happy to learn he’s been left out of the fun!
Smokey (19:31:09) :
“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…”
I would have thought Joe Romm was a sock puppet?
Dave Stephens (20:54:54) :
“How is the Wall Street Journal on the ALARMIST side? Can anyone point to articles OR editorials they’ve had that support the alarmist view? I’ve read many articles and editorials of theirs and they definitely were quite dismissive of alarmists, but maybe I’ve missed a bunch of pro-warmist ones… Can anyone show me those articles I’ve overlooked?”
The WSJ Opinion section is still dismissive of AGW and periodically has major pieces by the likes of Richard Lindzen et al. However they now have an “environment” writer who tends to present the standard “alarmist” “news” items in the main body of “Section A”, without providing balancing skeptical views and comments. He seems to have toned it down slightly after I wrote him an email last year but his pieces are still badly unbalanced and essentially give the standard BS story.
Lately, they have also had special advertising pages & sections contributed by Organizers and “Energy Companies”. It seems that the WSJ under Murdoch is keen to make $ from “environmentalists” and businesses of any kind. Only the Opinion Section is immune from playing to anyone. And of course they publish letters from all kinds.
If Obamnable now takes up “Greenhouse Gas Pollution” & “Global Warming”, we’ll soon see where the WSJ really stands.
“Quality research funded by charitably given British pounds…”
Minor correction, if I may. Oxfam is one of a number of British charities that these days gets a significant amount of income not just from voluntary donations but also from involuntary donations, i.e. taxpayers’ money that’s being hosed at them by government departments and public sector bodies. 2007/08 was the last FY for which their accounts are available online, when it seems that more than 25% of their income – approximately £80 million – was money “from govt & other public authorities” (£70.1m) and “DFID Partnershop Programme Agreement” (£10.4m). The DFID is the Department for International Development, a government department with Cabinet level representation.
I’m no longer a UK tax payer but it still boils my **** when I see a so-called charity getting a large proportion of its income from money taken from taxpayers at the point of a virtual gun (it becomes a literal one if you resist paying strongly enough). Often the agendas of these ‘charities’ parallel those of the government, so there’s often a cycle of lobbying the government (with taxpayers’ money given by the government) in order to persuade the government to do what it probably intends to do anyway (or why else the bunce?) but might fly better with voters if they can point to pressure from all these altruistic types in the so-called charities.
In short whatever this research cost it’d be fair to say that the British taxpayer coughed up for a good chunk of it. Yeah, money well spent… not. That Britons are pretty used to this kind of thing is no excuse at all.
“Profero has shed new insights into the way climate sceptics’ networks operate.”
Oh! What evil and oil will we find coursing through it’s vile veins?!
“Quality research funded by charitably given British pounds – surely they could do better. Or, maybe they didn’t want to.”
Or maybe they just don’t know what it is anymore. Objective reporting? Whoever heard of such a thing?! Sounds like something a skeptic would say, and we all know that skeptics are funded liars. Well, sir, we here at Oxfam refuse to let our pure opinions be tainted by objectivity! (note to self: Skeptics are paid by a company called “Big Objective Reporting, Inc”. Opinionate on this in next report)
Oh, and one more thing… Why aren’t Steve Milloy and John Brignell up there? I found WUWT through one or the other, and I think they both link here as well.
Some study this was!
They totally missed the fact that Stephen Mosher and I are roommates, or as someone over on open mind called it, how incestuous all the deniers are.
I guess from an English point of view, one of my concerns would be the impartial BBC having direct links to RealClimate but no links whatsoever to sceptics
so much for impartiality
perhaps they could refund my license?
/Mango
You should really read Left Foots accompagnyig article, it’s at least as funny, for instance where he calls his supporters to “Link to some of the dirt dug up on sceptics’ funding by SourceWatch; “.
Also, Mosh has great comments in the comment section below (at least they were there a few hours ago)
Acorn’s demise was announced today. Couldn’t all those old Acorns be converted into nice Green biofuel?