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 The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.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.
The sceptic network is so tight. When the mails hit the email box we organized a worldwide teleconference. We pulled in the best brains from the republican party, CEI , Shell oil , the tea party movement , the royal order of barycentrists, to decide how we would break the story. It was a well orchestrated machine.
Mosher on the phone with Mcintyre reading fricking mails to him. Charles calmly making coffee. JeffId out hunting.
Question: How many skeptics downloaded the mails to READ for themselves?
how many alarmists read the mails to construct the best defense?
how come they don’t get that we like to see for ourselves.
now here is a funny one:
Raise your hand if you believe in democracy.
Raise your hand if you believe in a consensus of scientists?
Now how to you think readers of Alarmists sites would answer those questions.
Here is the global nerve centre for all the balls.
http://www.bestpicturegallery.com/best-picture-gallery-Atomium-brussels-belgium-Squonk11-photo.jpg
“he closest anyone could say is a central funding source would be Google Ads”
Ah ha! Google denialists have been funding your pseudo-science all along! I knew Big Google would stand in the way of cap and trade since the skyrocketing electricity costs (to save the PLANET!) would hurt their bottom line!
If they’d done a weighed diagram it would be pekinese on the left hand side vs mastodon on the right.
Look at all the organisations on the RHS, papers, journals even government orgs like the Met Office. Mate, you’re outnumbered.
I do like Roger Pielke Jr’s blog posting, you may be outnumbered but he’s the eye of the tornado.
I used to donate small amounts of money to Oxfam on a monthly basis until I found out that they were advocating a reduction in consumerism in the UK because of climate change. I wrote to them telling them I thought it was none of their business and would be stopping my donations. Coincidently Children in Need another charity to which I make a small donation rang our home and spoke to my wife about us providing an extra donation for Bangladesh. My wife asked the caller what Children in Need’s position was on climate change and he told her they had strict instructions not to discuss climate change with their donors.
Someone should send this diagram to the Chairman and Director General of the BBC they will be flattered that they are considered the centre of the AGW movement.
What a load of balls!
I’m sure this is based on a consensus and the science is settled.
This appears to have been written and reviewed using the same stringent peer review methods as those used by the IPCC.
At least they have the realists down as sceptics (or skeptics) as opposed to deniers.
The only serious issue that this raises is why a charity and taxpayer are allowed to commission this sort of disingenuous rubbish
Few volunteer blogs against World bank, Met Office, biggest mas media, government-funded giants like NASA and top scientific bodies like Nature.
Oh and the mother Nature is missing on the left side.
And no trace of my own blog. I have to work harder 😀
What a joke, the IPCC neutral!!! That’s a bit like putting some Nazi judge as neutral on Jewish claims.
And I love the way the “legally unbiased” £4billion BBC and the Guardian are drawn as comparible to this website (a few $thousand) and the climatedepot.
So this study is by Oxfam who contribute to Working group 3. Someone let me know when WUWT are invited to participate on the equivalent working group for the forthcoming AR5.
Personally I was disappointed not to be mentioned in this report as surely the $5 million dollars a week I receive in funding from Big oil is pretty significant?
If I get this much just think how much WUWT and CA must be getting. I also hear that Jeff Id over at TAV has just taken delivery of his sixth Ferrari.
tonyb
Why does the ‘Skeptic Network’ have bigger balls than the ‘Supporters Network’?
Because they sell more tickets.
For anyone who might wish to complain about the BBC bias which is contrary to their charter, here is the link to the complaint form:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
We skeptics are scattered and highly varied in the ways we are able to contribute to the effort to debunk the Al Gore/IPCC predictions of climate catastrophy. We have no organization, alliance or formal leadership group. But clearly two centers of power have brought us somewhat together and unified our efforts. They are first, the Minority staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works under Senator Inhofe when Marc Marano was leading the charge and second and most influencial Heartland Institute under Joseph Bast. Heartland brought us together for its conferences and there relationships and work groups became connected. Meanwhile SPPI (Bob Furguson) and Junk Science (Steve Milloy) have lead the charge in Washington. But scattered around the nation and the world and communicating through blogs and emails and a few phone calls, we all continue to do what we do best. The chart above doesn’t begin to cover the bases and as for the lines of connection, in reality they are mire threads.
There is no significant central source of funding and therefore no central leadership or power within our lose knit group. And, frankly, I like it that way.
It has to drive Al Gore nuts as we swarm around him.
MangoChutney (00:14:40) :
The BBC has no links to sceptics because their own pension funds are heavily invested in carbon trading firms.
There, fixed.
Looks like Profero is now in damage control mode:
http://www.profero.com/unsimplify/index.html
Some excerpts:
“Update on the Oxfam online research project into climate change related conversation
“Who we are & what we were commissioned by Oxfam to do
“We are Unsimplify, a stand-alone company operating under the Profero umbrella, we’ve been working with Oxfam for a number of months on a project to assist them in helping to make sense of how the growth of online peer-to-peer news generation has and could in the future impact their campaigning activities.
[…]
“What we set out to do was to help Oxfam’s campaigns team make sense of key online conversations and news generators around climate change and international development issues and their dynamics in order that they might question, revise or support their existing mental models for campaigning and to support decision making and facilitate a culture of inquiry and curiosity amongst the campaign team.
“If this sounds complex and challenging then that’s intentional because what Unsimplify does is complex, hence the name. ”
With a name like that, I guess their mission in life must be to make the simple complex! … But wait, there’s more …
“A small group of dedicated people coming from a diverse range of positions and perspectives but working together as a loose federation held together by shared values and beliefs succeeded in accomplishing the most impressive PR coup of the 21st century.”
This “PR coup of the 21st century” which was accomplished by “by single-mindedly applying concerted and consistent pressure at critical junctures in the media ecology”
But that aside, I think “loose federation” is a somewhat more reasonable depiction of the graphic – which Unsimplify calls a “map” – than LeftFootBackward’s [?!] “extraordinarily well-networked”.
Unsimplify continues the spin, of course … but those were the highlights that jumped out at me (well, that and the fact that they felt it necessary to mention that they “didn’t examine the entire myriad of Facebook groups”)
They’ve got Geoffrey Lean in The Times, but he’s a Telegraph columnist. They’ve also left out The Independent on their Supporters Network, which makes up the BBC-Guardian-Independent global warming propaganda axis.
The editorial board of The Independent:
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Mike Hulme
University of East Anglia, UK
EXECUTIVE EDITORIAL BOARD
Perceptions and Communication of Climate Change
Irene Lorenzoni
University of East Anglia, UK
INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
Tim O’Riordan
University of East Anglia, UK
I wonder how rigorous being in charge of “Perceptions and Communication of Climate Change” is?
This is not science, this is manipulation. See Mike Hulme’s writings about the same – i.e. “post-normal science”.
WUWT and Climate Depot versus BBC and Guardian !! LOL
That leftfootforward blog is so idiotic, it might single-handedly explain why AGW believers have been such a failure at arguing their case.
Furthermore, there’s a lot of people uncritically falling for the original claim…I guess the main result of this exercise is that there’s definitive proof that AGW suckers(*) are born one per minute…
(*) no, I am not claiming every AGWer is a sucker 😎
Well that’s one thing they’ve got right – the BBC at the hub of all the alarmist activity, and like most of the others funded by tax.
“DENIALIST OVERLORDS”! Wow, that evokes my childhood, scaring myself reading comics my Dad disapproved of up in the treehouse I and my ‘gang’ of ten-year-olds had built, by the light of a candle stub.
This Oxfam exercise does nothing except demonstrate, once again, that the inmates truly are running the asylum and the scary part is that some people believe their mad utterances. Obviously, the nutters who published this sad excuse for a survey never had a chance to play ‘cowboys and Indians’ or any other politically-incorrect childhood game and are are only just arriving at the developmental level of pre-adolescence due to their Marxist upbringing and are acting out pre-teen scenarios.
Anthony, I suspect that the big balls in the schema suggest adulthood!
Where can I find the two pro-AGW sites of Tamino and Deltoid?
Why is the IPCC considered the center of the debate in that image? Shouldn’t that ball read “AGW” instead? The IPCC belongs a few inches to the right of the MET Office, I’d say, as they are stark raving mad.
Sloppy …. veeeeery sloppy … but helpful if it shows the world as they see it!
WWF and Greenpeace both are indeed major players. But what about (just off the top of my head) …
Munich Re? Grantham Institute(s)? Woods Hole Research Center? British Council? TERI? Friends of the Earth? Geneva Group? GEF? DFID/FCO? DECC? Carbon Trust? Carbon Disclosure? Economist Magazine? Energy Foundation? IIED? Oak Foundation? Climate Action Network? European Climate Foundation? Euiropean Environment Bureau? Natural Environment Research Council? Global Research Alliance? University of East Anglia? UNEP? WMO? UNFCCC? HSBC’s Climate Change Centre of Excellence? Deutsche Bank? Commonwealth Council? Children’s Investment Fund Foundation? Ecofin Research Foundation? Yale University? Catalyst project? Climateworks? Soros Climate? Carbon War Room? Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development? Asian Development Bank? Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)?
” ZT (19:27:48) :
Seems to follow the general pattern, i.e.
Climatology: Belief->Confirmation
Science: Observation->Theory->Testing->Improved Understanding
Science != Climatology
Where != means “does not equal”
”
science + climatology = scientology!