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 The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.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.
Those behind pushing the alarmist CAGW agenda just don’t ‘get’ why scepticism is growing like wild-fire. The ‘big lie’ has failed and with it all credibility in their strange mix of socialist fascism they wish to foist upon us.
If they are foolish enough to continue pushing it they, and their bought politicians, will deserve everything they get. They must always remember that we are many, but they are few.
Roger Knights (05:02:51) :
Fantastic stuff. Cut n’paste it to save my kids the bother of ever going to a PR or ‘news management’ class.
It’s interesting that media outlets are listed as “supporters.” It’s one thing to feign objectivity, but to be so bold as to admit the media are biased says it all. Just a progressive philosophy masquerading as science.
Hey all, just dropped by to see when our meeting was. I managed to book us a room in the bunker with Cheney.
Are we serving dead kittens again this year?
The Wall Street Journal has been wrongly classified as p[art of the support network. The Journal is one of the few honest and ethical print and electronic newspaper in the US. It also happens to be #1 in circulation, having supplanted USA Today and NYT.
Moreover, the Journal has published numerous factual and fair news and opinion articles about AGW. I read the Journal every day. In my view they are skeptical because it is the only supportable position regarding AGW.
Enneagram (05:42:09) :….New York at the UN building.
Oxfam is just another government supported socialist hack organization. You shouldn’t expect anything else from them.
Don’t know who their graphic artist was, but clearly not too experienced with communication design.
The spheres that denote organisations have been given importance and weight of influence by their graphical size… Hmm…
So we see that Climate Depot is the same size as both the IPCC and BBC
Treehugger and the World Bank share size two…
And NASA is comparable with George Moonbat in size three…
But the devil is in the organisations left out (apart from huge spenders like WWF and Greenpeace) which are namely:
The 193 governments that flew to Copenhagen for a jolly…
Seems to be a missing ball or two for that nest of biologists cum climatologists at Stanford U.
When I made my annual contribution to Oxfam I certainly did not think they would waste my money on such a stupid enterprise!
” A fascinating new study commissioned by Oxfam ”
Guess what, my contribution to Oxfam will move to some other area where real needs are recognised.
@Paul Daniel Ash (06:11:10) :,
‘I have a hard time seeing how that could even be fun, let alone something that would advance your case.’
Why would you think we have a ‘case’ to advance?
I’ve seen charts like this from undergrads who’ve discovered a bit of freeware.
And doesn’t it give the lie to the recent claims that sceptics are winning over the MSM? We can use this as evidence that we aren’t! 😉
cheers David
“Those behind pushing the alarmist CAGW agenda just don’t ‘get’ why scepticism is growing like wild-fire.”
Scepticism is growing and suggests similarities to the spread of Protestantism in the 16th Century. Then, you had an all powerfull central Church – the Church of Rome – who pronounced on the holy scriptures through the infallibility of the Holy Father.
Who is the Roman Church of global warming today? Who hands down the equivalent of infallible “Papal Bulls” while attacking non believers as “deniers”? But the modern Lutherians have arrived and have firmly nailed their protest to the door. Expect ritual burnings at the stake to follow soon.
Vincent (09:04:31) :
“Who is the Roman Church of global warming today? ”
The Club of Rome?
ROFL It is good to know how objective and neutral the anti science mag Nature is, equal that to the public funded organization NASA, and playing in the same pool as the world bank.
The nutty greenies don’t know much about the disorganized and fuzziness of the internet, the come and go as you please, pay/donate if you feel like it, ad hoc, mentality. Maybe it’s because they themselves are so well organized and well funded so they probably think everyone else has to be too, because they cannot fathom any other reality…. as usual.
Shouldn’t the skeptics be on the “right” and the “supporters” be on the “left”
of the diagram, or maybe I am just stereotyping?
LOL
“Blackboard
. |
AirVent
. |
ClimateAudit
. |
WUWT
.|
etc.”
Now that’s just too d*mn funny !!!!!!
Right up there with “A Vast RIght-Wing Conspiracy”
LOL
.
.
Havent they forgotten the real culprit’s here? The driving force?
The Tyndall Center, pluss all the Tyndall-center wannabe’s in each western nation? Like the Bjerknes Center in Norway? They are the ones getting the grants.They are the ones popping up in the newspapers with new reports about some silly new modelled effect, like Norway will soon be flooded.
Which will not happen if you look at the data.
They are also the ones supporting the IPCC with “Lead Authors”, making silly reports,again based on models.
And the strange thing is that IPCC themselves concluded in 2001 that models couldnt predict anything that is unlinear, with coupled feedbacks, and chaotic.
When will the journalists understand that all the scary stories from these people comes from models, not from real life?
cbdakota (19:43:26) :
Perhaps I missed the reasoning that did not include the NGOs like WWF, Greenpeace, etc. They seem to be directly linked to the IPCC.
Has it not been in the news a lot recently how much of the IPCC reports is based on “studies” from both the WWF and Greenpeace.
For example, himalayan glaciers, and the Amazon rain forest, not to mention Africa’s vegetation.
Yes, the IPCC “central” position is laughable, but the exclusion of WWF and Greenpeace is unjustifiable given the amount (and wieght given to them by the IPCC) of the IPCC’s reports based upon these two groups “scientific studies” (from memory approximately 60 in AR4).
OXFAM !? One of the greediest and cynical “non-profit” charities on Earth.
Last time I passed one of their shops in the UK , they were shamelessly exploiting the current AGW hysteria with a sign like ” Start fighting GW here, come in and donate”.
It was known 20 years ago that only about 10% of what Oxfam collect gets to the needy. Most goes in executive wages, “expenses” and paying huge sums to London interior designers to relook their supposed charity shops to look like TopShop.
It now seems another way to waste the money well-meaning people donate is to pay for one sided studies and propaganda so they can continue to say ” Start fighting GW here, come in and donate”.
Disgusting.
Mind you, even TERI Europe is a registered charity with the charity commission in London.
Bryan (08:47:30) :
When I made my annual contribution to Oxfam I certainly did not think they would waste my money on such a stupid enterprise!
May I suggest that such donations in need of a new home and good for all cause go to various sceptical blogs.
Then maybe “we” climate sceptics might become a bit more organised as stated on this thread several times “we” so desperately need to be, to help halt the stupidity (at best) of AGW
ASAP.
***********************
Paul Daniel Ash (06:11:10) :
Nowhere in either the study or the Leftfootforward post is there any mention of top-down coordination, oil company financing, structured organization or any of the other canards you complain about. The Leftfootforward post noted “how effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites.” That’s it. That’s what they mean by “well-networked.” Do you disagree?
***********************
OK there, Captain Oblivious. They’ve demonstrated the subtle point that skeptics use the Internet. Yep, that’s really a profound insight.
I’m not sure if I’m alarmed or amused that no one has read either the Leftfootforward post or the Profero study and noticed that it doesn’t say anything about control or financing.
The people who did the study described the skeptic side as:
No “organized effort,” no “central organization,” no “climate denier overlords.”
Why make up things to complain about?
******************************
Justin Ert (08:39:35) :
Don’t know who their graphic artist was, but clearly not too experienced with communication design.
The spheres that denote organisations have been given importance and weight of influence by their graphical size… Hmm…
So we see that Climate Depot is the same size as both the IPCC and BBC
Treehugger and the World Bank share size two…
And NASA is comparable with George Moonbat in size three…
But the devil is in the organisations left out (apart from huge spenders like WWF and Greenpeace) which are namely:
The 193 governments that flew to Copenhagen for a jolly…
*******************
That’s right. They need to include a ball for caviar companies and one for champagne companies.
The graph above looks like a bipolar structure, two sides with Dr.Pilke Jr. at the center, why?