Richard North, of the EU Referendum, the only player in the map below to have three balls, points out that Profero has made an “update” on their website. But there’s no update to the hilariously flawed networking map they produced, at least that I can find.
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.
“…by significantly influencing public perception of anthropogenic global warming by single-mindedly applying concerted and consistent pressure at critical junctures in the media ecology here in the UK and abroad.”
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.
We were commissioned by Oxfam to do this because they were looking for an approach that goes deeper than just monitoring and mapping online conversations – although this does form a part of what we do.
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.
Putting The LeftFootForward piece into context
We’re really excited that people are taking an interest in what we do and hats off to LeftFootForward for getting the scoop on this piece of work but we’d like to clarify what’s being discussed (most of the conversations focus upon a visual representation of some of the key conversations in the form of a landscape map) as it should be understood in the context of an entire report (120 pages or so) which hasn’t been made public.
The report as a whole applies our own bespoke models and frameworks to both quantitative and qualitative data in order to bring to the surface complex dynamics and issues which would otherwise pass un-noticed if an automated technological monitoring solution had been used in isolation.
Why does this matter?
In a complex situation such as the one we were analysing, data alone won’t aid in making sense of what’s happening, but narratives, informed by data, mental models and assumptions, can.
For example, we didn’t examine the entire myriad of Facebook groups which have formed around climate change and international development issues because they were not significant in this context.
So, what’s the story then?
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.
The climate change sceptics did this by significantly influencing public perception of anthropogenic global warming by single-mindedly applying concerted and consistent pressure at critical junctures in the media ecology here in the UK and abroad.
The map that’s being discussed outlines some of the key players and some of the dynamics at play in order to help create a meaningful narrative which captures the sense of what was happening and brings to the surface the key issues.
What happens next?
The ultimate goal of the project was to abstract from all the online noise a narrative and a working model for ‘next practice’ campaigning which would furnish Oxfam, and the progressive community in general, new insights and knowledge about how they might, in future, listen, respond and act into an increasingly complex and turbulent media ecology.
If you have any specific questions about the project please email Managing Director Stewart Conway on unsimplify@profero.com and we’ll do our best to answer them but please do bear in mind that we are really busy.
Alternatively you can visit the Wikipedia page on sense-making which outlines some of the key ideas which have inspired us and which inform our work and approach. The page has some great links to more extensive online resources about how organisations can make sense of, and act into, complex challenges and situations.
The more I think about the AGW story the more I begin to realise that it is a beautiful example of how the human race, for all is technological innovation and modernity, actually displays the same behaviour of previous generations and centuries. Behaviours and needs cannot be eradicated by modern living. You need millenia to evolve.
We all laugh now at our ancestors believing the world was flat .. or how it was the center of the universe, ort how we used to worship the trees and the winds … or how religious conviction controlled the minds of people for centuries. But when people stop believing in god, they don’t believe in nothing … they will believe in anything. And those that believe wlil not change just because of the ‘facts’. It has to be explained away …. hence the rubbish Profero has come up with.
Einstein said it best : There are two things which may be infinte …. The Universe and Human Stupidity …. and I’m not sure about the Universe.
Perhaps the complaint from climate change proponents is that in the marketplace of ideas, their ideas don’t sell.
I pointed this out days ago, on your original post. Kindly look at my comments, where I quote the exact same passage you quote in this post. Don’t you find it interesting that you only notice when someone you agrees with draws your attention to it?
The Profero study does note that “there’s no concerto, no map, no denier overlords demanding results.” It’s a straw man to imply that they ever said there was.
REPLY: Yep, there it is. It’s simply a matter of I don’t always see all the comments. With a volunteer team of moderators, many get approved without my seeing them. If you have something that I should see, please make a note like “MODS- please flag for Anthony’s attention” and they will. – Anthony
These people really don’t have a clue do they?
They think they have to talk down to us in a different way I suppose, so we’ll understand
Planks!
DaveE.
Sounds like to me they are trying to find a way to discredit the skeptical thinkers of climate change. The whole thing seems to be centered on how to oppose critical thought or to find a way to quiet the discussion on critical/skeptical sites.
Bill Derryberry
“In a complex situation such as the one we were analysing, data alone won’t aid in making sense of what’s happening, but narratives, informed by data, mental models and assumptions, can.”
An assumption is the mother of all [snip] ups – a good start for them then.
It’s quite funny how they perceive WUWT, CA, Bish etc.
When will they understand that the sceptic blogs are simply kids in the crowd who shouted “If HE’S wearing clothes, then how come I can see the emperor’s got no bollocks!?”
The PR coup they think happened is nothing but the re-emergence of “rational man” (point 1.3 in the public coercion instruction manual “RulesOfTheGame.pdf”, FOI2009/documents) that DEFRA and all the climate alarm fakers foolishly dismissed.
Like reading a story on a Mobius strip about a thought contained in a Klien bottle.
“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.”
They should also add people of many disciplines outside the bribe range of grants for the “correct science”. Like the gaggle of people who congregate on WUWT. The wisdom of the crowds prevails over the agenda crowd. Works every-time it’s tried.
Open science is the only science for a political agenda age.
sigh….all the portending jokes about to arrive….
Richard North, of the EU Referendum, the only player in the map below to have three balls,
Do they clank, too?
Is he a pawn broker?
Does he have polyorchidism?
I searched through the comments of the original thread but was unable to locate an edited networking map (by a commenter, not Profero). Was one created, I may have missed it (250 comments)? Preferably it would have more accurate connections between entities and weighted spheres. Just curious.
My take on the loose federation of dedicated people who populate sites such as WUWT is proof that many people sharing data and ideas can add much to understanding complex technical issues. I am continually impressed with the data sources that are posted. For the most part, the comments show good insight into the topic matter presented. Questions are posed and answered with insightful integrity and thoughtful polite responses. There is a bit of showboating commentary, but nothing like the hateful, small minded remarks on RealClimate.
The old sayings are, “many pocketbooks makes plenty of money” and “many hands makes quick work” . I would add one, “many dedicated brains provides many sensible insights”.
The only thing that I find missing on the skeptic side is leadership to bring the groups findings to the attention of the media and the politicians. Accusations such as those made by Profero are without much foundation. While Hansen is losing ground (pun intended) these days, he has had the media control button under his thumb since 1987.
What, a re-do….And I’m still not included in the balls????
Well, I’ve been a regular here for longer than most on that list. Now I’m REALLY offended!
B S generator
“turbulent media ecology”
That equals high quantity of baloney generating with confusion and internal contradictions
This map is great news for the skeptic community.
The groupthink AGW advocates will seize on it and waste huge amounts of time chasing their own tails trying to figure out some new brand of agit-prop with which to counter a non-existent organization.
They simply can’t comprehend that individuals can produce effective action, without having to convene endless struggle meetings and mobilizations.
I’m a bit dubious about the phrase ‘peer-to-peer news generation’.
You don’t generate news unless you actually do something – there are a minuscule few who actually generate actual events (aka. news). All these blogs, ‘news sites’ and other internet presences do is link one another to make others aware of the events.
The linking and centralization of news events (e.g. WattsUpWithThat), and it’s popularity, can of course, be a news event in its own right.
In this instance, the internet is a hosting playground for ‘media wars’. While the exercise may be interesting, it’s simply a front to the old print-style media wars: an effort to put your competitor out of business. Something which is destined to fail because of the very nature of the internet, and because such organizations in this case have the dichotomy of being civic friendly (use of wikipedia, for example) in publishing how smart they are in devising a scheme which can be simply copied and used by the competitors.
Bottom line, how do you get the proletarians to take (read) your view over your competitor?
I think many of the commentators are missing the main message from this exercise. Oxfam and other activists groups have become really good at releasing “studies” that support their cause. Even thogh many, if not all, of these studies are proven to be wrong on more rigorous analysis, experience has taught activist that MSM will print their original conclusion, but totally ignore subsequent challenges. Thus, the emrgence of an on-line community that not only challenges questionable studies and conclusions, but manages to publicize contrary views is undermining the activist’ favored mode of operations.
Now that they have recognized that their strategy is not working, it is to their credit that they are trying to understand why not. It will be interesting to monitor how this changes their advocacy efforts.
So, on this diagram, the BBC is further from the IPCC (nominally an impartial arbitrator of science) than…RealClimate? In fact the BBC only links into the subject via RealClimate (or loosely the Guardian).
That’s the real story here.
The BBC is not impartial, not independent and not worth the license fee.
According to Oxfam anyway.
Jim (07:53:43) :
I have to laugh at this what with the IPCC in the middle. The IPCC is far on the right side of the chart.
I got a chuckle out of that, as well.
Wow, 36 comments when I started typing. Kind of sums up the pox on society that is the ‘internet age’: Less Thinky More Clicky-Clicky.
With three balls no wonder the man has the ability to savage Pachauri! Or perhaps he should be in a circus? What he has unearthed regarding the BBC, & it’s rather lurid connections around the world he should have a medal!
Where is CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Bill Maher? Where are the comedians, musicians, writers, and artists? Where are Obama and the Dems? They left out most of the whole Left.
…….“…by significantly influencing public perception of anthropogenic global warming by single-mindedly applying concerted and consistent pressure at critical junctures in the media ecology here in the UK and abroad.”
Isn’t this exactly what Pachauri, Hansen, Mann and Gore are doing to promote the AGW agenda?
…….”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.”
But a “networking map”??? Why??
And whom would you be more inclined to believe? People pushing an agenda or people who are disorganized but unified?
“Media ecology” is Newspeak for censorship. They’re looking for a way to get back to the old days, when newspapers, newsmagazines, radio and TV told everyone what to think.
With the internet, their problem is doubleplusUnsimplified.
They’ve been working on this for months??!! I’d charitably assumed a day or two.
Still, if the aim is to help Oxfam disseminate more rubbish then maybe we shouldn’t be putting them straight. “Keep up the great work guys, you’ve really got us bang to rights!”
Mustafa Mohatarem is right. The groups which want to tell you what to think have had it easy. All they need to do is generate a press release, and the uncritical media will run their story. A whole lot of newspaper work is filling the spaces between the ads. The ads generate the real revenue, but you have to fill the space to sell the papaer and convince the advertizers you have a readership. Most of the creatures we idly refer to as journalists do no more (no more at all) than to paraphrase those press releases. (Ever wonder why they all run the same story on the same day?)
Then along comes the web. The opportunity for anybody to publish something which can be accessed by the whole world, if you can grab its attention. No need to sell space, no need to rely on a press release, plenty of incentive to fisk the press releases for truth, accuracy and agenda. The world changed, and the MSM were waiting for the press release to tell them what to write about it.