Ah yes, the tired old you are irrelevant because are funded by big (coal, gas, oil, wood, propane, butane, electric, peat, Exxon-Mobil take your pick) gets turned into a peer reviewed paper. What will they think of next?
Ironically, this is published in the Journal of Business Ethics and is titled:
Astroturfing Global Warming: It Isn’t Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence
Charles H. Cho, Martin L. Martens, Hakkyun Kim and Michelle Rodrigue
Abstract
Astroturf organizations are fake grassroots organizations usually sponsored by large corporations to support any arguments or claims in their favor, or to challenge and deny those against them. They constitute the corporate version of grassroots social movements. Serious ethical and societal concerns underline this astroturfing practice, especially if corporations are successful in influencing public opinion by undertaking a social movement approach. This study is motivated by this particular issue and examines the effectiveness of astroturf organizations in the global warming context, wherein large corporate polluters have an incentive to set up astroturf organizations to undermine the importance of human activities in climate change. We conduct an experiment to determine whether astroturf organizations have an impact on the level of user certainty about the causes of global warming. Results show that people who used astroturf websites became more uncertain about the causes of global warming and humans’ role in the phenomenon than people who used grassroots websites. Astroturf organizations are hence successful in promoting business interests over environmental protection. In addition to the multiple business ethics issues it raises, astroturfing poses a significant threat to the legitimacy of the grassroots movement.
Kid blogger Chris Mooney over at the Intersection Blog of Discover Magazine writes about it and says:
The website for each condition, respectively, consisted of a ‘‘Home page’’ with links to five other pages pertaining to global warming and the organization’s activities. In the grassroots condition, these were labeled as ‘‘About us,’’ ‘‘Key issues and solutions,’’ ‘‘Why act now?’’ ‘‘Get involved!’’ and ‘‘Contact us.’’ Similarly, in the astroturf condition, the pages links were labeled as ‘‘About us,’’ ‘‘Myths/facts,’’ ‘‘Climate science,’’ ‘‘Scientific references,’’ and ‘‘Contact us.’’ All of the content was based on information found on real-world grassroots and astroturf web-sites ….
A further manipulation consisted of disclosing information regarding the funding source that supported the organization. The organization’s name in all websites, regardless of the condition, was ‘‘Climate Clarity.’’ In each of the funding source conditions, all web pages within the condition specified who funds the organization (donations, Exxon Mobil or the Conservation Heritage Fund). The ‘‘no disclosure’’ condition did not have any information on funding sources anywhere within the web pages.
So, they setup fake websites to gather fake data. Nice. Not only that, they “borrowed” content from other websites to use on these “fake” websites, apparently without citation or attribution, lest that taint the results. Sounds like a job for John Mashey and “Deep Climate” aka Dave Clarke. I’m sure they’ll get right on the case like they did with Wegman.
So, this study seems perfect for a business ethics journal. Glad to see that the study of opposite views fits in to this trend recently published by Security Week.
Cybercriminals Creating 57,000 Fake Web Sites Every Week
I was going to do an analysis of the paper, but commenter Nullius in Verba did such a good job already I’ll just repost his comment from the Discover blog.
Nullius in Verba Says:
Mmm. So we have one website with “fluffy” headings like “why act now” and “get involved”, and another site with evidence-related headings like “climate science” and “scientific references”, and people were more persuaded by the one with the science. Why might that be, do you think?
I’m not quite sure what characteristic of astroturf sites this is supposed to be testing. If the only difference is whether funding sources were disclosed, it would indeed test the extent to which people were influenced by ad hominem considerations. But there also appear to be material differences in the content? Is the claim supposed to be that astroturf sites are more likely to use headings like “climate science”? This study does not, on the face of it, make any sense.
I’ve got an uneasy feeling that the difference was that “grassroots” was simply used to label pro-AGW and “astroturf” to label anti-AGW, and what this study is really showing is that giving them information on scepticism made people more doubtful of AGW. The “astroturf”/”grassroots” labelling would then be entirely misleading – propaganda dressed up as science in other words. There are of course many genuinely grassroots sceptical sources, and several prominent pro-AGW astroturf sites.
It would therefore be helpful to make it clearer what the distinction between “grassroots” and “astroturf” being tested actually was, and how it follows from the different types of authors. Because if they really did just label all sceptics as “astroturf”, this is even worse than the usual fare. I’m hoping it’s not true, and I’ve just misread the description. Did they in fact have both pro- and anti-AGW in both categories?
Yet another way to bad-mouth anyone who expouses a view that you don’t favour yourself. Just say they are astroturfing and avoid any substantive argument.
Would Greenpeace and WWF be considered “astroturf” sites for Wall Street traders interested in a cap a trade system?
There is one global warming web site that is not only fake on what it post on Global Warming but even post fake facts on most other things too. It is in the U.S. and it is called littlegreenfootballs.
Very strange web site.
So, . . . let’s see. You make fake sites and populate each type, warmist and skeptic, with appropriate relevant information and then find that the skeptic fake sites actually make visitors uncertain of global warming.
Methinks it is irrelevant where the real science sources from; if it’s real science, it will make more sense and ring truer than the junk science of the warmist site.
The concept of “astroturfing,” or a site being backed by anybody, is totally irrelevant to the study.
At least they seem willing to accept that gullible people have been swayed by something other than good science………., so there’s still hope for them.
Bravo. They have proved that people are influenced by slanted presentations. Who would have guessed this? … This effect will of course be evident in either direction. Even for funding – just give the impression that all climate research is done by funding-chasers, and watch the effect reverse.
I’m pretty sure, (once one gets past the content) that this is a psychological/ statistical blind study to discover: What people will respond to these websites? What web content will be more likely to persuade the audience of the website (emotional vs. factual) and how can these sites help to promote the agenda? This is very little more than what graduate psychologists used to do on campuses all over the U.S. with clipboards, although it also has a very Madison avenue aspect to it as well.
The Journal of Business Ethics article framed the discussion in context that grassroots are altruistic and astroturfs are egoistic. Implying egoism is killing the planet and altruism is fighting an underdog-like battle to save it.
It is a childish intellectual false dichotomy and trivial perjoritive fairy story.
If the IPCC AGW agenga suppprters have devolved to this level there must be a skeptical fat lady singing somewhere? Anybody heard here?
John
As people are probably realizing climate is not changing due to Co2 but probably due to natural causes this site and pro global warming sites will slowly but surely disappear as people move onto more interesting topics. My apologies AW but this will happen so be prepared.
Here are two “Home Page” menus. Which is the genuine grassroots and which is the manipulative astroturf?
1. Menu from website: Climate Clarity (CC)
– Start Here
– Home
– About
– Data Sources
– CC Wiki
– Contributors
– Archive
2. Menu from website: Climate Clarity (CC)
– Home
– About Us
– Experts
– About Climate Change
– FAQs and Myths
– Climate Library
– CC in the News
– The Blogosphere
– Support CC
– Contact Us
– Join our email list
Clue: They are RealClimate and Icecap, but not necessarily in that order.
Now, do you think the “Astroturfing” paper was unbiased?
Odd I’ve always thought of most AGW sites as politically rather than scientifically based (and funded), doesn’t that mean they reside in the astroturf area if we are looking at climate science?
Especially as the majority of skeptical sites are promoting proven, specific empirical based grassroot science rather than the untested, unproven modelling so favoured by the warmista brigade, well you can’t blame the poor souls from following the easy money (in this case the green and politico money).
Well come on, other than in computing, where else can a bunch of nerds have so much power over government policies? Now they’ve tasted power they will never let go!
Wikipedia has it defined as: “Astroturfing is a form of advocacy often in support of a political or corporate agenda designed to give the appearance of a “grassroots” movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event.”
Sounds like the whole climate communist hippie parade is naught but astroturfing then since all their “grassroots” crap these days are just make belief of their own creation and what not to advocate their “own” Big Energy policies.
So let me get this straight. Sceptic messages are more convincing than AGW hype, even when delivered on a fake site, by committed warmists, who pretend to be sponsored by an oil company. They didn’t find out anything useful about astroturfing they just discovered how unconvincing AGW is. Thanks guys!
I think I’m going to start publishing papers making extraordinary claims, get some people to mention my conclusions in the press, then put the paper behind a paywall so anyone who isn’t on ‘my side’ must pay to download. Those on ‘my side’ will get free copies in advance.
Springer does not normally require a fee to download papers. Much of the content is free. In this case the fee, $34.95USD, is set and placed by the authors of the paper. Easy to see what sort of business ethics the authors have.
Dear Astroturf Organizations:
Please feel free to sponsor my AGW skeptical website. That is, please send oodles of money!!!!!
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale.
I have yet to understand the obsession the greens have with “big oil” funding. It’s not like oil companies suffer from a diminished demand in their products – if the industrialized world is using less for whatever reason, the developing world is more than happy to take it off their hands and overall demand is so high, they can pass on any extra costs governments slap onto it. In fact, any incremental cost provides a perfect smoke screen for some extra price gouging as anyone who ever filled a tank with gas during “driving season” can attest to.
All competing sources of energy are either more expensive or more inconvenient or niche products. So big oil has no incentive to discredit climate research and donations seem to indicate that they are in fact giving to the “greens” instead of skeptics.
O/T I’m sorry to post this here, but today is the light bulb anti-ban effort and I’m all riled up about it, trying spread the word:
“STEAL THIS BULB!” I must in classic Yippie fashion politely note the loophole futility of Edison bulb prohibition for your due consideration. There are already available a luxurious excluded-from-the-ban version of real bulbs which cost only about double of already dirt cheap standard ones, namely “100W rough service” bulbs that have beefier filaments and are thus *less* efficient than standard bulbs. Ooh la la, back to business, rough service Bachelor! This loophole will be outed soon if the ban bans, and being a prohibition will cause blissful rebellion, making Edison subversively cool, resulting in more energy use akin to how people love big beefy SUVs as status symbols in rebellion against green nanny statism. From the bill which kicks in at the end of this year:
(ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘general service incandescent lamp’ does not include the following incandescent lamps:
(XII) A rough service lamp.
Search Amazon.com for: 100W rough service.
Business ethics
Oxymoron
If the intent is to gain “Intelligence”, it’s a whole lot cleaner, easier, and productive, to be a fly on the wall at regular websites and blogs. “Fake” sites face the same startup problem everyone else does; well.. except for the $$$ problem. But truth IS stranger than fiction, so I have no doubt that some idiot VP (probably the same one that is in charge of TV and Web Advertizing) is out buying these pathetic, money wasting ideas from some Hav’erd MBA with a Woody Allen sense of humor and ethics.
R. Gates,
It would seem you are indulging in something beneath your typical dignity when you imply there are a bunch of astroturf books out there.
How do you know this isn’t the work of big oil? Maybe they want to find out how well their efforts to fool people into believing Climate Change isn’t a problem are working? Just like they tried to pretend tobacco doesn’t cause cancer.
Big oil was in on the “tobacco doesn’t cause cancer” scheme? Wow.
Kaboom says:
July 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm
“I have yet to understand the obsession the greens have with “big oil” funding. It’s not like oil companies suffer from a diminished demand in their products”
sorry to cut it short, but the essence stops there. Take a look in EU. We have several taxes on oil, petrol and gas, one less on ethanol/E85, and we’ve had that “forever”. The last 30 years has seen ever more stringent restrictions, or economical incentives, to car manufacturer to manufacture ever more efficient engines. The car industry has been stellar in this great adventure to a “cleaner” world. The most common cars manufactured today, in EU, drives on fumes compared to 30 years ago, and in fact an EU mopped uses about as much petrol per mile as a new midsize shopping wagon. When they introduced all these taxes it was the acid rain, then the soot, now CO2, yet the more efficient the engine, did we get the lower taxes? Of course not, we got ever higher taxes. Why? Just like with the taxes on nicotine, when people starts to use less, tax income shrinks. If the industry released a combustion engine for mid sized shopping wagons next year that use 1/100 of the petrol per mile compared to today, governments in EU would raise taxes to at least equal the loss. It has nothing to do with environment but everything to do with supporting the ever fattening governments, and after all they too want their yearly salary raises. And that’s probably what’s it all about, how the rest of us can support all the “families” working in the governments financially, preferably without upsetting the real workers too much.
Anthony, the jig is up. Now, hand over all those $billions of ill-got petrodollars that you’ve been stashing…..
DandyTroll says:
July 11, 2011 at 3:26 pm
“Wikipedia has it defined as:…”
================
Just to add to your post
(wikilink)
– snip –
Astroturfing is a form of advocacy often in support of a political or corporate agenda designed to give the appearance of a “grassroots” movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (“outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual promoting a personal agenda, or highly organized professional groups with money from large corporations, unions, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often, the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research. Beneficiaries are not “grass root” campaigners but distant organizations that orchestrate such campaigns.
– end snip –
The authors of the paper apparently believe that only corporations do Astroturfing. I think that says it all about their point of view. Grassroots clearly applies to any CAGW, activist, green, left, etc. site while Astroturf applies to any site with opposing views. Interesting. Naturally it passed pal-review.
I always try to have a personal conversation with an actual person about Warmism on a daily basis. We should all go out and ‘bear wittness’ that’s what really convinces people.