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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R Gates said:
“There are probably only a few thousand people in the world really qualified to look at the actual data with a trained and educated eye and draw any sort of conclusion at all.”
There is NO ONE qualified to look at the 30 years of reasonably good data, 150 years of incomplete data, and a few 1000 years or so of crappy data and draw ANY conclusions. Further, until we let go of this fantasy that climate sensitivity is a constant/linear/continuous function that can be modeled we have no hope of ever drawing any conclusion at all.
Amazing what you can get up to when you have AGW billions$ burning a hole in your treasuries.
You could, for example, astroturf the planet!
Doug Badgero:
At July 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm your excellent refutation of some of the nonsense from R Gates says;
“There is NO ONE qualified to look at the 30 years of reasonably good data, 150 years of incomplete data, and a few 1000 years or so of crappy data and draw ANY conclusions. Further, until we let go of this fantasy that climate sensitivity is a constant/linear/continuous function that can be modeled we have no hope of ever drawing any conclusion at all.”
Yes! Yes! Yes!
The best that anybody can do is to extrapolate the apparent cycles in the data and then to assume they will recur. There is some justification for this because there is cyclicity in the system (e.g. cyclicity induced by the Earth’s orbit around the Sun with resulting seasons in the NH and SH). But even that extrapolation may be completely false because the apparent cycles could be random variations with no real physical cause. Indeed, as you say, the data is so poor that the apparent cycles could merely be errors in the data sets.
Furthermore, the assumption that climate is governed by radiative forcing has no empirical support and there is good reason to doubt it. The Sun has increased its thermal output ~30% since the Earth gained an oxygen-rich atmosphere and there has been liquid water on the Earth’s surface throughout that time: but the increase in Solar radiative forcing would have boiled the oceans to steam if climate sensitivity were a constant/linear/continuous function.
So, it is the worst form of mysticism to assert there are magicians who can interpret the climate data in a manner which provides valid conclusions that they can tell to.us mere mortals.
Richard
davidmhoffer says:
July 12, 2011 at 1:11 pm
R Gates;
Further, you totaly side stepped the logarithmic argument…yet again…you always do…because you don’t have an answeer, and so you change the subject.
___
My post from 11:39 pm on July 11 on this tread was perhaps too detailed of a response for you.
Sorry, I assumed you were at least somewhat familiar with the basic notions of Chaos theory, and could readily see the analogy between the logarithmic growth of the greenhouse effects of CO2 and the logarithmic growth of the total stress forces in a sandpile. The net result is that logarithmic growth is found everywhere in nature, and gives no general rule about tipping points being reached. At some point the sandpile collapses, regardless as to whether or not the total sandpile’s stress between grains has been growing logarithmically or not. The logarithmic growth of the greenhouse effect of CO2 tells us nothing about the points at which that greenhouse growth migh tip the system into a whole new mode of operation.
Bystander;
@ur momisugly David – you wrote “In the abstract, the very first sentence defines skeptics as people who deny the seriousness of the problem.”
No it doesn’t, it says>>>>
If you will follow the link in R Gates comment to which I was responding, you will find the quote to which I refer. I was responsing to the article presented by R Gates as “evidence”, not the article at the top of this thread.
R. Gates;
Sorry, I assumed you were at least somewhat familiar with the basic notions of Chaos theory, and could readily see the analogy between the logarithmic growth of the greenhouse effects of CO2 and the logarithmic growth of the total stress forces in a sandpile>>>
I’m sorry R Gates, but I cannot see something which is not there. Your “analogy” amounts to a pile of nonsense.
1. There is no commonality between the structural integrity of a sand pile and the radiative properties of CO2.
2. Neither are chaotic. Climate system as a whole is chaotic, but the radiative properties of CO2 are extremely well known and not chaotic at all. If they were, then the term “logarithmic” could not apply by definition. Just because the climate system as a whole is chaotic, it doesn’t follow that any given element of the climate system is also chaotic.
3. Your analogy is not only false because it attempts to compare two physical processes which have nothing in common, but also because one is a linear increase and the other logarithmic decline. Add one grain of sand to a sand pile and its weight will increase by EXACTLY one grain of sand. It doesn’t matter how big or small the sandpile is. Add one PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere, and the radiative properties that result are ENTIRELY based on how much CO2 was there before. The more there was before, the LESS effect one more PPM has.
4. The notion that a pile of sand will eventually slump at some “tipping point” when more sand is added, or the wind blows on it, or anything else, somehow proves that the climate must also have a tipping point is irrational.
If there is a tipping point to be had in this debate, it is in regard to the pile of nonsense spewed in great volumes of piled drivel, of which your claims are a fine example, which will at some point collapse in the face of actual facts and acutal science. Chaos theory. Only Maxwell Smart would buy that.
regarding R. Gates says:
July 11, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“Seems to me I’ve seen a few “astroturf” books out there on the subject of climate as well…”
________________________________________________________________________
R Gates, nice MEANINGLESS drive by hit. Just like the study, you have named exact;y none of them. So MAN UP Gates, tell us which books on climate are astroturf hit peices, and who funded them.
___
You should probably read this study, which shows that in excess 90% of “skeptical” books have linkages to Conservative Think Tanks (CTT’s):
Wow Gates. My question was Which books have you read? You did not ansewer my question. Now you have changed the definition of astroturfing. “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.” The hearland institute does not meet this criteria. The Heartland Institute receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget. Exxon mobile has contributed more to groups that promote CAGW, then to the Heartland institute.
Now as to your study, here is what they did…
“If any of the organisation’s publications or web material was found to support environmental scepticism, it was coded as sceptical. If no evidence of scepticism was found on the website, the organisation was coded as not sceptical. Appendix 1 and Table 1 show that, of the 141 books which promote environmental scepticism, 130 (92.2 per cent) have a clear link to one or more CTTs – either via author affiliation (62 books) or because the book was published by a CTT (five books) or both (63 books). Furthermore, most of the remaining 11 books clearly reflect a conservative ideology, but are not connected to a CTT and are not coded as such here.
So any Think Tank which objects to CAGW and the destrction of the scientific method by the IPCC and the proxy studies, is now defined as astroturfing by large corporations. Gates, that is stupid.
Gates, also you may wish to explain, “have a clear link to one or more CTTs – either via author affiliation (62 books)” exactly what the “clear link” of author affiliation is.
Really Gates, you should read “Blue Planet in Green Shackels” to understand how progressive politics has corrupted envirmental science from its inception, and this is what CTTs object to.
I thought all the global warming website were fake.
If you have an anti-warming website and it was paid for by the oil companies, you shouldn’t pay it any mind. If you have a pro-warming website funded by the inventor of solar panels, you shouldn’t pay it any mind. The study, though flawed, shows that people are easily swayed, and don’t pay attention to who is talking, or what they are saying, but mostly only notice how they are saying it. Not very new information, but if your company is threatened by some social movement, a good strategy seems to be to start a counter movement of your own!
While the study was very biased on the issue they chose, the issue in this case DOES NOT MATTER. You should not be able to convert a die hard warming believer with a website funded by EXXON. If you want to run a fact-based, truly grassroots operation in opposition to warming (though it seems energy and moving away from dependance on oil ought to be a concern anyway?) don’t be funded by the freaking oil company!
Or do be funded by them. If this study is true, it really doesn’t matter.
Serious about global warming?
We need to go to war with China to save the planet.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-about-war.html
Most of America is wrong on the tobacco issue. We are severely punishing schizophrenics with our anti-tobacco efforts. Esp. taxes. The party of the downtrodden has no trouble robbing schizophrenics blind with high tobacco taxes. I suppose we should do that with people who want to stay warm in the winter. Raise their taxes and rob them blind.
It is a telling observation that the warmistas have, especially in their own minds, so demonized even the faintest taint of corporate funding (“is linked to” = gave a pro bono talk 15 yrs ago, etc.), that the large majority of scientists and researchers doing work for revenue-earning vs. rentier outfits are barred from contributing — even though they must meet far more rigorous standards day in and day out than the academics and government grant-seekers.
“Big oil” the favorite demon, contributes about 100X+ as much to Believer researchers as to Skeptics. So by their own logic, all such Believer research should be discounted and the associated scientists lifetime-ostracized and excoriated. We wait in vain for the first instance of such.