I noted today that WUWT just passed 6000 followers on Twitter, and 15,000 followers of the blog by email. About the same time, WUWT reached 5000 likes on Facebook. A few years ago, I never much thought social media was worth much, but seeing how Michael Mann and Bill McKibben have been using it to their advantage, my view on the importance of it has changed.
For them, social networking is glue for the cause, it keeps their base in line and comforted with missives they want to hear. A good example is this recent tweet from Bill McKibben to a follower due to this WUWT story where I call out McKibben for some nonfactual regurgitation, and mention the reaction of one his followers who is too mentally cocooned to look for herself. She gets comforting words from the leader of 350.org:
Now, I’ll be the first to tell you that you can waste a lot of time on Facebook and Twitter, but they have their value. The value for skeptics has been underutilized in the past, and I aim to change that in 2013.
Here is what you can do to help get the word out this year.
1. If you don’t have a Twitter account or Facebook account yet, get one. They are free, and you can turn them off at any time if you just get tired of them.
Signup: https://twitter.com/ facebook.com
2. Follow some of the biggest climate mouthpieces on both Twitter and Facebook, such as Bill McKibben and Michael E. Mann. Here are the links:
McKibben on Twitter: https://twitter.com/billmckibben
McKIbben on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bill-McKibben/116439015075458
Mann on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann
Mann on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist
From these, you’ll pretty much get the entire spectrum of people in the ClimateMedia Complex they run with, making it easier to find and follow others.
3. You can optionally follow WUWT on Twitter and also on Facebook
Some others to follow are RyanMaue, Marc Morano, and Andrew Revkin. Again you can pretty much get the entire spectrum of followers from their accounts.
4. When you see climate alarmism in action, Tweet or Facebook post something to counter it, or simply ask a question asking how such claims can be supported. Be polite, don’t start a flame war.
5. Watch Mike Mann immediately ban you, like this reader discovered:
From: alice
Sent: Tue Jan 01 11:18:37 EST 2013
To: morano
Subject: Michael Mann
Just had the weirdest thing happen.
I posted a very mild comment on Michael Mann”s FB page regarding his criticism of an article by Gil Spencer.
I merely pointed out that Spencer is saying that the Supreme Court upheld the right of people to criticize public figures.
I came back to edit the comment and I saw that I am blocked from his page.
He only wants people who agree with him to post.
Now there”s a true scientist for you.
Happy new year, Alice
Save those screencaps, rinse and repeat.
6. Learn how to use hashtags to your advantage
As Andrew Revkin recently observed, “blogs are important”, but so is social media, and skeptics have not taken advantage of this arena that much.
There’s no better time than the present #armyofdavids.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Watts-Up-With-That/110272895662047?fref=ts&__req=d&rf=133172440046388#
Are there two WUWT? This one has only 317 likes.
REPLY: It appears that one is a doppelganger – Anthony
Anthony the term is called Clicktivism.And we are Clicktivists
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/cerian-jenkins/clicktivism-a-model-for-2_b_2210340.html
added people to my twitter. wasn’t in use anyway 🙂
I can certainly recommend twitter, for getting to know people that would not perhaps not make comments on sceptic blogs.
If you are polite and civil, interesting dialogues and debate can start, and continue been elsewhere beyond the confines of 140 twitter chars.
thanks to twitter, I’ve had lunch with Mark Lynas and a certain Oxford Professor (who dared to foi CRU, and hopefully got across that sceptics/lukewarmers are not all the cliched ‘oil funded deniers’ that so many people lazily repeat without thinking. If they know you, as a rational sensible adult this is much harder to do.
One very interesting twitter story started here..
http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/
and carried on here.
http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
I too found a comment deleted from Mann’s Facebook page. In the comments on Mann’s diatribe on the WUWT calender and the ensuing libels about Big Oil and Heartland funding, I posted an ambiguous (as I thought) remark – “This is all too sad.” This was promptly disappeared. Now I think that my comment could have been taken either way, as an expression of support or as an expression of criticism. Which brings me to my question:
Is it possible that these groups maintain a database of posters on skeptical sites that they can use to delete and so deprive skeptics of oxygen on “their” sites?
Or have I strayed from the sceptical to the cynical?
Glad you saw the light, Anthony.
Sorry Anthony, but social media the likes of FB and Twitter I find very disturbing. I find too many people that have literally centered their lives around the crap. They become truly “Social Morons”. I will never fall into that black hole. But, I will still follow you on this great site where knowledge, facts, and sanity reigns. 😉
I would sooner chop off my left nut that use twatir. You are already on my facebook, but again, I would sooner lose a bollock than friend Mann or that ilk. Sorry Anthony, but even I have standereds.
And I completely forgot to put my own twitter address ! 😉
https://twitter.com/BarryJWoods
Bill McKibben is right. Climate skeptics have to be doing what we do as a hobby because we can’t eek out a living from it.
What you need to get on Favebook is EdgeRank. Most fans dont der your posts simpelt bevares they never male it to their Wall In competition with all the other posts out there.
You need to post stuff that people like, comment and share. The more likes, shares and comments a post on FB has, the higher that posts EdgeRank becomes and the more likely it will be that it will be posted on someone’s wall and the larger the reach will become = exposure = more fans!
Normally large pictures with little text seems to get a lot of EdgeRank. Also simple but provocovatibe messages.
Long sentences with complex meanings normally don’t work.
You can test it out yourself and see what gains the most attendance. Also you can try to acquire fans through ads. With some decent ad targeting I would assume you could get below 1$ per fan. Remember that each fan has around 200 friends that also see that fans wall and their likes/comments.
Anyhow, there is a lot to gain. I work with web and social Analytics as a senior consultant and have quite extensive knowledge in that field. Let me know if you need some advice 😉
Ok, sorry my phone translated half that post to Danish 🙂
It was meant to say that most of your posts do not make it to people’s walls because it competes with all other posts in EdgeRank.
So basically EdgeRank is how relevant is the post to me x likes x shares x comments divided by a factor on how old the post is.
Shares is worth more than comments which is again worth more than likes.
Anthony, this is an excellent post. Frankly, I have avoided twitter and facebook, because I have perceived them to be venues for fluffy narcissism. I used to have the same perception of blogs, but that perception was changed in large part by WUWT. I started my own very minor blog (ClimateSanity) partly because of the positive influence of WUWT.
So I am inclined to follow your advice about facebook and twitter. But there are some things I worry about. I do not want to spend alot of time sorting through the uninformed and/or emotional nonsense I expect to see. I do not want to make myself a target for vitriol. Maybe these concerns are unfounded. I guess I will give it a shot.
Gosh, one of my New Year’s resolutions is to “unfollow” all of those annoying, self-indulgent and otherwise uninteresting people I’ve allowed to clutter my twitter feed. McKibben and Mann would blow my resolution before it even starts. ;->
Contrarians’ absence from Clicktivism would not be happening if we were in fact well organized and well funded. It’s another item to add to my list in “Notes from Skull Island” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
Anthony, I just checked and saw that your last Facebook post was Nov 10th. You used to post a status with each new WUWT post. Also, none of your Facebook posts can be shared via the norma Facebookl “share” mechanism. One has to create a new post using your URL. Is it because your security settings block sharing? You might want to look into that.
REPLY: not sure what page your are looking at, but that’s not what I see . URL please. You may have the “fake” WUWT setup by haters. – Anthony
Been blocked by Mann since he didn’t like me calling him out on a number of factual inaccuracies, mainly revolving ariund him being a hypocrite. Roger Harrabin (@rharrabin) is also another one to keep an eye on as he spins the enviroloon message for the BBC. Fascinating looking at who they follow…
@tommoriarty I agree there’s a lot of nonsense on Twitter/FB, just respond to stuff that catches your eye. You can’t view everything.
The impoversihed Dr. Mann is doing this for a living but the big oil well-funded and well-organized skeptics are doing this as a hobby. Clearly this little exchange hasn’t started Andrea Angulo thinking for herself yet.
Can I just add: please be careful? A thin-skinned comedian in the UK responded to a negative post about him by urging his fans to go and flame the poster, or ‘fly my beauties’ as he put it. The poor negative poster was practically cyber-nuked and the comedian found himself in trouble.
Just sayin’.
I maintain a number of social media accounts, twitter and facebook etc. as part of my other, non science, life. I must admit I post once or twice a day and follow several hundred others but never read anything that appears from twitter and only comment on facebook stuff that is important or family. Takes about 20 minutes a day, the effects of which are probably nil but if that generates a few customers probably worth my effort. More on topic here I remain skeptical of the effect. I do tweet about my philosophy of science blog but since I don’t read the incoming stuff have no idea about responses. I also suspect my readership is too “old” to be into social media much if at all.
Anthony
Just as with web sites, an increasing number of social media accounts are managed by third parties on behalf of the individuals or organisations who ostensibly ‘own’ them, often under a commercial arrangement.
Just as WUWT & RC are managed by a moderation team so will be many activist social media accounts, especially those for individuals who are so important to the ‘science’ that tolerating any contrary opinion, let alone entering a debate, would be considered a waste of their valuable time.
Bear in mind that sock puppetry is not limited to message board & blog comments
and have perseverance, I’m still trying over three months later to obtain the reference that backs this statement:
WILLIAM COLLINS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: “Look at how warm California has gotten, four or five degrees hotter than our historical climate.”
Dr. Collins has never replied, PBS NewsHour said they would look into it, but that was in Sept. Even the PBS Ombudsman (who has been responsive) can’t get an answer from NewsHour.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec12/climatechange_09-17.html
I see the same as Chris D, last article is from Nov 10th. Using the link provided in the article:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/wattsupwiththat/133662869999306
Did you privacy settings get changed?
Welcome to the 21st century new tweeters. Expect that Mann and McKibbin will block you instantly but interestingly Al Gore will put up with all manner of abuse. The value is that while Mann may block you, you still get to converse with his followers and some pretty productive discussions ensue. You’ll find that most of the Mann and McKibbenites have no idea of some of the more inconvenient information such as the recent IPCC AR5 draft “hide the decline” graphs. I’m sure that I have brought many to tears with my patented “Before you throw your usual “WUWT is not a credible source” straw-man, please note that the chart is from IPCC AR5″.
It’s a blast!