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.
Ian H wrote:
I agree. Orwell got it wrong. Big Brother didn’t force himself on us. We created him. There is no coercion. Some people willingly divulge anything and everything to everybody. Even if you are more careful, others can easily connect the dots and build a comprehensive picture.
But, it’s not all bad or one-sided. Orwell portrayed a nightmare world where every living room is monitored by video surveillance. The opposite happened. It is the authorities who are monitored like never before. No policeman can beat up a suspect without the fear that someone will capture it on their cell-phone and post it online within minutes.
A common revolutionary symbol is the raised and clenched fist. They should change it to a hand holding an iPhone.
Interesting thoughts. The importance of social media isn’t just being recognized by the climate activists though: One of Simon Chapman’s comrades in arms, a Marita Hefler, recently published a study titled, “Tobacco control advocacy in the age of social media: using Facebook, Twitter and Change.” I wrote and explained that I was an activist working with a grassroots online group on tobacco control issues in the US who believed that the internet was going to be a very important part of that battle in the years ahead, but that I had no funding to purchase studies.
I asked for a courtesy copy and she nicely responded, “I would be happy to forward a copy, but would you be able to provide some more information about your group including name, contact details, website etc?” Unfortunately, once I supplied her, quite honestly, with my details, she suddenly cut off communication. Finally, after three or four emails to her over the course of a week or two she responded with: “Thanks for sharing your details. I have no interest in assisting you or your group.”
So much for her happy offer to share her research. Evidently the details of how to use the social media effectively in advocacy work, whether it be regarding climate change or tobacco control, is seen as important enough information that it’s good to keep it out of the hands of the opposition.
– MJM
“5. Watch Mike Mann immediately ban you, like this reader discovered:”
Yup. When I pointed out to Lord Mike a while back on FB that he is NOT a Nobel Peace Prize winner, I was immediately banned. For telling the truth. How does that work, Mikey Baby. And he is still claiming he is on publicity material, I gather.
Perhaps Facebook management can assist in eliminating the fake WUWT page on Facebook.
Anthony’s Facebook page is “wattsupwiththat”
The fake page on Facebook is “Watts Up With That?”
We need complaints to Facebook management to eliminate the fake one. Searches on Facebook for “watts up with that” should point to Anthony’s real Facebook page.
It was frustrating for me: I went to Facebook and searched for “watts up with that” and of course was pointed to the fake page. Anthony’s page “wattsupwiththat” was NOT offered as a search result. It was only after returning to this article at WUWT and clicking a link that I finally got to the real WUWT Facebook page. It didn’t occur to me to spell Anthony’s page without spaces as “wattsupwiththat”. If we want more subscribers to Anthony’s Facebook page, this problem should be solved. Anthony already includes a link to his Facebook in the sidebar.
Twitter……maybe.
Facebook never.
I’ve been posting links to the best and clearest pieces on WUWT on my Facebook page for years. The problem is that those people who NEED to read the articles I post up, never do so: they refuse to be informed. One guy, an Obama activist I’ve known for forty years, actually ‘de-friended’ me on Facebook for trying to educate him about climate science. He’d been posting Gore-produced alarmist links onto my page.
You can take a horse to water…. These people really are religious zealots, and I know if any of those who adhere to the AGW meme were reading the stuff I put up, they would not still be posting alarmist rubbish on their own pages – but they do, all the time. These are university or college educated people by the way and include teachers, artists and writers. It’s beyond frustrating.
Still, its worth the try; something might get through at some point…
I don’t know if others will agree when I make this comment – but it is intended to be constructive.
First, the social media outlets are IMHO, mostly for people who have little time, and want to feel like they are contributing, when really, they have very little time or interest to actually bother to ‘know’ about the subject matter. I find them tedious, and in the same vein as having FB ‘friends’, who you never meet, never ‘get to know’ and never actually ‘discuss’ anything with them or ultimately learn anything except passing trivia! Genuine people have genuine friends and genuine ‘interaction’ – not some virtual exchange of ‘ideals’ and throwaway conversation.
Hence, ask yourself the question (if you were Mann, say, or any of the so called experts) – would you rather have 5000 uneducated, unknowledgeable people ‘following’ you – or as few as say, ten REAL people, prepared to help and actually UNDERSTAND the subject matter, perhaps to even engage it critical but constructive debate?
I know my answer…
So, my point extends to suggest that WUWT is pretty ‘exclusive’ – mostly in its moderation policy and range of subject matter, (compared to the SkS type shite) – and it is this that sets it above the rest in terms of credibility AND approachability. Do we ever wonder why Mann doesn’t actually come here and defend himself? Could it be that he cannot do so in an open fashion? and instead needs to build his own little safe haven somewhere, where no one can enter without approval!?
I think it is perhaps a double edged sword, Anthony – and one which could end up a waste of time and reduce the skeptic credibility. What if the ‘greenies’ decide to swamp such social media feed, taking up your time and effort, and those of all of us, who bother to rebutt ‘dogma’ or ‘dogmatic statements’ – in essence, you could end up simply providing a further mouthpiece for their shite – and at the same time appearing as having to rebutt the majority (which of course, isn’t realistic, but you get the idea!).
just my immediate thoughts….
@Kev-in-UK
“Do we ever wonder why Mann doesn’t actually come here and defend himself? ”
By saying what, exactly? “Here are my notes”? “McIntyre and McKittrick had it right all along”?
Crikey.
I will start to listen when he decides to bring down the whole rotten edifice by revealing in the first person what we know he knows. If he doesn’t, someone else from the inside will, even though they be long in the tooth when it happens.
Anthony wrote:
There are also several fake web sites (that I won’t name) that use various degrees of phishing to target WUWT. These are not parody sites, but there are several of those as well. Those that I’ve come across end up making fools of themselves.
Don’t sweat it Anthony. If you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target.
Kev-in-Uk wrote:
Sorry, I can’t resist.
Answer: Yes, and the perfect exemplar is Kelly Anspaugh, Mann’s “interesting and entertaining Facebook friend”. (‘Educated’ -yes, ‘knowledgeable’ -no, unless it’s about … well put it this way: he is to literature what toilet humour is to five-year-olds).
TomTurner in SF wrote:
These people are stealing Anthony’s and WUWT’s identity.
There is a channel to report Facebook phishing, although it appears to be more concerned with phishing of email adresses and personal info. (But remember Greenpeace’s “we know where you live” threat and Peter Gleick’s specific targeting and dissemination of personal info.)
Also
http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/08/facebook-wants-to-hear-about-phishing-scams/
A Google search of “facebook identity theft” yields lots more information.
For example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45067276/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/facebook-case-tests-identity-theft-laws/
Also regarding Facebook’s malevolent use of private information (from earlier comment), see this: http://www.sileo.com/ftc-facebook-complaint/
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 3, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Well, that’s kind of my point – if he had ‘something’ to defend, with constructed and valid arguments – he would be here! But he isn’t because there is little validated merit in his work – so it cannot be defended!
I don’t like the argument from authority – it is both morally wrong and scientifically wrong. A true scientist likes nothing more than someone to challenge his work and to be GRATEFUL if his work is still standing at the end of the day – because it ‘temporarily’ proves he is right – and he then sits and waits for the next challenger!
If the social networking sites were working as per this blog – these people (Mann et al) could not hide behind ‘followers’, and would be exposed because they could not hide behind the authority standpoint – but in the end all the networking type sites are doing is allowing them to build little self perpetuating empires of dedicated believers! That is not science – in any way shape or form – and it is not anything that these people should be proud of.
Similarly, I don’t think the skeptic movement would gain from taking a similar stance – if it’s the same as say, Manns attitude (with strict control) – it will be open to ridicule – and if it is run like WUWT, it will be open to abuse.
The way I see it – and I may be looking through rose tinted glasses – when folk come to this site, they have the opportunity to ask genuine questions and get genuine answers (as far as practical) and the real scientists here are proud and pleased to the provide some of their time for genuine people (but obviously not trolls!). I just don’t see that being the same for a social networking type environment but maybe I’m just naturally skeptic……
8571 likes for Romm’s FB page. 5518 likes for WUWT. Step it up people!
Romm has a post about social media today. I wonder how he got that idea.
So cool that I was mentioned in this post. I’m the one who got blocked from Mann’s FB page (he has 1584 likes)
Cheers!
Alice
PS. Is this true? “While every major denier blog has seen stagnating or declining traffic, Climate Progress had its best year yet in 2012. Overall, traffic is up 30% to 50% on most days.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
David Ross said (January 3, 2013 at 3:12 pm)
“…Anthony wrote:
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
There are also several fake web sites (that I won’t name) that use various degrees of phishing to target WUWT. These are not parody sites, but there are several of those as well. Those that I’ve come across end up making fools of themselves.
Don’t sweat it Anthony. If you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target…”
Yes, and some of those “parody” websites (such as the one run by Russel Seitz) are only because their own pathetic attempts at a website were spectacular failures.
Ever wonder why some sites don’t have a “Blog Stats” (number of views) listing?
They know that they can’t compete with this: 135,416,697 views.
If they think that 140 character twitter posts and Facebook “likes” is the way to win, well, more power to them.
And to Mike Mann’s constant deletion of postings and banning of posters, remember who his “friends and peers” are – the people who run RC, Open Mind, SkS – they only post in places where they control the narrative and comment sections.
Regarding fake “Watts Up With That?” pages at Facebook and perhaps elsewhere too, actor Tom Cruise was able to get control of a fake page called “TomCruise.com.” The following is quoted from the Wikipedia article about Tom Cruise.
“In 2006, Cruise sued cybersquatter Jeff Burgar to obtain control of the TomCruise.com domain name. When owned by Burgar, the domain redirected to information about Cruise on Celebrity1000.com. The decision to turn TomCruise.com over to Cruise was handed down by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on July 5, 2006.”
Cybersquatting:
1.) Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting
From Wikipedia:
“Efforts to curtail cybersquatting in social media
“Social networking websites have attempted to curb cybersquatting, making cybersquatting a violation of their terms of service.
“Twitter
“Twitter’s “Name Squatting” policy forbids the cybersquatting as seen in many domain name disputes, like “username for sale” accounts: “Attempts to sell or extort other forms of payment in exchange for usernames will result in account suspension[9].” Additionally, Twitter has an “Impersonation Policy” that forbids non-parody impersonation. An account may be guilty of impersonation if it confuses or misleads others; “accounts with the clear intent to confuse or mislead may be permanently suspended.” Twitter’s standard for defining parody is whether a reasonable person would be aware that the fake profile is a joke[10]. Lastly, soon after the La Russa suit was filed, Twitter took another step to prevent “identity confusion” caused by squatting by unveiling “Verified Accounts[11].” Usernames stamped with the “verified account” insignia indicate that the accounts are real and authentic.
“Facebook
“Facebook reserves the right to reclaim usernames on the website if they infringe on a trademark[12]. Trademark owners are responsible for reporting any trademark infringement on a username infringement form Facebook provides. Furthermore, Facebook usernames require “mobile phone authentication[12].” In order to obtain a username, the individual needs to verify the account by phone.”
Also, there are several links at the end of the Wikipedia article.
2.) An attorney website: http://cybersquattingcases.com/
Several cases are discussed. One case: “Cybersquatting Victory: Chris Bosh Wins Some 600 Cybersquatted Domain Names and Turns Them Over to the NBPA”
3.) Link from Harvard Law School: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/domain/CaseLaw.html
A quote: “As noted in the introduction, the existing case law has developed under two primary causes of action: trademark infringement and dilution. In addition to reviewing the basic elements of infringement and dilution, it is important to keep in mind that the goal of trademark law is to promote the orderly functioning of the market through avoidance of confusion and deception. Unlike other forms of Intellectual Property, trademark law is not designed to reward the owner of the right or as an incentive to create the intellectual property in the first place. See the Theories of Intellectual Property orientation materials for additional information.”
Two more paragraphs:
“The case law in the area of cybersquatting is fairly settled. With only one possible exception, no cybersquatter has won a court case against an intellectual property holder anywhere in the world. Despite this strong trend against cybersquatters, new instances of cybersquatting continue to arise. For instance, Intel recently filed suit against the registrant of http://www.pentium2.com which leads to a pornographic web site. Typosquatting also continues to occur. Two recent cases include the wwwpainewebber.com litigation (note the absence of the “.” between the www and painewebber) and the suit by Microsoft and MSNBC against the registrants of misrosoft.com and mnsbc.com for infringement.
“When confronted with such bad faith behavior courts have stretched existing law in order to prevent the cybersquatter from maintaining control over the domain name. Traditional trademark infringement analysis would not have covered many cybersquatting cases. Often cybersquatters register the domain name but do not post a web site under that name. Thus there can be no likelihood of confusion as required for trademark infringement. In such cases, the trademark holder would have to rely on a dilution claim. Additionally, even where a web site has been posted, it often was not commercial and thus seemingly didn’t meet the “use in commerce” requirement for both infringement and dilution.”
4.) WIPO NEWS & EVENTS
“Cybersquatting Hits Record Level, WIPO Center Rolls out New Services”
“Geneva, March 31, 2011
“PR/2011/684
“In 2010, trademark holders filed 2,696 cybersquatting cases covering 4,370 domain names with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center) under procedures based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), an increase of 28% over the 2009 level and of 16% over the previous record year, 2008 (annex 1). Parties took advantage of user-friendly online facilities such as the WIPO-initiated paperless eUDRP, the Legal Index of WIPO UDRP Decisions, and the Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (WIPO Overview) to assist their case preparation and submission.
““The WIPO Center is the leading provider of domain name dispute services and provides a rich range of resources for users and the general public. The just-released major update to the WIPO Overview is an excellent illustration of these resources and reflects the long experience of the WIPO Center,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. The freely-available WIPO Overview is a unique tool used by parties, counsel and others around the world to find their bearings in cybersquatting jurisprudence (annex 2). “The revised WIPO Overview distills panel findings in thousands of domain name cases filed with WIPO since its launch,” added Mr. Gurry.”
Here is the link to WIPO for # 4.) above: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2011/article_0010.html
Do remember that The Feds want to archive email and ‘social media’ for a few years for their dredging pleasure and that the providers (Facebook / Google / whatever) feel free to sell your information..
So only use those media if you are willing to accept those kinds of terms. Anything you say can and will be used against you by the government and large corporations… for years to come…
I’m reminded of that cheesy ’80s TV series: Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, where someone from last century is transported to the the 25th one. A central aspect of the plot was:
The series was exceedingly cheesy but that point seems prescient now. The more information you put online, the more you make yourself a target.
Eh … like this comment.
Note to future Googlers: Despite taking care to keep my personal details off-line, and battling the ‘evil warmist plot to conquer the planet’ I’m not a Buck Rogers wannabe : )
[sarc/]
Wish WUWT had a Google+ page and/or community. I do NOT use Facebook. I do use Twitter … too much according to my wife. 🙂