Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics

These people are not skeptics, they are Ostriches, burying their heads in the sand so they can’t see whats coming.

Climate Ostrich, I like that a lot!

RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics: http://cli.gs/NEhyE

Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://j.mp/bOwvfa

Combating the deniers' influencer – great article on Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/96hqEX

Has this story been triple-checked to avoid any further embarrassment?

[...] Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics | Left Foot … [...]

Oh joy. Goebbels would be proud of you Will. This pesky internet eh? If it hadn’t been for us pesky kids, you might’ve just got away with it.

This is bizarre. You seem to be suggesting there is some sort of over arching plan or even conspiracy among climate skeptics. Have you considered that it may happen spontaneously very much like the free Market does. With individual actors reponding to the relevant Market information? Maybe that is why the left find it difficult to compete because they think there has to be some sort of plan.

The most revealing evidence that you demonstrate is that the BBC and Guardian are closely linked and that they are at the heart of the “supporters” network.

Interesting point. One of the immediate consequences of Climategate for the media has been that sources like the BBC and the Guardian have changed the focus of their coverage. For a few months now their climate change stories have overwhelmingly been about whether or not people believe it’s happening, and whether or not the science can be trusted. For this issue, is it right for them to appear in the “Supporter’s Network”?

Written a new blog on combating climate sceptics' networks: http://tinyurl.com/ylbdheu

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics: http://cli.gs/NEhyE...

@Leo,

Don’t worry. The BBC are still firmly in the supporters network. The BBC’s views on climate permeate all programming – even childrens TV.

Combating anti-skeptic propaganda: http://bit.ly/9sV1du

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/combating-the-growing-influence-of-climate-sceptics An important piece.

Sounds like the global cooling deniers are getting desperate. Dear old Willy, it must be a bitch for evidence based blogging when the evidence dosen’t support your discredited, Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyite, Leninist, Fascist theory. What a shame

@Leo The BBC and the Guardian are news sources, they have to report news. It is true that they have columnists who give opinions (OpEds in American-speak) like Monbiot, but it is clear that they are opinions not reporting. Similarly Delingpole is an OpEd columnist and not a reporter.

So in this debate one must remove the columnists (where someone says “this is my opinion” regardless of how expert they are – in Monbiot’s case – or knuckle headed they are – in Delingpole’s case) and look at the reporting.

Reporting means looking for credible sources and checking them, and getting more than one source. It means throwing away “beliefs” and presenting facts. It also means getting both sides of the argument and letting the readers/viewers/listeners decide. That’s good journalism.

Unfortunately we are in a situation when this rarely happens. Churnalism, as Nick Davies popularised (though it’s not a term he created) is a lazy, but cheap, form of journalism that has taken over the media. It is journalism by press release.

These days it is how loud you can shout that matters, not whether you are right. And in the climate debate the people with the loudhailers are the deniers.

Are blogs “news” or “journalism”? Well there is a lot of debate amongst journalisms about this, and no one has yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. Will’s “call to action” to address the deniers claims on their sites is nothing new. Before the internet anyone could print up a flyer with a cheap duplicator machine and put their point of view across. The internet just does the same thing but on a wider scale. Do I think there is any point? No. The denier sites are the places where die-hard deniers go to smugly congratulate themselves on being ignorant. You cannot change their minds. Far better to address comments on the main-stream sites, the main newspapers sites, the main TV sites where people are more open-minded. In those places Will’s advice is very pertinent, presenting the facts in a polite way makes people more willing to listen. The loud hailer bearers then come across for what they are: ignorant and bullying.

@Josh – “Sounds like the global cooling deniers are getting desperate”

Sorry Josh, but global cooling was a theory that died in the 1970s: http://tinyurl.com/3yzczf

Sounds to me like it’s the climate sceptics who are the desperate ones – digging up dead arguments and trying to breathe life into them again…

Well, I am offended that The Reference Frame, my blog, isn’t in the graph – the authors haven’t really gotten to the core yet. More seriously, it’s completely crazy for the IPCC to appear in the middle, and connected to Pielke Jr only. Is that a joke?

The traders with fear are so obsessed with the form – the question how to brainwash others and “frame” the issue in the most professional Goebbelsian way – that they completely miss the question whether they’re actually right about anything, and whether most people can really be fooled all the time about anything.

While the human stupidity is almost infinite, it’s also true that most people don’t reach these infinite limits. Most people have actually understood that something is really unhealthy about the community (and its method) that produces the bombshell propositions of the kind that humans are threatening the climate.

If there’s somewhat sane in the AGW movement, she should ask the question what she should fix about herself, before she asks how her complete lack of scientific integrity, ability, and will to think about the climate rationally should be optimally imposed upon others.

Only Labour can stop summer. Using all your money. vote Labour

RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE

Can we drop this ‘denier’ term, it’s far too charged a word for this sort of discussion. Something this important should be led by the science and it’s clear to me that the science is not yet settled.

Climate change is happening, as it has always done, but are we actually causing it? I’m not so sure.

What I do know is that the raw temperature data should have never been deleted. That alone is what put me in the skeptic camp. It just seems unscientific to me.

@ Dan Brown: You may not be so sure, Dan, but thousands of scientists are: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Your raw temperature data claim is nonsense. The data sets are still available to view at the various meteorological offices where CRU / UEA obtained them. See http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/200912010030

@Josh – you missed Anarcho-Syndicalist and Bolivarian.

@Richard Blogger – very much agree about focusing on mainstream sites.

I’m more concerned about the idea that good journalism necessarily requires balance. Certainly journalism should present facts to help readers to make up their own mind; otherwise it’s comment, not reporting (as you say).

But that doesn’t mean that it’s always appropriate for a journalist to go looking for, and report, an argument that rejects the premise of what they’re writing about. Just because the Flat Earth Society have sent out some press releases doesn’t mean that every story about Nasa should include a quote from their spokesperson saying that the moon landings were faked.

@Guy S Thanks for the links, very interesting. We need something like that Media Matters site over here, as it was widely reported the data was deleted and so I formed my view.

The other site will take me longer to digest, but I will check through it when I get a few hours spare.

Let me just say I’m not a climate scientist obviously, but I am interested in the truth. That’s why the raw data is important to me in forming my own view, as are the methods used to interpret that data.

@Richard Blogger,

It’s a little ironic that you cite Nick Davies in making that particular point. In Flat Earth News, Davies actually refutes precisely that point: he points out that the selection of facts and sources, their arrangement, framing, and so on, are all activities that require decision-making, and that such decisions are never neutral. He also criticises the dominant convention of reporting “both sides”, which he sees as tending to reinforce the conventional wisdom.

Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

Interesting piece on combating climate deniers http://bit.ly/9HtAty #fixcop15 #cop15 PLS RT

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

Dan,

The problem is that the raw data can be misleading. Weather stations set up 50 years ago in the middle of a field may now be in city suburbs. This means that they will show significant warming due to the ‘Urban Heat Island’ effect. Climate scientists have to correct for this and hundreds of other factors, whilst also trying to make sense of ice core records, tree ring records (which have massive error margins) etc to calculate climate history over tens of thousands of years. I feel this is what many people don’t understand. Calculating warming is not just a case of averaging all the temperatures recorded over history.

It’s complicated. Very complicated. This is why the Met Office has just purchased a new supercomputer and why all the hoo-haa over the ‘Climategate’ emails can be misleading and why I get extremely angry at people (e.g. Daily Mail columnists) who claim that they know better who have spent their entire lives working on the subject just because they have read a (scientifically questionable) by Nigel Lawson.

The Climate Sceptics have been exposed.

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

How to combate the growing influence of climate sceptics http://bit.ly/chjz2j

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE

@Jamie What you say seems sensible enough to me. But I did say I’d like to know the method to normalize the data as well as the data.

Anyway, I think this is one subject that a layman like me has no way of knowing what to believe. Or who to believe.

Which brings me back to my original point further up the thread, that terms like ‘denialist’ and ‘flat-earther’ do not help the situation and is more likely to turn open-minded people like me away from one camp into the other. Or even away from both into a third, as yet undefined camp.

I am a seeker of truth…… you wonder if we can be silenced? I wonder how you deal with stories like this that just go to show that if there is a $ to be made someone will try very hard. Just who can you trust these days?

Hailed as “the big new idea to save the planet from runaway climate change”, this set up a global fund to save vast areas of rainforest from the deforestation which accounts for nearly a fifth of all man-made CO2 emissions.
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/measure-your-gullibility.html

Oxfam's analysis of news/blog flow ClimateGate http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/combating-the-growing-influence-of-climate-sceptics/

@Dan Brown for me it’s not a question about who to believe, but about who to trust.

When I go to the Doctor to get an opinion about my health, I do so because the doctor is way more qualified than me and I therefore trust their opinion.

I can read up about my symptoms on the internet for a long time but to take those opinions as more valid than my doctor’s would be foolish. That’s how I feel about the scientific consensus about climate change. There might be a few random people who think that rubbing foraged herbs all over my body will cure me, but those people are in the minority, and I don’t trust their knowledge and expertise as much as the vast number of qualified doctors.

Great post about how "Climategate" unfolded in the blogosphere http://bit.ly/doQ9X8 by @guyshrubsole

Interesting stuff. It seems that despite their repeated calls for scientific integrity (that coincide with a wilful disregard for actual science http://bit.ly/dyedGh) the ostriches are, shock horror, more interested in the alchemy of turning niche rantings into national stories than they are in furthering the debate. Do they remain successful purely because they are more interested in disruption than truth and/or because their’s is the loudest voice?

RT @kieranbattles: Interesting piece on combating climate deniers http://bit.ly/9HtAty #fixcop15 #cop15 PLS RT

great work by our colleagues in Profero – http://bit.ly/bUwD8f not the wholestudy but a good summary by http://www.leftfootforward.org/

RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE great work from SML team @profero

RT @sammielw: RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE great work from SML team @profero

@JamieA Your right Jamie, it is about who to trust. But why not research it ourselves or at least know the methods that were used? That is surely the way we can best make up our own mind.

I find it hard to believe anything scientific without access to the methods used. If those methods seem logical to me, then I will believe it. What I decide for myself doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things though, does it?

@Ged Barker ‘Ostrich’ is slightly better than ‘denialist’ but it’s still name calling.

RT @huntingtonlane: RT @BeThatChange: Article on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense http://bit.ly/9HtAty #climategate

Dan,

If you have access to a decent University Library, and you should be able to visit without being a student, then this paper describes amongst other things the procedures and justifications for normalizing the data.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006548.shtml

Or you could look at the GISS Temperature series by NASA. Their raw data are publicly available, the methodology and their justifications for their methodology are published in a peer reviewed journal and publicly available, the software for making the adjustments are publicly available and their final results are publicly available. All this has been available for a number of years. They give very similar results to CRUTemp but have differences, the most dramatic being that 2005 is the warmest year in their temperature series not 1998 as the CRU Temperature series shows. You can visit NASA Giss Temp site here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

As to name calling, I’m very careful when I use the term denier, but I believe there are times when it accurately describes someone. For example when a blogger writes a piece that implies that a scientist is fraudulent/corrupt based on information that is publicly available, and when they are informed of the context showing that no fraud or corruption has happened and they do not update their original piece implying said fraud then at that point I have no compunction at calling them a denier.

Kevin

@Oxford Kevin Thanks for the links, I’ve requested the article by email.

Your right about denier sometimes being the right description, but it’s the blanket use of the name for anyone disagreeing that I have a problem with.

I’m led by the facts available to me alone and my view changes when I have more facts. This discussion has helped me get a better understanding of the subject and now I’m back on the fence.

Thanks to everyone who has patiently discussed this with me.

@guyshrubsole nice one Guy – check out the truth about Climategate… http://bit.ly/doQ9X8

@robinince great article about Climategate – please RT! http://bit.ly/doQ9X8

Nice work Profero and SML RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE

RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

“Combating the growing influence of climate skeptics”. The title is telling of the contents of the report that followed. It is a confirmation that climate alarmist are on the defensive. Nowhere is this defensive best illustrative than the comments – “And no, I’m not going to give these (skeptic) sites free publicity by linking to them.”

Oxfam delude themselves that it is all about tactics and strategies alarmists and skeptics. On one has ever won a war with a defensive mindset is what climate alarmist should appreciate. The next question is why they are defensive? It needs more courage on the part of Oxfam to admit that the climate alarmist have lost credibility. The simple truth is that together with the loss of credibility is the demoralization of their cadres and the fact that climate alarmist are facing an increasingly hostile media and public opinion.

No amount of media tactical or strategical revisions are going to wish away the present environment faced by climate alarmists. For that credibility in their science must be restored. Whitewash investigations of the IPCC and the CRU in this respect will only end up turning the tide increasingly in the favour of climate skeptics.

[...] evidently tells use something about the communications network during the climategate story. I read Left Foot Forward’s discussion of the report — which I understand is not yet publicly available. The report [...]

There are missing some facts in how the story got out and actually some facts about how it didnt get out.

The actual Timeline is on ClimateAudit.org in a post called the mosher timeline.

Short version:

On Nov 17 the LINK to the file on the russian server was placed at several locations: At climate audit in
the morning where it was ignored ( too cleverly hidden) and then later that evening the link
was placed at the air vent ( no consensus) at RomanM’s stats blog, and at WUWT.

At WUWT the link was intercepted by my Roommate Charles Rotter who moderates the site. He downloaded the files, made a CD, and gave them to me to vet. The vetting process went on for two days. During that two days nobody saw the link at the Airvent or other places. After two days of reading through the files and cross checking facts in them, I learned that UAE had informed employees that there had been a security breech and that files had been posted on the internet. A check of the UAE/CRU server configuration confirmed this.

The Link was being held in moderation at WUWT because the owner of the blog was concerned about the validity of the files. he was also concerned about entrapment. With the knowledge that I had obtained from reading the files and the notice from UAE about the breech I was able to say that the files looked real and that no trap was being set. Then on the morning of Nov 17th I went looking for other references to the Link and found the
Link posted at the airvent. I emailed the owner. I then posted about this Link on “rank exploits” The owner of that blog, a friend, then wrote a short article on it within minutes. I then notified andrew revkin, a facebook friend, shortly after noon. He was mentioned in the mails and thought he should get a scoop. That lead was not followed.

You can also read about it in Climategate: the crutape letters.

For grins Lucia has done this

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Mosher.jpg

Correction: Morning of the 19th

How about simply being honest to others and treating people with respect? This post sounds like some PR campaign instructions. That alone is enough for me roll my eyes and not believe a word that comes out of the author’s keyboard. If I have comments or questions to post about climate change, I simply post them. I don’t refer to some PR guide. To point out a couple of issues I have here:

“because almost no-one from the climate movement responded to or rebutted the sceptics’ arguments, they ended up owning the story”

I don’t agree. The response to climategate was the same as have been made to most other skeptic points. RealClimate basically said there was nothing to see except scientists working. The problem this time was that since the issues exposed didn’t require any high level of technical knowledge to understand, even the MSM could see that this was not a completely honest answer.

““there are no progressive networks” – just hubs of activity here and there, lacking interconnection.”

At least when it comes to climate change (obviously not health care or our financial issues) the progressive network is the MSM. I’m not sure what the size of those bubbles represent, but by most any measurement (especially money and power) the ones on the right side should dwarf the ones on the left. The only bubbles that could even be close to considered mainstream on the left side of the chart are a couple of British papers.

“So here’s what I’d like you to do:

• Read the comments, and if you notice any that cast doubt on the validity of climate science, post a response, be polite and use facts;

• You might like to make use of the handy checklist of arguments to counter deniers over at Skeptical Science;

• Link to some of the dirt dug up on skeptics’ funding by SourceWatch; or

• Refer to the discussions at RealClimate and Climate Safety.”

1. Sounds good. Hopefully people will follow it. (BTW, “denier” = not polite)
2. Good idea too. Some of you might want to focus on clearing up some of the questions in the comments to these stock rebuttals though. Again, since the polite point was obviously lost here, denier = not nice. Well, unless you think the conservatives calling you unpatriotic for supporting useless wars was nice. Same exact tactic.
3. Typical shoot the messenger argument. How about discussing the merits of the argument? The supporter’s side of this is going to lose any money arguments made. Also, anyone with a brain that is still undecided is going to see through it.
4. Can’t say I know much about Climate Safety, but you might want to be careful using RealClimte. If a person has any sympathy to the issues around climategate, sending them to the PR site for the same people involved probably won’t win too many points with the undecided. I’d suggest treating people like adults and giving them specific papers to read.

The graph and description of the Air Vent are screwed up. First tAV is not a denialist blog, it’s run by an evil conservative which is completely different. Second, it has no links to or association with nofrakkingconsensus before cliamtegate although recently I copied one of her posts with permission.

Actually just switching the balls around between nofrakking and tAV would fix a fair chunk of the error but Lucia of the blackboard never heard of nofrakkingconsensus before this post.

You would think that a group analyzing the release of climategate emails would at least ask a question by email. Nope!

Most of my traffic is (and was) from CA, WUWT, Bishop Hill and Lucias blog, the blackboard. We’re all skeptics/lukewarmers to my knowledge but I’ll let them define themselves.

“So here’s what I’d like you to do:

• Read the comments, and if you notice any that cast doubt on the validity of climate science, post a response, be polite and use facts.”

- – - – -

That’s an excellent idea. I think it would add to public insight into paleoclimate reconstructions (i.e. the “Hockey Stick”) if supporters of the AGW Consensus wuld address the issues that have been raised regarding Prof. Mann’s use of Lake Korttajarvi lakebed sediment data series — the “Tiljander proxies.”

Here are two questions that address this point, along with my own answers. Googling combinations of the obvious terms will bring up links to informative references.

Question #1. — Can the educated layperson discover an instance where a prominent validation of the Hockey Stick should be rejected, because it clearly is based on major, obvious, and uncorrected errors?

Answer #1. — Yes. The calibration and Upside-Down use of the Tiljander proxies by Prof. Michael Mann’s research group in the high-impact, peer-reviewed journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA” (“PNAS”) in 2008.

Question #2. — Are the self-correction mechanisms of science operating properly in the discipline of paleoclimatology?

Answer #2. — No. AGW Consensus scientists and advocates have rallied around Prof. Mann in public. AGW Consensus science-bloggers at “RealClimate.org”, “Stoat”, and elsewhere have endorsed the Mann group’s use of the Tiljander proxies. Climategate emails by Darrell Kaufman and Nick McKay reveal what some AGW Consensus scientists have said about this, in private.

In “Cargo Cult Science”, physicist Richard Feynman famously pointed out that the scientific process is always vulnerable — scientists are all-too-human. Is that relevant in this instance? Should the public hesitate to accept “Hockey Stick” reconstructions at face value?

On the identification of people’s beliefs.

Lucia of rank exploits believes in Global Warming and is self classified as a Luke Warmer
JeffId of Airvent believes in global warming: I haven’t directly asked him if he is a Lukewarmer,
But I’ve never seen him deny radiative physics
Steven McIntyre believes in global warming, his principle question is an accounting one: How much
and how was it calculated. I’ve never seen him deny radiative physics.
I am a Lukewarmer. That means I believe in radiative physics ( More GHGs will raise temperatures)

Part of the problem, as I diagnosed in our book, with the climate scientists is that they responded to people like Mcintyre as if they were part of the skeptic community. Their responses to me and my FOIA requests were predicated on a belief that I am part of some conspiracy or group or network of skeptics. Similarly with others such as david Holland. This belief and the strategies it engendered is what caused their behavior and that behavior is what led to the release of the files. If they had seen McIntyre and others for what they really were, individuals with particular hobby horses ( like auditing records) Then much if not all of the affair could have been avoided. Simply: if they had sent McIntyre the data, data they sent freely to other researchers, the whole affair could have been avoided. But they could not bring themselves to send it to McIntyre. They viewed him as a part of a larger network. Much the same way that now people are viewing Lucia and JeffID as part of that network.

So, just for the record: I believe in AGW. I believe in Radiative physics. I am no skeptic. I talk to skeptics. It’s called dialog. We share certain values: openness and transparency. They let me post on their blogs even though I disagree with their skepticism. In contrast, On RealClimate, a blog that presents science that I largely agree with my comments are routinely blocked.

The problem that people dont see is this. When people accuse me and Lucia and jeffId and SteveMc of being skeptics or of being part of a network, we just laugh. More importantly, whoever does this loses all credibility with us. It’s like being accused of cheating when you know you are faithful.

The announcement of the existence of the files to the blogosphere happened at Lucia’s. I did it there because
she was mentioned in the mails and she baked me brownies once.
Good brownies.

“As cognitive linguist George Lakoff has written, if you don’t contol the way an issue is framed, you don’t control the debate. Climate progressives allowed this episode to be written on the sceptics’ terms. The result? A sizeable drop in the public’s belief in climate change (although the freezing winter may also have played a part in this).”

As a former fan of Lakoff ( back in the 80′s) I have to agree with this. In fact much of the work I’ve done promoting this story has been a reframing of the stock framed responses that were peddled by the defenders of CRU and Mann.

Let me explain the dominate frames and how I reframed them

1. The mails were taken out of context.
This one was dead easy. We reframed this as ” the mails are worse in context” So, let me suggest
that you not use that frame. The way it works is simple. You say they are taken out of context. I take
a mail, put in context, and people learn more about the issue. The problem with the original frame
is that it was a DEAD metaphor. Further it didn’t frame the issue IT FRAMED THE COVERAGE. that
is it framed what “skeptics” were doing. Saying they are being taken out of context was stupid. It
gave me the idea to write the book. Thanks.

2. Nothing in the science changes. I liked this frame too. This frame is handled by simply agreeing with
the frame. That’s right nothing in the mails changes the science. The mails reveal that the men who
said trust us, are not trustworthy. That doesnt put us into denial, it puts us into doubt.

The other thing that is funny is the way that standard charges can now be turned on their heads. For example, anytime someone accuses Skeptics of being part of a conspiracy, that’s a led for a blog post I can write about the climategate files. Any time anyone mentions peer review that a led. It’s more than frame stealing. It’s PWNING the vocabulary. Here is the little secret: everything people accuse the skeptics of doing, is a behavior I can find in the mails. It hit me early on: The climatescientists involved became so fearful of “skeptics” that they became the very thing they feared.

The other major mistake that my side ( I believe in AGW ) makes is that they lost a huge opportunity to own the high ground on the underlying issue behind climategate: Openness and transparency. We had a chance to Coopt
this meme in 2007 and missed it. Instead we practiced nixonian stonewalling

Well, after reading the comments from the leftist feet and the skeptics who agree with global warming, I can say I am convinced that the warmists have made themselves untrustworthy. And that’s what matters now. The science has not changed. What has changed is public perception of the integrity of the warmists.

““there are no progressive networks” – just hubs of activity here and there, lacking interconnection.”

It’s more than interconnection. The network of Lukewarmers and Skeptics ( we are different ) who broke this
story and who promoted it have something more than “interconnections.” we have the following:

1. the ability to disagree. On the other side, lets say the alarmist side, you don’t really have the ability
to disagree with one of your own. For example, you can’t even say the following:
A. Climate science is true AND Phil Jones corrupted the FOIA process at CRU. you can’t say that.
B. Climate science is true AND Michael Mann’s hockey stick is based on suspect statistics.
Now, I can go anywhere in skeptic land and say these two things. And generally get accepted and have a
dialog. I can even convince people to listen to me about the truth of climate science. And they don’t call
me names. I only get called names by alarmists.
2. The ability to say we are wrong. In fact the more honest we are about the mistakes we make, the worse the
alarmists are in their refusal to make any such admission.

3. We link to our opponents. Invite the fight. For people ( the undecided) who are new to the fight this is
a prima facia indictor of “fairness” and “open mindedness” Think of it this way. IF you are undecided,
and open minded and if your way of coming to the truth is via dialog, which blog are you going to trust:

one that links to opponents or one that blocks alternative views. Now, if your aim is to get “consensus”
about what your message should be and you dont want any input from your opponents then pick a insular
path. You won’t convince the undecided this way. The practice of not linking to opponets is one of the classic
mistakes that the alarmists made in this internet war. To be sure they listened to people who argued that
linking to a site would “lend the site” credibility. But these people had it exactly wrong. Linking to a site does
not lend credibility to the site linked. it lends credibility and power to the person linking. So WUWT the most
powerful force in this whole war links to its opponents. Why? because the brand is so strong he can. because
he believes ( rightly or wrongly) that he will win the argument. People key in on this strength. The strength to link to your opponent. It’s especially appealing to the customer. The customer with the open mind who wants to
hear the argument. And when the other side refuses to link back, that imbalance of power is underscored. As a marketing professional I just have to call out a great strategy when I see it.

3. Volunteerism. We don’t get paid. When people accuse us being paid, we volunteer MORE.

4. Disorganized. There is no “plan of attack” It’s essentially asymetrical warfare. To the extent that the alarmist camp is organized pushing common messages it actually works to our benefit. As the mails show some on the alarmist side are trying to structure the debate and deliver talking points. They don’t do a very good job of it, and they become rather predictable. The decentralized activity on the skeptic lukewarmer side can experiement with tactics. For example, nobody dictated the Piltdown Mann meme to me. I tried it, it worked. Same with the Lukewarmer meme. Somebody tried it, it worked. Their is no “message” to carry. There are tactics made up in the trenches by people actually INVOLVED in the day to day debate. “Free the code” wasn’t dreamed up and pushed down people’s throats. It originated in a comment on a blog. spread from there because it worked.

So you want three pieces of advice: disagree with each other ( shows independence of mind) When you are wrong or someone on your side is wrong call them to account ( shows you dont know know everything) Link to your opponents ( shows a willingness to reason )

Do you notice something about the psychology of all this? Do you see how all these behaviors play well with the undecided? It’s called knowing the customer.

And on that point you would do well to study the demographics of the various sites. It would surprise you.

“For now, though, let me close with a challenge for progressive readers: one of the study’s more obvious conclusions was how effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites.”

What kind of a study is that. We (i’d say i’m a skeptic) are effective in posting stock arguments? We can even post hyperlinks? Now is that something that the AGW proponents can’t or don’t do? Now i’m telling you a secret: We know about the secret of fire and we have invented the wheel. Heck, we even have an alphabet. Oxfam should ask their money back.

Mr. Mosher,
GREAT POSTS !!!

Talk about straw men. If you want to see disagreement on this board, look for comment threads between myself and someone who calls themselves Anon. E. Mouse. There was no name calling. Vigorous discussion on disagreements over various issues of climate change. You clearly haven’t seen the discussions here.

As to the Hockey Stick I’ve blogged on that and openly admitted that the statitistics where flawed. But the results using valid stats ended up being much the same.

Kevin

I’ve heard this story before. How can a bunch of individuals get a story into the media without being a registered charity and being funded by someone else? Maybe because they think the story is important enough to spend their own time dealing with it?

Looking through the comments here, the biggest difference is that on a skeptical site, people rarely say RT this please or, as was done above, link to some stock responses, to be used as a crib sheet!

Everyone generally already knows the story as they understand it, and will only point to the original sources if needed – they know that authority is irrelevant!

There is a worthwhile discussion to be had, and use of the term “deniers” is retrograde. The sites that propagated “Climategate” are not denier sites. To claim that they are is mere propaganda.

@Steven Mosher, @JeffID – many thanks for clarifying about the way the CRU story developed online. Thanks Steve also for pointing out that many who doubt the scientific consensus around anthropogenic global warming are not in consensus themselves.

@OxfordKevin’s last comment has it spot on about the patient discussion that is commonly held on these forums.

One further note on politeness. If ‘sceptic’ and ‘denier’ are considered name-calling, why have posters tolerated ‘warmist’ and ‘alarmist’? Please, apply some consistency…:)

Thanks again for the many re-tweets and comments!

Interested readers may also like to look at this new LFF blog post by Andrew Regan, on harnessing the distributed intelligence of the blogosphere: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/harnessing-the-distributed-intelligence-of-the-blogosphere/#comments

Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – graphic showing who is influential on the web – http://bit.ly/9HtAty

As the resident Alarmist I’ve probably defended AGW more than anyone else on this site. So your accusations of in effect stalinism are accusations against me. Since I’ve already admitted problems with the application of statistics for the Hockey Stick that accusation fails at the first step. As to the FOI I believe Phil Jones has a case to answer as part of the inquiry but since he has demonstrated on more than 2 instances in the e-mails that what he writes at a moment of anger and frustration and how he acts are different things there is no point in basing a judgement on his words alone which is why we have to wait for the inquiry. If you choose to see the inquiry purely as a whitewash then there isn’t much I can do about that.

A question: Would you consider WUWT and climate audit more reliable sources of information than sites like this one?

Kevin

[...] well organized, global skeptic network laid bare /sarc 22 03 2010 Gosh, according to Leftfootforward, we skeptics are just a step away from global media domination. I suppose it didn’t occur to [...]

RT @OurWorld20: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – graphic showing who is influential on the web – http://bit.ly/9HtAty

What a waste of tax payer money, this will never be published as it based on plucked straws!

The only reason climate gate was a scandal was because of the poor manner in which the scientists behaved – they are responsible and no one else. The story spread because it was REAL news not becuase of some organised sceptic organisation – and besides, whats the issue with sceptics?

Galilaeo, Darwin, Wegener, Huxley etc… never did that much harm did they for simply questioing the sacred cows of science? There is no harm in pointing out the elephants most scientists ignore or fail to see, or questioing scientists for not following their own principles! It may hurt to see sacred cows questioned, but sometimes we are wrong and we have to accept it, it has happened many times before in science. If the evidence for AGW is so robust, why worry, no sceptic should be able to do it harm. Unfortunetly though, even the lay public understand that real life emprical data will always win over assumption filled models – thats a fact of life. If no one sees increased storms, a meltic antarctic, rising temperatures, more droughts etc… AGW will fall by the wayside as have all previous claims of disaster, Y2K, acid rain, CFC’s, Bird flu, global cooling etc…

Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – study into how networking enabled skeptics to reframe the debate http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

It seems kind of bizarre that ClimateProgress has been left off the supporters network.

Some early responses from the progressive blogosphere:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/20/climategate/
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/24/superfreak-climategate/
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/climate-gate-timeline/
http://www.swifthack.com/

etc.

The *real* difference is that the left/green blogosphere doesn’t have the feedback loop with media and politicians that the right does.

Interesting story, and I use the latter word intentionally. Apart from the numerous flaws pointed out already you completely fail to recognise that the mainstream media doggedly did not want to report anything about Climategate whatsoever despite the viral level of interest on the blogosphere. I had numrous running debates about the media’s complicity by lack of coverage on newspaper blog sites in Australia.

As for name calling, sceptic is hardly a derogatory term as all scientists should be of a sceptical mindset. Equally warmist merely describes someone who leans towards the AGW mindset. Denialist is a completely different kettle of fish because of the clear connotations to the holocaust and people who deny that event ever took place. Chalk and cheese…

You want to win this AGW vs normal climatic variation debate? You do that by sticking to reasoned claims and good science. Any blog that caters to the extreme advocacy fringes on either side is on a hiding to nothing. What is also a clear is that some blog sites “moderate” opposing comments out of existance – Real Climate is a prime offender in this respect. What they will not post is more telling than what they will. What’s the chances this comment is “moderated” into the bit bucket?
We shall see…

PS> I coined “ClimateGate”… does that earn me a bubble in the picture?

It is amusing to note the wonderful asymmetry between the skeptic side and the AGW promoters; a bunch of blogs vs the BBC, the New York Times and the World bank.

And even before Climategate, that bunch of bloggers were steadily scoring points. Demonstrating statistical incompetence with the hockey stick, showing that the raw data had been tortured for signal, noting that some trees were more influential than others and that, when it came right down to it, when the trees disagreed they were ditched to “hide the decline”.

The pros were and are being beaten by amateurs. And they are being beaten because the science is not nearly so certain as the AGW promoters lead us to believe. And absolutely not certain enough to base serious policy decisions upon. Lukewarmers and out and out skeptics win, and keep on winning, because they have modest goals.

Asking people to check their numbers and think again is hardly radical stuff. It is only radical in the face of a media and scientific establishment which has made its collective mind up and does not want to be bothered checking its facts and science,

Mosher,

If Tony of WUWT was so confident about his arguments about the surface temperature record, why doesn’t he answer Tamino’s and Meene et al.’s criticisms? (No, whining about a pseudonym is not answering the question. Frankly, only a bully intent in causing RL hurt wants to know somebody’s True Name) Oh, that’s right, he can’t show that his claims of bias have any validity at all…

WRT terminology Tom Fuller ( who should be on the chart) and I struggled greatly with the various terms “denier, skeptic, contrarian, chaosists, warmer, believer, alarmist, blah blah blah. Tom actually did a survey of various blog readers ( we both have marketing backgrounds ) to try to figure out what exactly the various factions are. Judith Curry also has a nice cladistics. In the end I’m happy describing one group and one group only. That is the group I belong to: Lukewarmers. Everybody else can go name themselves and come up with their own tagline.

The strategies and tactics that I’ve generated for people who believe in global warming ( some of the materials were included in the climategate mails ) are very bad. The principle problem is that they rely upon a total misunderstanding of the audience.

@Guy

“@Steven Mosher, @JeffID – many thanks for clarifying about the way the CRU story developed online. Thanks Steve also for pointing out that many who doubt the scientific consensus around anthropogenic global warming are not in consensus themselves.”

Yes, I don’t think people get how deadly wrong the over generalization about “skeptics” was.
Let me give you an idea. Right before Mcintyre came onto the scene Briffa and Osborne were planning
to write a paper critical of Mann. Osborne was struggling to replicate Mann’s work ( he like McIntyre needed
the residuals) Jones was in support of their efforts. As soon as McIntyre writes his 2003 paper, Mann gets very upset and effectively Briffa and Osborne are called off. At one point Osborne becomes aware that Mann hasnt
been telling the truth exactly about his dealings with McIntyre. He and McIntyre correspond and Mc offers to
let CRU settle the dispute. At first this seems reasonable. No body wanted to argue at cross purposes. In the
end the wagons are circled. For the rest of the files you can see the tension between Mann and Briffa. Jones
is in a tough spot. The brits also did not understand the pressure that mann felt from the internet stuff.
Anyway, very early on there was a chance to put it all to rest. In my conversations with Mc he’s made it clear
that all the issues would just have gone away. But they put a burr under his saddle,especially by lumping him in with others. mc is a just a very tenacious curious fellow. Accusing him of being a shill just deepened his resolve. there was another episode like this with Annann.
A cordial lunch between the two, an offer to work together to put the issue to rest… but in the end Annann could not be seen working with Mc. The issue lived on and the result was the mail
that jones sent ” delete your mails.” The silly thing is that the thing they were trying to cover up was rather silly.
But Jones and others knew that Mcintyre was watching chapter 6 very closely ( as a reviewer ) and they got
caught with their pants down.

In any case in 2007 I had dinner with Mc and Watts. Ah yes a skeptics cabal. And so there away from everybody’s ears I got to ask McIntyre what he really thought and what drove him. “I like puzzles,” he said. And so, people hid pieces of a puzzle from a man who loves puzzles and you have one dedicated opponent. I like puzzles too. So Mc and I get along.

RT @skepticscience: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – study into how networking enabled skeptics to reframe the debate http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

More to the point why is the BBC in the ‘supporters’ network’

If it was fulfilling its charter obligations it should have been bridging the divide between the two networks reporting both sides of the argument

Tne other entities in these diagrams are free to be partisan, although it would be nice if some didn’t claim objectivity

Hi Kevin,

I’ll assume your comment is directed at me. If not I’m sorry

“As the resident Alarmist I’ve probably defended AGW more than anyone else on this site. So your accusations of in effect stalinism are accusations against me. Since I’ve already admitted problems with the application of statistics for the Hockey Stick that accusation fails at the first step. ”

. I’m not aware that I used the term “stalinist” in my description. Nor am I convinced that my description fits the definition of “stalinist” whatever that is, I really don’t know or care. I try not to label viewpoints with dead descriptions. You see “admitting there are problems in the application of the statistics” is just the kind of locution that breeds the mistrust that Tom and I have talked about. If you seek to convince an audience of people who are undecided, then I will tell you (since I write and read to them daily ) that this kind of locution will not impress them. Mann was wrong. I remember when Reagan said “mistakes were made.” That was fodder for the next days class on rhetoric.
So in my mind you demonstrate the very thing you seek to deny. Note, I’m not asking you personally to say the words “mann was wrong.” I’ve asked that enough times on enough blogs and had no takers.
proving yourself an exception to this rule would just enforce my point.

“As to the FOI I believe Phil Jones has a case to answer as part of the inquiry but since he has demonstrated on more than 2 instances in the e-mails that what he writes at a moment of anger and frustration and how he acts are different things there is no point in basing a judgement on his words alone which is why we have to wait for the inquiry. ”

I have no evidence that Jones wrote those words in anger. There are also more than two incidents. there is one incident, that happened even BEFORE there were any FOIA, two years before. If I were to speculate on the emotion he felt, it would be fear and bravado. There are also incidents after Nov 19th 2009 when he misrepresented his own record and his own actions WRT sharing data. He lied before parliament as I detailed in a post some time ago. That doesnt change the science. But it does make him unfit for duty as a member of a standing committee that advises NOAA on data archiving and access. I do not think we have to wait for an inquiry to call for his removal from this position. I let my congressman know as much. If you want to get into the particulars of his violation of confidentiality agreements, ( an action he admits to ) then by all means we can. But this action, admitted to in the mails 2 years prior to any FOIA should be enough for a fair minded person such as yourself to make a decision. ( hint: the opposition of “words versus actions” was an unwise opposition to use in an argument without first canvasing Jones actions. generally speaking it’s an unwise opposition to take in any defense. Typical defenses go like this ” you took the words out of context.” “he was upset when he wrote it” ” he didnt really do anything” In the book, as you can probably tell I already canvased all of these defenses.

Also, If you want to convince an audience of people who like to think for themselves, then telling them that you want to wait for the inquiry is not a good way to convince them of your ability to think and judge things on your own. Again, I self identify as a person who likes to judge things for myself in an interactive process in which I am involved. That is how I come to truth. And you say that you want to wait for the inquiry. I’ve spent enough years in PR to know what that means. If the inquiry finds against him, you will reserve the right to say anything. “he a sacrificial lamb, the science doesnt change, they were too hard on him, blah blah blah. If they find ( as the ICO did ) that CRU violated Mr Hollands rights you will have something mitigating to say. If they don’t find anything you will defend that. The last thing you will do is read the record for your self and render a judgment on those facts.
today. here. now. You won’t read the mails and try to really understand what when on. But the audience of undecided people are just the kind of people who like to see for themselves. When they see you duck an issue, they don’t give you any credibility. perhaps they are wrong in that. I am just giving you my view of how these people come to believe, rightly or wrongly.

“If you choose to see the inquiry purely as a whitewash then there isn’t much I can do about that.”

The inquiry is worse than a whitewash. The inquiry is a lost opportunity to regain credibility with an audience that is in doubt. the skeptics will of course call it a whitewash. No stopping that. I would encourage them to do this, but I criticize the inquiry on other grounds.

“A question: Would you consider WUWT and climate audit more reliable sources of information than sites like this one?”

i don’t consider WUWT to be a source of information. For me it’s a source of entertainment. Basically, if I am reading for scientific content I read papers. If those papers dont supply code and data, then those papers are advertisements for science. they are not science.
Climate audit is a source of interesting puzzles. When Mc posts data and code, then its information.
For the most part what you should see is that people like me will read what you write, take apart your rhetoric, and try to get to the source material. We are very active readers. If you dont talk back to me, then I question your commitment to a shared truth.

Here is the deal. When you share your data and code with me you are sharing your power. That breeds trust.
Anyways, here you dont have that to share. So we just have conversation. So far, it’s a nice conversation.

In the end I’m just telling you how to best convince people who share a certain way of coming to the truth.
I don’t want this to degenerate into a debate about the particulars of the case against mann or jones. That would be rude. I’m just here telling you what I perceive as shortcomings in the strategies. We can differ on that.

@Steve

you said you side has the ability to disagree whilst ours doesn’t. Your claim was one of stalinist type behaviour. Your claim was easily disproved. You seemed to have made judgements about me and others on this website without evidence for it.

Kevin

In what way did Jones lie before parliament?

Amazing, on one side, just about every major newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic, all major TV channels except (maybe) Fax, Billions of dollars in funding from the UN, the EU (Oxfam alone receives many millions), and alarmist organizations like the Soros funded “think tanks”; and on the other a few blogs funded almost entirely by subscriber donations and google ad revenue. Oh, and Exxon once gave a few hundred thousand $ to an organization that once asked one of the bloggers to give a (free) talk at one of their (many) talk sessions. And let’s not mention that Shell, BP, Exxon, and other Oil comapnies have donated millions to AGW related research, including to CRU.

And, like, you think the skeptics are winning ! It can only be because they have the honest, compelling and truthful message. You have everything you accuse the skeptics of having, Billions of $, control of almost the entire MSM, and yet the lies just don’t cut it with so many people. There IS a limit to spin, maybe you should think a bit more about the fact that if you do little but lie and spin, that’s what people eventually come to associate you with, and discount even correct statements.

Perhaps you could start on the “rotten apples” on your own side, to show you are genuine about wanting to present what is at least an approximation of the truth. KIck Michael mann and his fraudulent “Hokey (sic) Stick” off the island, it is damaged goods. Stop sites like RealClimate censoring the “hard questions”, the questions they can’t and won’t answer. Try treating the general public as basically intelligent enough to make up their own minds, stop treating them like the cattle you seem to believe they are. And most off, have a long hard look at your own beliefs, what to you could Disprove AGW. If nothing, then it ain’t science, it’s religion.

This blog is so idiotic, it might single-handedly explain why #AGW believers have been a failure at arguing their case http://bit.ly/aOoGSE

RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE

Leftfootinmouth more like.

How come the skeptics are to the left, and the enlightened ones are to the right?

How come Roger Pielke Jnr is at the centre of the virtual climate universe?

How come you never contacted the parties concerned over their own stance on climate change?

Why is the BBC more extreme than the Guardian? Really don’t get that one!

Re: Oxford Kevin (March 23, 2010 at 7:20 am & 7:25 am) –

> [Response to Steven Mosher] – you said your side has the ability to disagree whilst ours doesn’t. Your claim was one of stalinist type behaviour. Your claim was easily disproved.

> In what way did Jones lie before parliament?

Mosher isn’t very diligent about providing links, plus this site makes it something of a pain, with the prohibition of simple formatting. Anyway, here is the article he wrote on the subject, “The Final Straw.”
http://tinyurl.com/yju26fz

Note that it was posted 3 March 2010 at WUWT. (Is that site a reliable source of information? *Scientific* information, in my opinion, no. For opinion pieces like this one, it’s fine. Althought the Comments are less valuable for being moderated with a heavy hand, like here at LFF (n=1 in my case).)

Background piece is “Climategate: Not Fraud, But Noble Cause Corruption,” 18 February 2010. Separately, its Comments are an interesting read.
http://tinyurl.com/ykxwqtp

Re: “Your [Mosher's] claim was one of stalinist type behaviour” — Kevin, in heated debates such as surrounds AGW, one of the first skill sets to decline is that of paraphrasing one’s (presumed) adversaries. I’d suggest you’d prompt a higher-grade discussion if you’d retire that shortcut for a while, substituting direct quotes and links to sources.

Re: “You said your side has the ability to disagree whilst ours doesn’t.” I’m not the “you” in that sentence, but I find it striking that AGW Consensus scientists and advocates have been, to a person, unwilling to call out Mike Mann for “torturing the Tiljander proxies” in the service of the Cause. It’s a simple point to grasp, thanks to Google. My LFF comment on that subject appears to have failed moderation, I crossposted it at “Lucia’s Blackboard”.
http://tinyurl.com/ydffk6l

Want to be the first to break from the Consensus pack?…

I’m

I just finished reading all the comments on this page. It’s an interesting thread but I find it difficult to add to Mosher’s comments. He has captured my view on many of the details in a painstakingly accurate fashion.

CA caught my interest when Mann08 first came out. I had read there before but when I realized what was being done in Mann08, it took literally two seconds to understand that the practice would cause the blade to occur in any red-noise data. This is before I read about MBH98 – which is the stick everyone refers to. M08 and M09 are different, and independent of the MBH98 flaws, and they create the same effects through different methods. However, they are equally invalid.

All that said, I do find Climate Audit to be a source of information at times. I have found Real Climate to be a source as well. Lucia’s, WUWT and even on rare occasion Tamino who did a nice set of threads on ARIMA. The first two blogs CA and RC, have driven a group of us to go through the massive efforts of repairing the Antarctic temperature paper which graced Nature’s cover last year. Like SteveM, I enjoy puzzles, however my driving intention was to learn.

It was only when the team got overly cocky that I decided to dig into their Antarctic work. Others who enjoyed the battle at CA and tAV followed along, and advanced the science quality (dragging me behind) and recently we submitted. Currently we’re so massively funded that after probably a thousand hours of work we’re forced to pay our own page fees.

That’s the nature of the skeptic movement.

BTW, Nice thread.

I’m quite happy being called a skeptic. While I’m employed as a software engineer, good scientists are skeptical of everything, including long held claims withint the scientfic community, their own research, and even their mother’s warnings about “Don’t eat that!” back before public schools tried to squash their innate curiousity.

We need more skeptics. We also need to find a way to depoliticize climate research and encourage the scientists to get back to figuring out how the world works. That’s an ideal that is rarely acheived in fields that don’t have the potential impact of climate change (which keeps happening over the eons) or the cost of “fixing” whatever may be wrong with it.

You might also look into why Oxfam had this done. It would have been a lot cheaper if they just called Mosher or read his book.

RT @skepticscience: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – study into how networking enabled skeptics to reframe the debate http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

[...] according to Leftfootforward, we skeptics are just a step away from global media domination. I suppose it didn’t occur to the [...]

The title says it all :- Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics. With you warmists it’s all about spin. AGW is a political cause not a matter of science.

Just fancy the like of the BBC, NASA, and the World Bank running scared of Bishop Hill and Richard North. Your science must even weaker than I thought.

When I read statements like “if you don’t contol the way an issue is framed, you don’t control the debate” it becomes obvious that this isn’t about science, it’s about politics and winning at any cost and truth be damned. If it wasn’t for skeptics, we’d still believe the earth was at the center of the universe. Science is all about being skeptical and not accepting something as fact simply based on “consensus.”

RE: As cognitive linguist George Lakoff has written, if you don’t contol the way an issue is framed, you don’t control the debate.

COMMENT: The issue was “framed” using the actual words & content of the e-mails & computer code commentary. How would you suggest we “control” that????

RE: “…George Monbiot, who was also the only significant voice countering the sceptics during the whole Climategate debacle. … – Oxfam’s study shows that almost no-one bothered to back him up in defending the integrity of the science.”

COMMENT: Before knee-jerk responding, think about & THEN respond to this question: Who out there is truly prepared to come forward & defend the science??? Its my observation that the vast vast vast majority of “believers” parrot the conclusions endlessly & when pressed, shift to ad-hominum attacks to skeptics. In other words, it appears that there’s a lot squawking but few really competent with even a cursory understanding of the actual science. One example: Trenberth (spelling?) stated at some lenght about the lack of data needed to explain the roughly decade-long absense of warming. Elsewhere self-proclaimed expert bloggers were directly contradicting this expert by asserting the warming has continued unabated.

Even RealClimate is quick to pounce on the assertions that cosmic rays and clouds may be connected to solar cycles–quick to rule this out as a possibility. At the same time there’s an internatioanl team of scientists at CERN–a VERY prestigious & competent bunch–conducting the CLOUD experiment to quantify the effects/relationships. Pending thier finding to rule out this interaction, or to quantify the special conditions to which it applies, and to what extent — solar/cosmic ray/cloud interactions are a so-called “known unknown” and NOBODY can “scientifically” assert there’s no interaction or that it is inconsequential. The objective facts & data simply don’t yet exist.

Stuff like that undermines the cause being promoted.

Well if Oxfam, of whom I have donated thousands of dollars over the last 4 years, is now part of a religious cult, where facts mean nothing only the ideology counts, have just lost one donor.

Thanks guys for alerting me to their scam.

Steven, thanks very much for your observations and clarifications here. I am a lay reader and very much a skeptic (radiative physics, yes, relative impact and predictive value of same, unconvinced), and so I have done most of my post AR-4 reading at Real Climate, which purports to be an educational site. I note that since the UEA scandal, the moderators have allowed just about anything I care to post, which was hardly the case beforehand. Still, their refusal to link and the often knee-jerk nature of “inline responses” betrays a continuing lack of any sort of skepticism on the part of the moderators. Their fearful approach, which I believe is loosening, has been characterized among other things by their continued tolerance and even encouragement of labels such as “deniers” and “denialists”, which, whatever else you might want to say about it, does not advance their cause these days, if it ever did. I am often tempted to sink to that level by referring in kind to “credulists”, but that would be mere self-entertainment, so I stick to “proponents”. I am sure I am not the only one to have tried, with Revkin, Friedman and others, to convince them that “deniers” has no place in the legitimate debate about AGW, and I continue to hope that noxious term will fade away.

I honestly thought this was a parody story. are you sure it isn’t? Tens of billions spent promoting the AGW story and agenda is somehow losing the argument to the hypothetical but actually non existent “skeptics network”?

This is a political issue. I don’t think any actual scientist who investigates the data and the uncertainties involved is likely to think catastrophic warming is likely.

If there is some great conspiracy where skeptics are paid for their service please send my check to the linked web page. They could sure use the money.

Do you remember “The Producers”?

People, you’ve been done in! Left Foot Forward is a SATIRE!

The people who run it are skewering the LEFT by writing stuff that EVEN LEFTIES BELIEVE WAS WRITTEN BY THEM!

The JOKE is on the lefties, who are so gullible. A warning to “conservatives”…as the guy in the NYC audiance shouted while “Springtime For Hitler” was being sung, “I GET IT! IT’S A SATIRE!”

How many poor little kiddies died because the money was spent on creating this waste of space? I doubt any of it came out of the executives pockets.

Our area used to have lively mining communities in the part of Scotland where I live.
The Communist party was well supported.
Now these villages are isolated most men unemployed and depression and alcoholism combine to reduce life expectancy.
A modern steel mill has been closed by its Indian owner with the loss of 1700 jobs.
Tata the owner is now going to transfer production to India and will be doubly compensated due to the carbon credit system.
Yet there are some people who consider themselves “left wing” who think that this is a good idea.
I know what I regard as left wing.
Take a stand with the working class people in Britain to demand an end to export of Jobs.
Support policies aimed at building a strong mining industry and an end to the scandal of unemployment.

Thanks a lot for that graph!

It really shows the relative media power of both sides of the debate.

If a group of individuals and amateurish blogs, supported by a couple of newspapers are winning the debate against the combined power of NASA, NYT, BBC, Guardian, World Bank, Met Office, WSJ, Nature et cetera – this tells a lot about who has truth on his side.

So, Oxfam wants to work out how to combat climate scepticism? Answer, look in the mirror. Chances are, the person looking back at you is a sceptic and if you don’t know it, there’s a good chance you’re also lying to yourself.

How do I arrive at this outrageous statement? Well, if CO2 was this big scary nightmare you’d be doing everything you could to cut your own CO2 levels to the bone. No, I don’t mean turning off your phone charger a few times a month or buying carbon offsets, I mean really cutting back. Choosing not to have as many kids, using teleconferencing instead of flying visits, moving to a smaller property, etc. If you can’t get your carbon footprint down towards 2 tons then you’re not doing enough to make a difference.

Most of the surveys about AGW concern show that a significant number of people are very worried about CO2. Surely by now the reductions of CO2 from these people should be showing up in the energy use statistics? No? No. So instead of finding out how sceptics can be defeated, try asking why believers don’t believe enough to make a difference.

Once you start to look at it that way you may be able to admit to yourself that the science is not all it should be; that the solutions range from interesting to unbelievably poor; that the key players are hideously unsuitable mascots for a cause that requires you to embrace self restraint; that cutting your CO2 is not just a matter of belief, it’s darned hard work; and that if we’re going to spend trillions we need something more convincing than spin and playstation climatology.

Walter:
“Steven, thanks very much for your observations and clarifications here. I am a lay reader and very much a skeptic (radiative physics, yes, relative impact and predictive value of same, unconvinced), and so I have done most of my post AR-4 reading at Real Climate, which purports to be an educational site. ”

Ah ok, If you believe in radiative physics then I can brand you a Lukewarmer. ha, some Lukewarmers believe that negative feedbacks may dominate. At the outset RC was set up to be a mouthpiece. If you read the mails you will see how Mann thinks that comments should be controlled. He argues that comments should not be a megaphone for skeptics. basically, the fear was that RC would generate traffic. Those eyeballs would come to the site and if a skeptic was allowed to post a comment that SOMEHOW RC would be spreading the skeptic message. This is a retarded view. Now, RC will let through certain skeptic comments, usually if the comment itself is exceptionally stupid. So, by moderating and letting through only the dumb skeptical comments and not the smart ones, they hope to create a picture of skeptics. It took me about two seconds to figure this out and test this theory for my self with a few sample comments to RC. I just watched what they let me comment on. I wrote deliberately stuid things and smarter things. Which do you think they blocked? What did that behavior tell me about them?

You see the very mind set of of most people who interaact on the internet is at odds with the progressive model of human nature.

WRT the word denialist. I would suggest you use that word to describe the people who deny access to data, deny access to code and those who refuse to allow conversation.

Oh dear. See WUWT. Lakoff is off his rocker. He doesnt understand that the open minded meme is OWNED by the side demanding that data and code be freed. He can’t appropriate that meme without taking action. To appropriate a meme, nothing works like action grounded in that meme.

Pinroot:

“When I read statements like “if you don’t contol the way an issue is framed, you don’t control the debate” it becomes obvious that this isn’t about science, it’s about politics and winning at any cost and truth be damned. If it wasn’t for skeptics, we’d still believe the earth was at the center of the universe. Science is all about being skeptical and not accepting something as fact simply based on “consensus.””

One way to think about the concept of a “frame” is this. A frame is a reference model, a mental map, a metaphor, the structure of how you see things. You don’t come to observations NAKED. you always come with a “frame” an expectation.

You frame this as a debate between politics and science. Not saying that’s wrong. Lakoff describes what we do. what we in fact do. how we in fact perceive things and act on things. we live in metaphors. we act congruently with them. Our thinking and writing about science is not science. our thinking and writing about science is dominated by metaphor. Science behavior itself is not metaphorical.

get it?

“mphysopt says:
March 23, 2010 at 5:09 am
Mosher,
If Tony of WUWT was so confident about his arguments about the surface temperature record, why doesn’t he answer Tamino’s and Meene et al.’s criticisms? (No, whining about a pseudonym is not answering the question. Frankly, only a bully intent in causing RL hurt wants to know somebody’s True Name) Oh, that’s right, he can’t show that his claims of bias have any validity at all…
”

Well, You are asking me to speculate on somebody’s motives. I try to avoid talking about unobservables.

WRT anthony and Tamino– Grant Foster. On more than one occassion Mr Foster has blocked my comments.
Even comments praising his analysis. The issue of the thermometer disapperence is one that I have been
commenting on since what.. 2007. I spoke to EM Smith and Anthony about it in december of 2009 at AGU.
I made my views known then that I did not think it was a problem, but they were welcome to prove a case.
On Jan 27th I suggested a test case to EM Smith on his blog. Look it up. That test case settles the matter.
The issue was and IS, how does the removal of stations effect the GISSTEMP calculation. Foster went at this problem from a different approach. Its not the best approach. It proves the point, but not with the BEST evidence.
Clearclimatecode actually have done the test I suggested on Jan 27th and proved what many have argued:
This should not impact GISSTEMP calculations. Silly us, we think the best way to test GISSTEMP calcs is to run the model. Foster built a different model, then tested that different model. In any case since I’ve already said that I think that the station removal is NOT a problem. Since I’ve already told Anythony in person that I’d bet it wasnt a problem. Since I’ve posted on his site the whole history, what do you want me to do?

You want me to tell Anthony that he should talk to Grant Foster? Huh, Grant Foster routinely blocks my comments. Even comments that are simply informative. “read this” ” thanks nice work tamino” Grant Foster routinely calls people who are skeptics criminal. You want me to order Anthony to talk to Grant Foster.
Hmm.

Now shall we turn to Menne. Menne requested data from Anthony. As you know and as Menne knew, Menne was working with an incomplete set of data. Menne requested the full set of data and Anthony told him that he was working on a paper. They negotiated to write a joint paper. The only thing menne was willing to offer was a credit for using the data, no co authorship. Looking at other papers it seems standard practice to give co authorship to a data supplier. However, it is important that Menne keep Watts out of the peer reviewed journals as a co author.
So, the negotiations fell through. Menne has publsihed his paper with an incomplete data set, Watts will publish his paper with the complete dataset. I reserve judgement, but my position since 2007 has been that it will be hard for Anthony to make his case. I remain open minded. How about you? In any case you want me to tell Anthony that he should answer a man who refused to give Anthony co authorship when he wanted to use Anthony’s results? I suspect Anthony will answer him in print. I’d suggest he do it on line, but go figure I have no way of forcing my opinion on people.

@ Kevin

“@Steve
you said you side has the ability to disagree whilst ours doesn’t. Your claim was one of stalinist type behaviour. Your claim was easily disproved. You seemed to have made judgements about me and others on this website without evidence for it.
Kevin”

You make a very good point. My claim that your side has an inability to disagree was easily disproved by your lone data point. Congratulations, outlier. Now, seriously, you don’t think I saw that coming? There are doubtless examples of people on your side who are critical of Mann. HECK Wigley in the mails was critical about Mann.
( I was secretly hoping you would be a counter example so I could remind people about Wigley, Thanks!)
The question is this, why is so hard, why is so rare, why is it so difficult for people to just speak plainly about this. Even where Mann’s errors make no difference. In one case Mann made a simple mistake. He mislocated a proxy. This was pointed out by Mcintyre. Mann refused to fix the error. Published another paper with the same GEOGRAPHY ERROR. later, without notice or attribution he updated his SI, fixing the error. It was not insubstantial.
Still for months I tried to get anyone to say “hey, this proxy is at the WRONG latitude and Longitude” can somebody, anybody just say “its wrong”. Nope. nobody could. Maybe you will, But the point would still be preserved.. why is it so hard? why are people like you so rare when it comes to Mann? Why for example did Briffa and Osborne Stop working on their paper that was critical of Mann? What did Osborne think when he found out that Mann was lying about Mcintyre? Why did Osborne and CRU first offer to settle the issue between mann and Mciintyre, and then withdraw the offer. Again, thanks for reminding me that some have been critical about Mann, usually behind closed doors. Outliers often have loads of information.

This is NOT a question that goes to the science directly. In any case, my over generalization was wrong.
This of course leads to the question why aren’t more people in the alarmist camp as smart as you?
Or it leads to the questions about Wrigley. Or here is another mystery.. why is melvin called a loose canon
and not allowed to post on RC ( you did read that mail right?)

WRT the Jones lie. basically he testified that it was not standard practice to share data.
Unforntutely in Jan/feb of 2005, prior to ANY FOIA being issued Jones had an exchange of mails
with Wigley ( former employee )

The gist:

CRU sent Wigley a flyer on FOIA. Wigley asked Jones what it was. Jones said nobody at CRU was up to
speed on FOIA. Wigley was worried that somebody might request code. He offered some silly suggestions
about how they would only release 1/10 of the code if asked. At this point NOBODY has asked for data or code.
Well, except Mcintyre who asked Jones for data in 2002. Jones gave him the data. And Hughes requested it
in 2004 and jones was “getting around to it” ( his mails to mcintyre show he was disorganized, a flaw he admitted to in his interview with Harribin) Anyways, so in early 2005 Wigley and Jones are discussing FOIA trying to figure out what it means.

Jones then says:

1. I sent this data to Rutherford.
2. One guy ( warwick hughes) is asking me for it.
3. If anybody asks for this under FOIA, we have confidentiality agreements to hide behind.
4. If order to give this data ( FOIA TRUMPS confidentiality agreements in some cases ) I will destroy it.

So, From 2002 to 2005 Jones practice was to share data.or not. And in the very mail were he shares data with rutherford he NOTES that it is covered by an confidentiality agreement. In fact since 2002 Jones has known about the confidentiality agreements. yet, his practice was to violate these agreements when he wanted to ( sending data to Mcintyre in 2002, Rutherford in 2005, the MET, and peter webster in 2008. ) On the other hand, when he wanted to, he used these agreements to prevent disclosure, most notably to Mcintyre, Peilke, McKittrick, Muerta, McCollugh in 2009. his choice of sharing or not sharing, violating or violating, the agreements was not in accordance with any standard I know of. Its inconsistent on its face. Further, in other interviews Jones lied about the rules of FOIA, arguing that the rules required him to put in 18 hours of work on each request. there is more but I Don’t want this thread to degenerate into a recapitulation of the entire story.

here is a thought experiment.

You are in the nixon whitehouse. You are in charge of damage control. What do you do?

1. Say things about the tapes without listening to them?
2. Resign
3. Come up with the best plan that preserves your principles.

Well, you cant do #2 and neither can I cause I believe in AGW.

So decide what your principle are. I don’t much care. But if you do number 1 I will assure you that your probably of doing something that comprimises your credibility will go up.

I am a physicist who has gradually shifted my position from “warmer.” The science now simply does not support the position.

I am disheartened to learn that Oxfam commissioned this study. I guess now I will no longer donate to Oxfam. A pity.

Oxfam have just lost another source of donations. Stop spending money on this crap and start spending it responsibly the way we expect you to.

When I see the World Bank on the alarmist side it all makes perfect sense. This is just another form of neo-colonialism and the further deindustrialization of the West. You know, the World Bank is comprised of the richest and most conservative folks on the planet. So the argument about liberal vs conservative is not only baseless, but full of cognitive dissociation.

RT @skepticscience: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – study into how networking enabled skeptics to reframe the debate http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

Oxfam? Having just donated $400 last month this now has to be the last time ever after this disgraceful waste of donations…. do your bloody jobs and keep out of politics you douchebags….

An Update on Profero

The study was actually undertaken by a Profero subsidiary called Unsimplify.

1. Projected Image

This is how Profero pompously project their image in their website: “Our agency is a collective of brilliant, original thinkers who have been doing things differently since day one”.

So how differently do they do things? We can gain an insight by switching back to the Unsimplify website: “If this sounds complex and challenging then that’s intentional because what Unsimplify does is complex, hence the name.”

Taken together, all this means that this corporate group takes great pride making simple things complex! That’s what’s different how they do things! And to think that Oxfam actually bought this boast, inviting on themselves the very recipe to guaranteed failure.

In contrast to their projected image, the landscape map of Profero shows how sloppy their research is. Rather than capture the full complexity, the diagram suggests that all they could manage was over-simplification.

Profero boosts “We pride ourselves in our creative solutions and in achieving exceptional results by thinking beyond the traditional mindset.” Apparently thinking beyond traditional mindsets traps Profero in bias – portraying the IPCC as neutral is one such example.

Profero further claims that they possess “broad local and global insight”. By portraying the World Bank as a significant supporter (read warmist) player in their landscape map, Profero demonstrated that they held no such insights.The World Bank is considered offensive by much of the NGO network throughout the world and the Profero landscape map will only succeed to fueling their increased suspicion of the whole global warming issue.

2. Oxfam’s Future Strategy

Unsimplify website: “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”

This may suggest that Oxfam is exploring whether blogging can be more impactful as a communication media. for their climate advocacy programmes.

The very fact that the study was deliberately leaked to the website Left Foot Forward (“hats off to LeftFootForward for getting the scoop on this piece of work”) means that they could be one of the blogs who would shoulder this responsibility, probably with Oxfam’ generous funding. Left Foot Forward is probably being built up as the NGO sponsored climate alarmist website just as Real Climate is to the alarmist scientists of the CRU, East Anglia. So this perhaps explains why the report entailed many months of consulting.

But for peer-to-peer news generation to succeed as an Oxfam communication strategy, a prerequisite is that peers must be self-motivated. Self-motivation and self-starters are what basically defines skeptics. Unfortunately the media expose of the leading lights of the Global Warming movement as carbon profiteers, Climategate and the multiple errors in the IPCC report, have cast huge blows on the credibility of Global Warming science. The peers within the climate alarmist movement instead of being self-motivated are at the moment, a much beaten lot displaying poor morale. Oxfam’s strategies on peer-to-peer news generation will likely to lack impact until and unless credibility of Global Warming science regains faith among the public. This looks a highly unlikely prospect in the short to medium term.

3. Quality of Research

“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.”

Perhaps yes. But whatever the intention of the purposeful leak, this had been a total PR disaster starting with the title “Combating the growing influence of Climate Skeptics” which suggest a connotation of defeatism. The landscape diagram was too full of holes that made the climate skeptic community roll over with laughter.

The most significant omission are NGOs and environmentalist groups such Greenpeace, WWF, Christian Aid and Oxfam themselves who have a mind boggling spread of money around supporting the Global Warming theory. The most obvious mistake is categorizing media such as Wall Street Journal, Guardian etc within the supporter network. This might have been the case some months ago but not as of now as they take a more balanced stand. Why their map left out the likes of the Economist among the faithful remains totally incomprehensible.

The study describes ClimateGate as a the first wave of climate attack and bemoans that no one defended the climate science. It fails to mention that these e-mails reveal collusion, falsification of data, suppression of contrary opinion, political interference and fraudulent scientific conclusions – that moulded public perception away from the science. It makes no mention of the steps needed to restore credibility of the science. This gives the impression that Oxfam is in a state of denial and that as long as warmists continue to act as ostriches, skeptics need not worry. We will still control the way issues are framed and accordingly, the climate debate itself.

The element of staleness is provided in the checklist of how “Climate Progressives” (read warmists) can counter skeptic blogs. No one any more get distracted about funding (i.e. opting for ad hominem attacks). This is a two way sword as the likes of Oxfam, Profero and Left Foot Forward may have to disclose first their funds they use for their climate advocacy which they aren’t prepared to, and as such a puerile strategy. Moreover, the public now concentrate on the substance of the blog – they reason for much of the the skeptic surge. Innuendo attacks besides only succeed in arousing public curiosity and act in the skeptic’s favour.

The most that the Unsimplified study could come up as a counter to deniers (read skeptics) is to use of the handy checklist of arguments – refer to Skeptical Science; Real Climate and Climate Safety to cast doubt on the validity of arguments. This a tacit admission that most “peers” lack climate science expertise that they need to refer to sources. This is where climate skeptics score in leap and bounds. They know the climate science well enough on their own The way the hockey stick was exposed as a fraud proved legendary of the extraordinary commitment among skeptics to do research and fine comb data. This fact of their extra-ordinary commitment is admitted by Unsimplify themselves:

“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 skeptics 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.”

actually the smartest thing to do is post bogus stuff so skeptics would correct it for free

@ Steven Mosher

I am afraid nothing in life comes free.

To be corrected by skeptics is to be proved wrong or bogus. This takes a toll of one’s institutional credibility that in turn rubs off on non-climate change advocacy issues which organizations like Oxfam are intricately involved with.

To be corrected by skeptics also implies accepting the skeptical point of scientific view. Credibility again takes a hit as then the question arises why persist with the AGW view?

For any advocacy organization, both these non-monetary costs can prove extremely fatal.

Matters have now come to a head where organizations like Oxfam are left with essentially two choices:

- cut their losses by winding up their climate change misadventure.

or

- go down with the sinking ship.

[...] Anthony Watts thinks an analysis of the connections between denialist web sites done for Leftfootforward, proves that they’re just independently minded people that share an objective scientific [...]

Interesting analysis of how Climategate media storm was created by climate sceptics – http://tiny.cc/pioxi

@spartans_uk check out @guyshrubsole's article about Climategate http://bit.ly/doQ9X8

RT @OurWorld20: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – graphic showing who is influential on the web – http://bit.ly/9HtAty

Mapping the internet of Climate Change http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/combating-the-growing-influence-of-climate-sceptics/

Web Lobbying? RT @sailtotrail: RT @OurWorld20: Climate sceptics – Graphic showing who is influential on the web – http://bit.ly/9HtAty

RT @debdebdubdub: @spartans_uk check out @guyshrubsole's article about Climategate http://bit.ly/doQ9X8

Dear all,

I’ve done an imagemap that makes the image clickable. Please feel free to copy the HTML code at
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/03/quem-e-quem.html

Ecotretas

Want to know how climate sceptics so successfully spread their misinformation? http://cli.gs/NEhyE

RT @guyshrubsole: Written a new blog on combating climate sceptics' networks: http://tinyurl.com/ylbdheu

RT @guyshrubsole on combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE Also proud of @_climatico_ for being on the map

the truth behind climategate – http://bit.ly/9HtAty #cop15 #cop16 #climate clear evidence of underhand tactics – spread the word

Like this, even if a bit worrying — LFF puts out a climate skeptics network schematic — http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

#climategate religion fights back w/underhanded tactics http://bit.ly/9HtAty via @benmetz

Presumably this blog is part of that worldwide movement that is doing it’s best to “save the planet”. You have relied for decades on a SINGLE multi – government led organisation to provide technical summaries backed up by government policy decisions and publicity. These governments then provide further funding to provide more summaries from this SINGLE source and so on.

With the rise of the internet the interchange and access to information has blossomed. For myself it has allowed direct access to the IPCC reports to read and digest at leisure and form my own opinion, whereas once I would only have heard of it second hand through newspaper articles or from environment group publicity releases with their own filter applied.

But I am one of many millions now doing the same and it is no surprise that outside of the cosy IPCC-Environmental-goverment loop that some amongst the crowd have picked up on inconsistencies, inaccuracies or just plain bad science and procedures.

And the response is always deny, move along now, nothing to see, ad homium attack, or as this study attempts to do just refine the presentation not the content of the argument. This may work for a while, but because this loose, informal and skeptical network does not have any financial or political alliances or dependent for information on official or easily controlled MSM media outlets it can never be suppressed. The informal decentralized network provides it’s own quality control where weak or just plain daft ideas are quickly identified and discarded.

Here is a new idea, engage the skeptics with a two way discussion rather than the traditional stonewall, after all both sides may learn something and you may find better ways to “save the planet”.

The skeptics after all are those who tend to have an inquisitive mind and are receptive to new arguments and ideas – providing the technical arguments back them up. Make use of them rather than wasting money on how to improve your PR.

manufactured doubt – http://bit.ly/bUwD8f – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07-1

#climategate religion fights back w/underhanded tactics http://bit.ly/9HtAty

Do climate sceptics systematically manufacture doubt? http://bit.ly/bUwD8f and http://bit.ly/8OAQqZ /via @emapsiteJames #climategate

Interesting analysis of how Climategate media storm was created by climate sceptics – http://tiny.cc/pioxi

Interesting analysis of how Climategate media storm was created by climate sceptics – http://tiny.cc/pioxi

@jamescrabtree The climate skeptics network schematic is undermined by having WSJ as a major climate change supporter http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

@jamescrabtree The climate skeptics network schematic is undermined by having WSJ as a major climate change supporter http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

RT @Organicaluminum: #climategate religion fights back w/underhanded tactics http://bit.ly/9HtAty

RT @benmetz: th truth behind climategate – http://bit.ly/9HtAty #cop15 #cop16 #climate clear evidence of underhand tactics – spread the word

RT @TheGreenMerrie RT @benmetz: Truth behind climategate – http://bit.ly/9HtAty Clear evidence of underhand tactics – spread the word

Intriguing network (hyperlink?) analysis of information diffusion during "Climategate": http://bit.ly/9HtAty (via TheGreenMerrie)

RT @benmetz: the truth behind climategate – http://bit.ly/9HtAty clear evidence of underhand tactics – spread the word #socent

New report shows how #Climategate scandal spread through media & why it wasn't countered effectively: http://ow.ly/1qGQM

RT @jamescrabtree: Like this, even if a bit worrying — LFF puts out a climate skeptics network schematic — http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

By not engaging with climate change skeptics, they were allowed to shift paradigm based on pseudoscience rhetoric

http://bit.ly/9HtAty

Interesting look at Climategate & the dynamics of how fast opinions spread vs peer-reviewed science http://bit.ly/9HtAty via @thegreenmerrie

The truth behind climategate: @leftfootfwd http://bit.ly/9HtAty #cop15 #cop16 #climate via @dcarli MUST READ

RT @paulmalouf: The truth behind climategate: @leftfootfwd http://bit.ly/9HtAty #cop15 #cop16 #climate via @dcarli MUST READ

wow. RT @PaulMalouf The truth behind climategate: @leftfootfwd http://bit.ly/9HtAty #cop15 #cop16 #climate #GCDM via @dcarli MUST READ

fascinating attempt at mapping climate change skeptic/believer networks, first reported http://bit.ly/bUwD8f background http://bit.ly/bZ3Qxc

Where climate skeptics congregate. http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/combating-the-growing-influence-of-climate-sceptics/

How bad media practices undermined good science in climategate… http://bit.ly/9HtAty

Do you agree? "There are no progressive networks, just hubs… here & there lacking connection." ~ Stuart Conway | http://bit.ly/9HtAty

ken_homer

@ Ken_homer Re "There are no progressive networks, just hubs…lacking connection." ~ http://bit.ly/9HtAty . #4YG poss impact

Fascinating networking study showing how a small number of climate skeptics managed to dominate the debate: http://tinyurl.com/ylbdheu

RT @eclectopedic: Fascinating networking study showing how a small number of climate skeptics managed to dominate the debate: http://tinyurl.com/ylbdheu

[...] according to Leftfootforward, we skeptics are just a step away from global media domination. I suppose it didn’t occur to the [...]

RT @MorelFourman: ken_homer

@ Ken_homer Re "There are no progressive networks, just hubs…lacking connection." ~ http://bit.ly/9HtAty . #4YG poss impact

Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://bit.ly/aczuPO

[...] diagram was “leaked” in an article on a progressive blog; apparently it’s some part of an study of the publicity surrounding the CRU emails. Beyond [...]

@Milieunet @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://cli.gs/NEhyE

Maybe its not the skeptics numbers but their facts backed up by the environment that is winning the debate. The left treats most people as stupid when in fact most people do have a brain and can use it. That’s why an argument is rarely won on lies.

“You might like to make use of the handy checklist of arguments to counter deniers over at Skeptical Science”

I like the one about the sun – “the sun is showing a cooling trend over the last 30 years”. Whilst true, the article fails to mention that the sun is still hotter than average, over 300 years. For example, sunspots activity has declined over 30 years, but is still higher than the 300 year average of 52 per year. In fact since the 40s, the average has been 72 per year (around 28% higher than average) and despite the 30 year decline, we are still seeing a sun that is 9.7% more active than the 300 year average. My data is from NASA so you are free to check this for yourself.

If you are going to ‘deny’ what skeptics are saying, make sure you are armed with facts first.

the truth behind #climategate – http://bit.ly/9HtAty clear evidence of underhand tactics – #climate #globalwarming

Pardon me for interrupting your “combat”, but scientific inquiry in pursuit of truth, (whatever that may be) stands alone and needs no defense.

Agendas may need defense. Lies always need support. A true thing stands on its own despite being trampled on, stomped, ignored etc.

What exactly do you believe you are combating?

Take a moment to examine your motives.

The leaked emails & documents from top scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit SHOW that the scientific method is NOT being respected by “climate-change” scientists.

There is clear political pressure to produce “desired results”–i.e., data that shows warming.

Phil Jones himself admitted that there has been NO warming since 1995, thus showing their “hockey stick” graph to be complete BS. Al Gore lied with his famous graph (the centerpiece of _An Inconvenient Truth_), trying to trick society into thinking that rises in CO2 levels CAUSE rises in temperature, but the graph actually shows that rises in TEMPERATURE *precede* rises in CO2 levels! So warmer weather puts more CO2 in the air, NOT the other way around!

These guys are frauds & liars, and they stand to gain MEGA-BUCKS from proposed legislations that would benefit their companies. That is CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and it’s not science.

It’s political fraud, and the word is out—-I only hope that the rich scam-artists funding this non-sense keep throwing away more of their money trying to trick the population; it won’t work, but it’d be nice to see them squander their fortunes on unsuccessful propaganda campaigns!

the myth is that the climategate emails were released to time with copenhagen and mainly proliferated amongst sceptic websites. the fact is that the bbc was give this file a month earlier, did nothing with it, and then it was released more broadly. the entire liberal media buried this story and the right wing picked it up, thereby politicizing the whole thing further. as you analyze this story talking about not owning the story, you’re trying now to own the story by rewriting the history, but i’m sorry, the internet doesn’t work that way. the internet is a pandora’s box- no one side owns it, no one controls it. it takes down former vp’s along with current popes.

@twawki

No, we treat people like YOU as stupid, because you constantly prove it! You seriously wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the face – and it likely will thanks to stupid people like you.

@Verum Peto

“If you are going to ‘deny’ what skeptics are saying, make sure you are armed with facts first.”

OK, I will…

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/ssn_plot_mo_ann_lowess_sc1.png
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

It turns out you don’t know what you’re talking about. Why am I not surprised?

Have a look at those last two graphs, and notice something? As Verum said, the period between around 1950 and 1980 has the highest annual average susnpot number. Verum implies this means that susnpots are causing the warming. Have a look at the temperature graph and notice that this period actually cooincides with a halt to the warming, and possibly a slight cooling.

How is THAT possible? How can more sunspots both cause warming AND not-warming? Simple – sunspots aren’t causing the warming, because the change in actual energy emitted by the sun is TOO SMALL to make a difference. The sunspot numbers jump a lot, but it represents less than 0.1 percent swing in solar output from solar minimum with practically NO sunspots, to maximum with hundreds. If the difference between “none” and “lots” of sunspots only equates to 0.1% output difference, how can the very small inter-cycle difference account for MORE?

eg 0 to 250 represents a swing of 0.1% – so if the average this year is 72, then the actual difference from the trend of 75 is three sunspots, making a change of 0.0012% in solar output from the average – essentially unnoticable. (this is probably not very accurate maths-wise, but it illustrates the concept – the difference between solar min and max is too small to change climate, and the difference between current levels and long-term trend is MUCH smaller.)

@David Quinn

“Pardon me for interrupting your “combat”, but scientific inquiry in pursuit of truth, (whatever that may be) stands alone and needs no defense.”

Good try, but you fail. The whole point of science is that EVERY belief/assertion/theory must be CONSTANTLY defended. In fact that is the whole point of science – to make sure what we think we know is actually true.

“What exactly do you believe you are combating?”

Idiots like you, who probably haven’t seen a scientific paper in your entire life, but think you can lecture scientists on the scientific method…

“Take a moment to examine your motives.”

Right back at you.

Why are you SO determined to ignore the science that you will cling to ANY BULLSHIT that some retard on the internet (like Rivero over at WRH) says?

Could it be because you’re afraid to admit that YOU and YOUR BELIEFS are responsible?

I notice something reading through the older comments. Many of the same people who would swear black and blue that they are just trying to get to the truth and see the science done well, immediately register their intention to punish Oxfam for having anything to do with this issue, regardless of anything else they may do.

Apparently, to these people daring to believe the scientists on this issue invalidates all the good work Oxfam does, and as such they need to be punished by the withholding of donations.

Screw the poor starving kids… these guys are threatening my SUV!!!!

RT @BeThatChange: Really interesting piece on climate deniers and how their networks spread nonsense so effectively http://bit.ly/9HtAty PLS RT

NGOs fighting global poverty are even worse about solidarity || Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://j.mp/cZAMWu

@Karmakaze

You might say that 0.1% is a small amount. However that 0.1% means an additional 174 trillion watts of energy, 24/7 (to try an imagine this, hurricane katrina equated to about 200 trillion). Since the Maunder Minimum, the watts per square meter has increased by 2.5 – more than enough to switch to a warming trend globally. A “normal” level of watts per square meter (for normal climate) is thought to be around 1365 + or – 1.5 watts. When you deviate from this range, you see the climate shift more notably. It has exceeded this range numerous times over the last 50 years or so, and we have seen a warming trend. When it was below this level for some time, we had the ‘cold’ period coinciding with the Maunder Minimum (1363.4 watts per meter squared). See http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/04/post_3.html.

If you want to further educate yourself, read a book called “The Chilling Stars”. I’ll think you’ll change your tune somewhat.

So like I said, stick to facts. Saying the sun has cooled for 30 years will only mislead. It is still active above the ‘comfort’ level – and that is significant.

[...] environmentalists, reporting work commissioned by Oxfam from the digital mapping agency Prospero. Left Foot Forward reported: The speed of information flow within the sceptic community, with its rapid publication of [...]

RT @skepticscience: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – study into how networking enabled skeptics to reframe the debate http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

RT @skepticscience: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – study into how networking enabled skeptics to reframe the debate http://bit.ly/bUwD8f

AGW is a scientific, intellectual, political, financial and moral scam. The climate has been changing for millions upon millions of years.

The IPCC is the biggest perpetrator of scientific fraud that the world has ever seen.

Individuals and organizations involved in this fraud should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Civil suits should be filed to recover grant money and subsidies given to individuals and organizations participating in the fraud.

Now is not the time to let up !

Funny how when the climate alarmists were asked to explain themselves they did not know what to say. They have had the trust of the rest of us so long they got to a point where they did not have to actually back anything up with evidence. It’s like it was not proper etiquette to ask someone who was saving the world to explain themselves. Well surprise…. enquiring minds want to know what the hell are they talking about. They just made the stuff up as they went along and have all hurt feelings that a lot of us would like an explanation of why they who were in a position of almost absolute trust would lie boldfaced to us. Now the rest of us have to save the world…from you. …..jwallen…

You people talk of science and facts yet you have none, only assertions that you have them. Yours is an article of faith in certain selected scientists who themselves do not release their “facts” so it is hilarious every time you speak about the facts you have which are so incontrovertible. How would you know?

Anyone can figure out with a bit of research if common sense doesn’t do it, that the Icelandic volcano currently giving a moderate display of natures power, is spewing out more CO2 in its little hiccup than we puny humans with our cows and cars do in a year.

Please stop using the word “denier”. It undermines your argument and belittles the events of the holocaust.

[...] hope to match – and handily unencumbered by peer review or sign-off processes,” according to a report on the study on the Left Foot Forward [...]

Left Foot Forward, Combating the Growing Influence of Climate Skeptics: http://bit.ly/9yaQK0

MSM failed to take apart BS of climate skeptics, so they owned the story: http://bit.ly/9yaQK0

Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics: http://bit.ly/9yaQK0

RT @leftfootfwd: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics http://bit.ly/chjz2j #climatechange

[...] piece in New Scientist (behind a paywall, though I wrote about it here) and Guy Shrubsole’s article on Left Foot Forward.  The latter refers to Oxfam’s analysis of how the Climategate claims [...]