A new study has revealed just how much more effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites.
A fascinating new study commissioned by Oxfam and produced by digital mapping agency Profero has shed new insights into the way climate sceptics’ networks operate. The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.
Profero’s study analysed online coverage of the “Climategate” debacle that broke last November, tracking its progress from fringe blogs to mainstream media outlets over the ensuing weeks and months.
Tracing the online paper trail back to its source, the researchers concluded that:
• The ‘Climategate’ story was first aired on climate denier blog The Air Vent, before wending its way onto more popular sceptic sites Climate Audit and Watts Up With That, and then featured by James Delingpole in his Daily Telegraph blog – whose followers propagated it further;
• From thereon in, the story was picked up by a wide range of media outlets, and went global –the culmination of a concerted effort to push it into the mainstream;
• The timing of the CRU email leak was calculated to have maximum impact on the Copenhagen negotiations, with the second wave of sceptic attacks after Christmas deliberately timed for when the environmental movement was at its weakest, exhausted from the UN talks; and
• The speed of information flow within the sceptic community, with its rapid publication of sceptical “research”, is far quicker than any scientist or NGO could hope to match – and handily unencumbered by peer review or sign-off processes.
This meant that because almost no-one from the climate movement responded to or rebutted the sceptics’ arguments, they ended up owning the story.
This allowed them to shift what political theorists call the “Overton Window”: the acceptable parameters within which a debate can be conducted. Suddenly after Climategate, it became acceptable for the mainstream media to question the fundamentals of climate science.
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).
Profero’s study then looked at the character of the online climate sceptic networks that permitted this information flow. It discovered that the sceptic community is extraordinarily well-networked and interwoven, with sites like Climate Audit and Climate Depot acting as hubs for a wide range of other individual pundits and bloggers. (And no, I’m not going to give these sites free publicity by linking to them.) Of the top five most linked-to climate commentators, four are climate sceptics.
The one exception was Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who was also the only significant voice countering the sceptics during the whole Climategate debacle. “I have seldom felt so alone,” he wrote early on in the scandal, with justification – Oxfam’s study shows that almost no-one bothered to back him up in defending the integrity of the science.
In many ways, the tactics revealed by Profero are not new. They were first tried and tested by American neo-cons in the 1970s long before the internet became a tool for campaigning. What is new is that the patterns of activity are now traceable, which means that the progressive response to climate scepticism can be more strategic – that is, if we listen to the findings.
Indeed, the reports’ insights should give pause for thought to progressives contemplating the strength of their own networks. Stuart Conway, the study’s co-author, declared simply that “there are no progressive networks” – just hubs of activity here and there, lacking interconnection. Whilst a number of blogs buck this trend – honourable mentions include Treehugger and, yes, Left Foot Forward – the pro-environmental community as a whole lacks brio and responsiveness.
It’s not that there we don’t have the numbers: it’s more than we’re not using our numbers effectively. NGOs, notably, were nowhere to be seen during the debate. Whilst there were some good reasons for this – NGOs feared they would be simply seen as “the usual suspects” in rebutting deniers – this clearly left a vacuum that needed filling by an activist community.
After presentation of the study, discussion moved onto filling that vacuum: how we can better combat sceptic networks and strengthen our own. The discussions ranged far and wide, and I’d love to tell you some of the creative ideas discussed, but you’ll have to watch this space…
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. This is unsurprising for anyone who has ever trawled through comments left behind after any climate change article. By the time you read this, there will doubtless be sceptical comments posted beneath this blog, too.
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 sceptics’ funding by SourceWatch; or
• Refer to the discussions at RealClimate and Climate Safety.
Oh, and remember to check out James Delingpole’s column at the Telegraph. If any of it makes you angry, you might like to let him know. Did I say be polite? Scratch that.
UPDATE 23/3:
Profero, the digital mapping agency behind the Oxfam report have posted a message on their website. They say:
“We’re really excited that people are taking an interest in what we do and hats off to LeftFootForward for getting the scoop on this piece of work but we’d like to clarify what’s being discussed (most of the conversations focus upon a visual representation of 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.
“The report as a whole applies our own bespoke models and frameworks to both quantitative and qualitative data in order to bring to the surface complex dynamics and issues which would otherwise pass un-noticed if an automated technological monitoring solution had been used in isolation.”
201 Responses to “Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics”
jeff id
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.
Ric Werme
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.
Corri Baker
RT @skepticscience: Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics – study into how networking enabled skeptics to reframe the debate http://bit.ly/bUwD8f
The well funded, well organized, global skeptic network laid bare /sarc – Dark Politricks
[…] according to Leftfootforward, we skeptics are just a step away from global media domination. I suppose it didn’t occur to the […]
Bert Rodinsky
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.