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 The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.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”
Steven Mosher
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.
Steven Mosher
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.
Steven Mosher
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?
Steven Mosher
“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.
Steven Mosher
@ 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.