"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 my 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
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
Thanks for the informative article.ReplyDelete
I read the Left Foot Forward piece. It says four out of five popular climate websites are those of skeptics. And why not? Who wants to read warmist propaganda? They have taken us for a ride a long time
"NGOs feared they would be simply seen as the usual suspects in rebutting deniers" So commented the Left Foot forward article.ReplyDelete
What they failed to appreciate is that NGOs place a premium on credibility. NGOs are keeping silent because they do not want to be branded as supporting a scam.
That should be a thought to Oxfam which commands respect the world over. It seems that they are intend on throwing all this by their continued support to global warming
Oxfam hasn't done enough on climate change. In the US, Oxfam supports the cap-and-trade bill - a legislation that is supportive of continued fossil fuel pollution.ReplyDelete
Its mind boggling how Oxfam's slogans scream for Climate Justice while its policies support carbon trading that is so oppressive for the third world
Watch this video http://vodpod.com/watch/3161215-oxfam-scams-environmentalists
Its not for nothing that China kicked Oxfam out. India should do the same.ReplyDelete
Great by accident to come across this blog site
Just the type of inputs we need. Kudos to Oxfam for publishing such a study. The full study should be published so that the entire climate change movement can benefit. Wish Oxfam will fund similar studiesReplyDelete
This blog is presumptuous to create the impression that global warming movement is dead and buried.ReplyDelete
Read this excellent article instead -
Global warming: How skeptics can win every battle but lose the war
The Oxfam report doesn't piss me. But continued support to global warming scam does. I will no longer support Oxfam or any other charity that uses global warming as a reason to support their cause.ReplyDelete
Oxfam recently released a report on the Climate Change impact in Tajikistan. Oxfam is one of those NGOs who pretend Climategate and the subsequent IPCC errors never happened. This is a comment from the Guardian who by no stretch of imagination a skeptic:ReplyDelete
I have read the Oxfam report. Its style is typical of NGO’s that engage in political advocacy for “dangerous AGW” and all the references are from NGOs that are engaged in the same political advocacy.
The report is riddled with ambiguities, for example, high rainfall events are increasing but the country is in drought.
Example of ridiculous claims: “The main problem of melting glaciers is floating broken ice and debris which can block rivers and form glacial lakes and reservoirs and this is happening now.” The Geneva academic who wrote this has clearly never seen a glacier, and the accompanying picture shows (with inaccurate captions) minimal change in the Fedchenko glacier in 73 years.
The report reveals more about the political orientation of Oxfam than it does about the social and economic problems of Tajikistan, which are very real. It is a pity that this country’s problems are being exploited for another political agenda.
People are getting wiser every day about AGW and organizations like Oxfam a that continue to produce this sort of propaganda should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.
While congratulating Oxfam for bringing out such a report, it seems they goofed up the network diagram by putting climate deniers on the left and climate progressives on the right.ReplyDelete
Oxfam Directors use classy 7 Series BMWs and S Class Mercedes and get six figure salaries.ReplyDelete
That itself should be a telling comment on their commitment for cutting carbon emissions.
There are NGOs and NGOs but most are disguised businesses who only serve their own interests. The less seriously we take them, they better we are
Compare the networks:ReplyDelete
One network is mostly a bunch of blogs
One network has major media outlets and major financial players (BBC, New York Times, World Bank, George Soros and other unnamed financial heavy weights — yes, we know there is a shadowy network of huge money supporting AGW, not to mention government funding to the tune of literally billions of dollars).
It’s a contest of biblical proportions between David and Goliath.
We know who won that one — it’s looking right now like a repeat performance.
Well, in the first contest, there is some thought David had a helping hand from the “big guy” upstairs.
In this contest this little band of brother blogs has the poor scientific work by the other side — “hide the decline” — and all the rest, ect, plus, excellent work by mostly individuals determined to apply reasonable scepticism and an open-mind to empirical observation & measurement.
And, frankly, I’d like to think the truth of the physical relationships of the constituent parts of the atmosphere.
But, hey, that’s what Science is out to find out — what are those physical relationships — that is the question, and, thus, the watch word of the hour.
And, hopefully, it always will be.
To a large extent the credibility of Science depends on it.
Funny, funny. You would think the Oxfam intention through this report was to give a boost to warmists.ReplyDelete
Instead the whole impression one gets is the warmists lying on the ground dying with we skeptics swarm around them like vultures.
This gives us a kick while warmists a new low in their depression.
If this report is any indication, Oxfam must be squandering the money they get as donations.
eft Foot Forward broke the story and skeptic websites like Watts Up With That (WUWT)carried it. You don't have to guess who got more hits - just look at the list of reactions at WUWT and compare it to Left Foot Forward and you will get the picture at once.ReplyDelete
We skeptics are not only winning by a mile but are focusing on the end game. All warmist like Oxfam can do is to react with a sloppy research - money poured down the drain.
What else can we say but pathetic as a reaction to the Oxfam study. It spells L_O_S_E_R all the way.
I've done an imagemap that makes the image clickable. Please feel free to copy the HTML code at
@EcoTretas. Its great. Some of links don't work. It can be a useful tool for all those who follow the climate debate. And it helps if a Portuguese to English translation facility exists.ReplyDelete
Desperation is setting in among climate alarmists who by their own calculations can see that the window is rapidly closing on “saving the planet. This Oxfam study is one such manifestation.ReplyDelete