Global warming 'skepticism' -- "coordinated local activism"

[frankbi]

(Tom Harris, yes, I did see your totally bogus "Climate Scientists' Register". And not only is it bogus, but it doesn't excuse in any way the astroturfing behaviour which you advocate in this video clip.)

-- frank

[SaganAppreciationSoc]

Heartland Institute is a way out there.

[frankbi]

I'll agree with that. With the outright "Osamabamarama!" stuff in this year's climate change 'conference'(*), it's clear that Hearttland is now officially a wingnut shop.

Tom Harris's ICSC isn't exactly wingnut (yet), but it's still nut, as in Alex Jones nut.

(*) in case it gets too confusing: the above video was from last year

[SaganAppreciationSoc]

That Alex Jones has been implicated as one of the spewers of paranoia that drove one of those right-wing shooters.

[TomHarrisICSC]

so, would you ban all environmental and other NGOs then? They do the same thing as I am advocating we do (although some ENGOs also take part in civil disobedience and violating people's right to personal freedom of expression, something we would never condone). You certainly sound opposed to free speech. I don't care what labels are attached to what we do - "astroturfing" is cute but it is really just activism with other people who share out ideas and do what they do on because they want to.

[frankbi]

Ah, so it's come to this! It's always the "Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it!" excuse.

Perhaps you can give me an example of an NGO who got an article published in the media, and then went around to get their supporters to phone in to the news outlet saying "Congratulations for publishing the article!"

So your excuse for astroturfing is that "some imaginary environmentalist NGO did it, so it's OK."

[TomHarrisICSC]

Do you honestly believe that ENGOs get pieces published in media and then DON'T ask their campaigners "to phone in to the news outlet saying "Congratulations for publishing the article!"? and other moves like this? It is straight out of standard PR for any activists campaign.

[frankbi]

I don't "believe" or not "believe". I asked you to *give*me*an*example* of an NGO who got an article published in the media, and then went around to get their supporters to phone in to the news outlet saying "Congratulations for publishing the article!"

You didn't.

If this astroturfing is 'common practice' as you claim, then why can't you come up with even *one*example*?

* * *

So again, your current excuse for astroturfing is that 'some imaginary environmentalist NGO did it, so it's OK.'

[frankbi]

Harris,

You've totally failed to explain why your method of "information sharing" and "coordinated local activism" produces more rigorous science (or more rigorous survey results for that matter).

Where's the scientific rigour in simply spamming any ol' "skeptical" essay in as many media outlets as possible? And where's the scientific rigour in then getting a bunch of folks to make phone calls and write letters to praise the spammed essays?

What you're proposing is not science, but astroturf.

[TomHarrisICSC]

"Information sharing", "coordinated local activism", etc. is not to produce "more rigorous science".It is PR and media relations designed to promote the tax-payer funded "more rigorous science" that is already there. Since MSM ignore major scientific research that throws doubt on climate dogma, all that would change if groups like ours didn't exist is that tax-payers would hear less about the work of skeptical scientists-is that good? Hiding tax-payer research from tax-payers?

[frankbi]

Thank you for admitting that "information sharing" and "coordinated local activism" are indeed not methods of science, but methods of PR.

But what you forgot to mention is that "coordinated local activism" is _astroturfing_.

You're not satisfied with simply letting the free market of ideas do its work? Your ICSC has to enlist a bunch of people to make phone calls and write letters to praise articles -- articles which the ICSC pushed to publish in the first place?

This is _astroturfing_.

[TomHarrisICSC]

Here is what I mean:

In a 2003 poll conducted by environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch (Institute for Coastal Research, Germany) 2/3 of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About 1/2 of them stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers.

[TomHarrisICSC]

I find that the opinions of scientists on CC is like a skewed bell curve, with very few scientists at either extreme. The vast majority in my experience simply say "I dont know, although it seems unlikely to be a serious problem that we will be unable to adapt to."

Tom Harris

ED - ICSC

climatescienceinternational[do­t]org