Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

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

Note how global warming 'skeptic' Tom Harris, Canadian lobbyist and Executive Director of the "International Climate Science Coalition", defines "information sharing" and "coordinated local activis...  
 
Customize

More From: frankbi

Loading...
Play All Stop Autoplaying | Play Next

QuickList(0)

1
Clear | Save

Related Videos

3 ratings
Sign in to rate
562 views
Flag
close
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
close
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
close
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...
Sign in to post a Video Response

Video Responses (0)

This video has no Responses. Be the first to Post a Video Response.
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (7)   Options

Loading...
SaganAppreciationSoc (7 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Heartland Institute is a way out there.
frankbi (7 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
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 (7 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
That Alex Jones has been implicated as one of the spewers of paranoia that drove one of those right-wing shooters.
TomHarrisICSC (11 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
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 (11 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
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 (10 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
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 (10 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
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 (11 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
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 (11 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
"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 (11 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
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_.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.