The group-think with no clothes - by Richard... Thursday, March 25, 2010

The group-think with no clothes - by Richard... Thursday, March 25, 2010

"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."

That is the view of Prefero, an organisation which describes itself as a "global marketing agency that delivers extraordinary consumer experiences."

It is responding to the publicity picked up by Watts up with that? last week. Then, it had been disclosed that the agency had been commissioned by Oxfam to produce a report which, according to the left-wing political blog, LeftFootForward dealt with "combating the growing influence of climate sceptics".

The agency, we learned, had "shed new insights into the way climate sceptics' networks operate," and, although the report has not yet been published, we were treated to the "network map" reproduced above. This purports to be part of the analysis of online coverage of the Climategate "debacle", tracking its progress from "fringe blogs" to mainstream media outlets over the ensuing weeks and months.

We can only assume that the "map" is genuine and not an elaborate spoof, designed to mislead the sceptic "community". But if it is genuine, that rather calls into question the agency's claim to be a "collective of brilliant, original thinkers". It is a shoddy, inaccurate and superficial piece of work.

Not least, one of the major players in the early days of Climategate was Devil's Kitchen, which did some of its best work then, and helped spread the word with its cogent analysis. But this site does not even appear on Prefero's radar.

By contrast, this blog, its author and "umbrellog" are shown separately, when they are effectively the same entity. But the direct links shown to other blogs are entirely imaginary, as indeed is the link between Geoffrey Lean and The Times. 

What is not shown, however, is the very direct link between Booker and myself, and thence toThe Sunday Telegraph. Furthermore, the agency seems incapable of distinguishing between the Sunday paper and The Daily Telegraph which hosts writers with diametrically opposing views, with Lean and Delingpole writing for the same title.

However, if Prefero did set out to portray an accurate representation of the "loose federation" they claim to have detected, then the map is an extremely useful aid – not for what it tells us about a mythical "federation" but for what it tells us about the warmist perceptions of their opposition. To that extent, it is a map of their innermost thinking. They reveal more about themselves than they do about us.

Then, even the general "take" of the agency is a gross distortion. We achieved our coup, it says, "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 and abroad."

Here, I cannot speak for others, but my perception is that we did no such thing as "single-mindedly applying concerted and consistent pressure at critical junctures in the media ecology here in the UK and abroad." Individually, we saw a story and ran with it, as much in competition with each other as acting in concert.

And where Prefero also gets it wrong is in its portrayal of the network. The links exist not so much between the different blogs as between the blogs and their readers – it is the readers who form the "community", bouncing between blogs and MSM. They also created an invisible network of e-mail correspondence – which was at least as important in disseminating information.

And while it is flattering to be credited with "accomplishing the most impressive PR coup of the 21st century," this is probably overhyping the achievement. The most important thing about Prefero's input is that it betrays (one assumes) the ignorance of our opposition, and their failure to understand what they are dealing with. Not, of course, that we really understand the phenomenon of which we were part, other than to know that the Prefero portrayal is false.

That said, the purpose of the study – or so we are led to believe – is an attempt by Oxfam to understand the blogging and new media phenomena, specifically in order to replicate it in the service of the warmist cause. This is something also that the political parties have sought to do – without any real success. Like as not, the warmists will fail as well.

The reason might be that none of us can really claim to understand the medium with which we work – why some blogs take off and why some don't, why some posts go "viral" and other, apparently better posts do not, why the media picks up on some stories and not others. 

But then, the ultimate answer is perhaps that blogging as a genre is not capable of analysis. The blogosphere is not a single entity but a disparate, anarchic group of individuals with their own motivations, skills and capabilities, each bringing their own individuality to the table.

And that might be the reason why the warmists will fail – as indeed will the politicians. This is group-think versus individualism. The former can never replicate the latter and nor can it win. The individual will always prevail – after all, it only took one boy to point out that the emperor had no clothes.

COMMENT THREAD - CLIMATE CHANGE

Print ready

The unsustainable BBC - by Richard... Wednesday, March 24, 2010

An excellent piece of work by The Register brings to light the unsavoury connection between Lord Oxburgh - the official chosen to chair the second Climategate inquiry at the University of East Anglia – and a shadowy environmental advocacy organisation called Globe International.

We have not given a great deal of time to tracking the Climategate inquiries, partly because it was a foregone conclusion that they would be stitched up, and partly because others are already doing the job better – and there are few enough of us "powerful vested interests" around. We do not have the resources to duplicate effort. 

Thus, the latest development can be picked up on the Register, while the ongoing saga can be followed on Bishop Hill, who ploughs his own high-quality furrow in splendid isolation.

Taking the issue further, though, we find from a speech given by Stephen Byers in June last, in his capacity as president, that Globe International is closely allied with another organisation calledComplus, which describes itself as "the sustainable development communications alliance".

That a shadowy political grouping, chaired by an ex-Labour minister (now under investigation for peddling influence) is allied to a shadow "communications" alliance is one thing – the sort of grouping one might expect. But what makes this especially significant and important is that one of the founding partners of Complus is the BBC World Service Trust, part of the BBC's overseas propaganda arm masquerading as a charity.

The implications of the BBC's involvement come clear when you see Complus offering itself as "a diverse global alliance of organisations committed to scaling-up the impact of sustainable development communications through partnership and collaboration."

It then tells us that, "by offering a platform to share expertise, develop best practice and create synergies, COMplus actively supports creative and inspiring communications that advance a vision of sustainable development that builds on its social, environmental and economic foundations."

As a tax-funded organisation bound by its charter to political neutrality and impartiality, the BBC has no business allying itself to any organisation devoted to advancing "a vision" on anything, much less in concert with an overtly political organisation chaired by a Labour MP. But it gets worse.

Alongside the BBC as founding members of Complus are several other extremely partisan players. There is, for instance, Conservation International, another environmental advocacy group, this one which boasts as the chair of its executive committee, Rob Walton, chairman of the board of the supermarket giant Wal-Mart Stores.

Then there is the Global Environment Facility, one of the funding agencies which supported the WWF in its Amazon venture, alongside the World Bank, which was the main funder and a leading advocate of forest-based carbon credits. So, when the news broke last weekend of the scam, and the World Bank's involvement in it, the BBC was silent. What a coincidence.

Also silent was the news agency Reuters, but then the Reuters Foundation is also a founding member of Complus.

Yet another extremely partisan founding member is UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, which just happens to be the primary sponsoring organisation for the IPCC – prop. Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So there we have the BBC hand in glove in a formal alliance with the UN body which founded the IPCC. 

Others of the "usual suspects" include Globescan, the "global public opinion and stakeholder research" company, One Planet, the TV production company which is so often used by the BBC, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, of which Pachauri's TERI is a member.

The news agency IPS is also a founding member, as is the film maker TVE a ghastly green propaganda unit. That outfit was founded by Central Television, WWF-UK and the UNEP. It is funded by, amongst others, Al Jazeera International, the BBC and the WWF and has Winnie De'Ath, director of communications, WWF-UK, as one of its trustees. Thus we have the BBC formally allied with a film-maker founded with and sustained by WWF money, with formal links with the organisation.

Then add the International Federation of Environmental Journalists, a "network" of "around 7500 journalists associated with every type of medium, scientific authors, filmmakers, etc." Its president is Darryl D'Monte, former Resident Editor of The Times of India.

And just to round off this unholy partnership, an "associated partner" is the Green consultancy, an advertising agency which does work for the Green Party.

Taking money from the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian governments, it is also funded by DFID and the Netherlands government, plus – of course – the BBC, Complus tells us that "communications professionals and media outlets are key to advancing an enlightened global debate on sustainable development." 

They can, we are also told, "be a unique force in bringing environmental, social and economic issues closer to the public, raising both awareness and concern." The need, says Complus, "to communicate action at global, national and individual levels has never been greater." 

And, in that endeavour, there is no greater nor more enthusiastic member than the BBC, itsfunction being to generate "public support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and to promote "ecosystem management principles to adapt to climate change through multimedia channels, dialogues, and media training."

This is the BBC we know and love, already fingered by Biased BBC which has a collection of posts: - here, here, here, here, here and here - which attest to how far down the line our state broadcaster has gone. Sustainable this is not.

COMMENT THREAD