The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens" 110
merbs writes The CEO of the world's largest PR firm has a policy when it comes to campaigns that focus on the environment. "We do not work with astroturf groups and we have never created a website for a client with the intent to deny climate change," Richard Edelman wrote in a blog post in August. That may actually turn out to be true. Technically. Edelman may not work with astroturf groups. Instead, it appears to prefer to build them itself, from the ground up, using sophisticated proprietary software platform designed to "convert" advocates and then "track" their behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would have thought these bots could get mod points?
Re:Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science. Skepticism has its place, but only if it is informed. What Forbes publishes is hardly informed skepticism, and even its toy climatologists like Roy Spencer are notable for the fact that their bought-and-paid for skepticism never actually enters the published literature. Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advoca
Re:Heh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science.
Hmmm... Why do we repeat and VERIFY findings by others? Why don't we just take the word of anyone who claims anything? It's called "skepticism". The whole core of the scientific method is to not simply take a person's word at face value, but to see if you can repeat what they claim independently before accepting the claim. That's scientific skepticism [wikipedia.org] and is really expected of anyone in any research/scientific/engineering role. Show your work, show your data, allow others the opportunity to examine and repeat as needed to quell their own skepticism.
Grow the fuck up.
Given the nature and non-sequitur nature of the rest of your screed, I might suggest you try it yourself...
Re: (Score:1)
And you know what? They keep looking for more data.
Re: (Score:1)
On what is there exactly consensus? That the climate is changing? That pumping huge amounts of CO into the atmosphere has an effect on the climate? That is the only thing they can agree on. But even then consensus is meaningless. If there is no "consensus" on the nature of the universe, why do we need consensus in climate science?
The things that they can agree on are the obvious things. The climate is changing, as is obvious if you look at an aggregate of historical weather data. Pumping huge amounts of CO
Re: (Score:1)
The article on scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) is twice as long as the one for climate change itself. This is mainly because it is a very dear topic that is constantly, erroneously (but effectively) 'discredited' by 'news outlets'. It is very important that the world know, beyond a doubt, that there is a scientific CONSENSUS that climate change is caused by human activity -- spe
Re: (Score:1)
Apologies.
-h4x0t
Re:Heh... (Score:5, Informative)
Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his
There may be more similarities between the two: Spencer concluded that the "theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution". He also claimed that science had "hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer". - http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
He is signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that dismisses climate change because “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why you are offended, as a non-stupid, I'm not.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The bloggy post is in response to an article calling out organizations such as his. The main argument is the $1B/year spent on AGW FUD is really the sum total of those groups entire budgets, not just what they spend on trying to trick people into doubting that CO2 emitted by human activity is causing detrimental climate effects (which it is of course). How much of the budget? Why don't I just say 10% for no good reason. He then says environmental groups get $1.6B/year claiming thats almost entirely for pushing AGW. Thats the exact argument he JUST REFUTED IN HIS OWN BLOG! WTF?!
Good for the goose, good for the gander. If you're going to apply certain rules to one side, you need to apply the same rules to the other side. And you end up with it skewed towards the pro-AGW group.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question LynnwoodRooster: Are you, in any way, paid for promoting particular views?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for the goose, good for the gander. If you're going to apply certain rules to one side, you need to apply the same rules to the other side.
I know!! Tell that to your boy! He's saying "they are wrong for reason X and now I'm going to use reason X to show why I'm right". Unless you're trying to say that it's good to be wrong because the other side is also wrong.
In more detail, again, he uses the tried and true handwaving method to prove that climate change denial funding is much less than reported since the $1B in claimed funding also has to fight obamacare, gay marriage, gun control, etc and pulls 10% out of his ass. But then he claims every
Re: (Score:2)
The main argument is the $1B/year spent on AGW FUD
Where's the evidence for this assertion? I've seen estimates two orders of magnitude less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's another effect. That is that the one side is already doing something pretty evil, and they know it. That makes it easier for them to be evil in their PR activity too. If you've decided to root for the bad guys for some reason, you're probably not going to worry about fighting clean.
It's no coincidence that astroturfing really took off with the tobacco industry.
Re: (Score:2)
While it is technically true that both sides have some non-zero amount of money, one side has enough of it to afford the worlds biggest PR firm along with 4 companies in the Fortune 10 (that would be 4 of the top 10 US companies by revenue.
Oh, give me a frigging break. Yes, energy companies (not just oil) spent millions of dollars on research and campaigns contrary to global warming alarmism. Some estimates go as high as $40 and even $50 million.
But according to a recent GAO report [gao.gov], our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago.
So this "oil companies are spending money" argument works against the climate alarmists. No matter how you cut it, the "other side" has outspent the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a silly question. Conspiracy theorists already think research they don't like is propaganda.
To a crackpot, there's no difference. They might be vaguely aware of NASA's multimillion dollar climate satellites, but they'll just say this is equivalent to the Heartland Institute's propaganda. After all, remember all those expensive scientific expeditions the Heartland Institute funds to place sensors in remote polar regions? Remember the fleet of thousands of robotic probes the Heartland Institute operate
Re: (Score:2)
Dear readers:
It is against my policy to respond to the person who made this comment. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting, jumping into conversations that did not involve him for the sole purpose of insulting and harassing me.
That is my statement. You may make your own judgment.
Re: (Score:2)
So you still haven't managed to write down a simple energy conservation equation [slashdot.org] around the heated source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? If you did, you'd quickly realize that electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature.
Jane, you've been spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation for years. In the process, you've repeatedly, baselessly and libelou
Re: (Score:2)
".. you were "hanging yourself", as the saying goes. Hoist by your own petard. .. You are busted. .. I'll be here watching and laughing all the way. .. It doesn't matter how you try to squirm and twist this. You have been owned. End of story. .. I repeat that you can twist and squirm all you want, but unless you can come up with a "khayman80 law" to replace the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this IS the answer, it is known, and it is unequivocal. .. Introduce all the complications, and prevarications and half-assed
Re: (Score:2)
Period. The end. You will get no more response from me to this continued HARASSMENT.
Re: (Score:2)
".. If you ignore extrasolar energetic particles you're just being stupid. .. Based on other arguments with khayman80, to be honest I would not trust him to build a bridge over a creek, much less a spaceship. That's just the truth. .. Stop being a grandstanding asshole. I don't have to keep repeating my answers every time you demand them. That's called ASSHOLE behavior, asshole. You have already seen my calculations and my answers to all these questions. By bringing them up and demanding them AGAIN in a di
Re: (Score:2)
".. I don't get why you don't see that you're contradicting yourself. Or maybe you do, and you're just putting on some kind of show. .. you're just speaking gibberish, AND contradicting yourself again .. You're straw-manning again. .. You're just repeating the same BS straw-man arguments you made before. .. Why are you lying again.. That's stupid. .. That would be STUPID. .. I'm just sick and tired of your incessant lying about what went on before, and attempts to re-hash old arguments that you lost a long
Re: (Score:2)
".. None of the rest of your blathering matters. It is just constantly repeated hot air. .. That is just plain dishonest. Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about it? Is it because you can't win an honest argument? .. This is a COMPLETE distortion of what I was saying. You're just plain trolling again. In fact I don't think you've ever stopped. That's all you're doing here. You're deliberately distorting my comments to the point that I hardly recognize them. .. you dishonestly distorted the meaning o
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental. Get stuffed, troll. For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist. .. Now you've gone so far off base, I can hardly do anything but laugh. This is such a hilarious pile of misinformation that besides just recording it for may later writeup, I'm throwing a copy in my joke pile. The "mainstream physicists" are the
Re: (Score:2)
"Ah, the muckraker troll rears his head again. Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways.. because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. I will invite everyone to my complete writeup (which, unlike his comments, won't take others out of context or distort their statements.. I promise a true accounting). This
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional
Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.
The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. But your lack of understanding -- OR dishonesty, whichever it turns out to be -- is not my responsibility.
As before, I'm writing this for other readers, so that they are not taken in by your misinformation. That is the ONLY reason I have replied again.
I have no obligation to pro
Re: (Score:1)
Suggestions that people kill themselves are unproductive.
No, "unproductive" would be several paragraphs of useless text to fill screen space, as you've done. Save our collective unconscious from your fevered ego--kill yourself. your net sum contribution to society is at a negative.
Re: (Score:2)
Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times?
Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? For instance:
What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Typical stupidity, is Research the same as propaganda?
I didn't say it was. But when research grant $$ is favorably awarded to research on a particular "side" of an issue (which has shown to be the case, rather extremely, over the last decade or so), then researchers tend to research only one "side" of that issue. Read the GAO report.
It doesn't have to do with "conspiracy", it has to do with political pressure. That's only "conspiracy" if you consider all Democrats or Republicans or members of any other party to be co-conspirators.
Researchers are human. T
Re: (Score:2)
While it is technically true that both sides have some non-zero amount of money, one side has enough of it to afford the worlds biggest PR firm along with 4 companies in the Fortune 10 (that would be 4 of the top 10 US companies by revenue.
Oh, give me a frigging break. Yes, energy companies (not just oil) spent millions of dollars on research and campaigns contrary to global warming alarmism. Some estimates go as high as $40 and even $50 million. But according to a recent GAO report [gao.gov], our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago.
Nowhere in that report does that number show up. And oddly enough, the biggest share of the money spend by far (even more than the money going to NASA, IOW weather satellites and sending them into space) is going to the Department of Energy. Including research into better ways to burn fossil fuels and "climate change" unrelated things like "energy conservation" and "electricity delivery".
Re: (Score:2)
Western civilization and technology, much longer and healthier lives...yeah I can see all those ill effects. let's go live in a cave and beat hides on rocks to clean them
Re: (Score:1)
Western civilization and technology, much longer and healthier lives...yeah I can see all those ill effects.
Take a glance over the fence, you just might see...
Re: (Score:2)
Over the fence where we outsource our carbon pollution (China), I see rising middle class, longer and longer lifespan, better health and more food.
Some pollution problems but benefits again outweighing negatives. of course, they're smart enough over there to be ramping up nuclear and have thorium breeder program. So long term their carbon pollution problem dwindles
Re: (Score:1)
I wasn't really talking about China's fence...
Re:Heh... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you'll fined it's technology A (dirty fossil fuels that seriously kill people) versus technology B (only slightly more expensive clean, healthy renewables that kill far fewer), not technology versus no technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the US's EPA is part of the same government as the NSA or the US military. It uses different heavy-handed, often extra-legal tactics, but the same bureaucratic indiffe
Re: (Score:3)
And yet there are crises that only governments can solve. War is an awfully good example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. As the other replier noted, there are also crises that governments can cause, which the vast majority of private businesses can't. Wars tend to be an awfully good example of that, unfortunately.
Yeah, the arms dealers fueling those conflicts are actually government agents, not business men.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is "fuel" for a war? Weapons don't shoot themselves. Well, at least not yet.
Things like spreading falls claims of aggression, or rumors of WMDs. Selling arms to both sides.
Re:Ah yesss... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes, and the conspiracy theorists come out to play. Last week it was evil scientists trying to hurt poor ol' Big Tobacco. The week before it was evil scientists trying to kill God with evolution and old EArth geology. The week before that it was evil old scientists trying to move the Earth from its lauded position at the center of the Universe.
Evil scientists one and all! We should fucking kill all of them, and promote views that square exactly with your ideological leanings. Science is evil and must be destroyed!
Does that sum up your position?
It's a PR Firm... (Score:2)
Their job is to lie by saying things that may be true, technically. (At least when they're dealing with entrenched interests working against the public good to maximize profit.)
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the same thing that every company big enough to do public relations at all does, except it's being described using inflammatory terminology.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the same thing that every company big enough to do public relations at all does, except it's being described using inflammatory terminology.
That's what I was thinking. If they are getting real people to agree with their position and sign up with their on-line site, how would that make their individual choices illegitimate? How could that be painted as "astroturf" when it's clearly legitimate support?
Look at the other side. If I worked for a railroad that operated thousands of tanker cars that ship oil across the country, I might go to the stop-the-oil-pipeline.org site and pledge my support. As a railroad, I burn thousands of gallons of oil to ship millions of gallons of crude. I have no interest in protecting the environment, yet here I am, signing up. It's not because I'm an environmentalist, it's because I don't want the competition to take away my business. Where is the story claiming this makes the environmentalists an astroturf organization? There isn't one, because it's not.
Why isn't this story looking into the CRM software in use by the environmentalists? Perhaps their bias is a bit too evident.
Re: (Score:1)
> Why isn't this story looking into the CRM software in use by the environmentalists? Perhaps their bias is a bit too evident.
Because "environmentalists" aren't a consortium of companies with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake and if they were that would be fucking great. Imagine an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars with a core principle to not fuck up the planet. We can only hope.
You sound like the kind of person who says things like "why isn't there a white history month?" So focu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
While it sounds uniquely sinister coming from an oil company, this software is likely not too far removed from, say, the sort that the Obama team used to identify probable voters or Rite Aid deploys to pigeonhole shoppers.
Then, it's back to the oil bashing. Which is fine is one sense: If you don't like oil, you're free to bash it. But this is a stupid thing to bash them about.
Only works with clients you like? (Score:1)
This was said to a pro-global warming group. The CEO of the world's largest PR firm has a policy of saying what the client wants to hear....
...and Greenpeace... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the same. They hire the same sort of people, pay the same sort of money, and use the same tactics (and many worse ones).
Except they're getting all whiny because it's not working for them on the Keystone XL thing, so they're trying the old "those evil, mind-controlling oil companies" story on a different class of public relations targets.
Re: (Score:1)
The oil companies hired the same legal folks that rep'd the tobacco companies in the 90's. And lied. They had John Boehner on the floor of the senate handing out checks, something you'd think would have ended his career.
Now the folks that represent the oil companies are hiring ex-psy ops guys from the military (Pittsburg Post-Gazette). It's illegal to use psy ops on the American public, so why would they need these guys?
I'm not sure what tactics Greenpeace uses that compare? Using lonely polar bears to stir
Re: (Score:2)
They're also handing out money to people like Roy Spencer, whose area of research (though none of his published research) align nicely with the pro-oil message they want to get out.
The idea that even the best funded "eco" organization has anything approaching the money that the fossil fuel industry can bring to bear is laughable. Does someone like Greenpeace even have the money to buy one Senator, let alone an entire political party?
Re: (Score:2)
Is 400 million enough?
Because that's what Greenpeace gathered in funding in 2012.
Besides, its easy to ignore the tens of billions if not 50-100 billion world wide in propaganda spent by the world governements on AGW.
Re: (Score:2)
Research isn't propaganda, unless you're an anti-science denier.
This is exactly the same kind of claim that Creationists make about government's funding biology research. The anti-AGW and Creationist camps really are cut from the same anti-intellectual cloth.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you any evidence from verifiable third party sources for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Keystone XL die in senate the other day?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Keystone XL die in senate the other day?
That's just propaganda.
biased reportage (Score:1)
Weird reversal (Score:5, Informative)
I recall reading something a few years back (but I can't find a link, so take this with a grain of salt) where Amazon was reported to have or at least claimed to have very high employee satisfaction and/or safety. However, the only reason they do so is because the vast majority of their warehouses are staffed and managed by third parties, who work their employees quite hard for low wages. Because it's the third parties that do the hiring and management, technically they aren't Amazon employees, and so aren't included in metrics (internal or external.)
I'm sure other companies have spouted the truthy line of "We do not astroturf" (because we hire third party marketing companies, tell them simply to "improve our image", and they astroturf for us.) This seems like another type of that shell game, where they say "We do not astroturf (the software we buy from companies to improve our image astroturfs for us.)"
How long until they start hiring botnets to generate pseudo-random favorable posts? "We do not astroturf (the hackers we found on craigslist get the internet to astroturf for us.)"
Neat trick (Score:1)
And it's working like a charm... Good move fellas... You're guaranteed a packed house...
Definitions (Score:2)
Astroturfing;
Paying people/companies to make statements they do not believe to support a cause.
Not Astroturfing;
Convincing someone you view is correct and providing a venue to display these actual honest views.
Labeling something astroturfing does not mean it really is astroturfing. Why shouldn't a company be able to show statements made by people who are not paid to make them? The environmental lobby does it all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Showing statements that you haven't paid for is quite appropriate.
But tell me, do you think, for instance, having Dr. Roy Spencer being paid by the Koch Brothers to make anti-AGW statements that don't even have any backing in any peer reviewed research he's ever done fit within those ethical lines?
Re: (Score:2)
Astroturfing deals with opinions and not facts. What the Koch Brothers might be doing is just "muddying the waters".
Re: (Score:2)
No, using false front organizations to promote fake grassroutes movements, then accusing the other fella of doing same - now that is astroturfing!
--
'Due to technical difficulties inherent [transcanada.com] in the Internet
An oil PR thread? Uh oh, better send in the trolls (Score:1)