Slashdot Mirror


The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

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.

110 comments

  1. Heh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why would they need sophisticated software when there are so many denialist Libertarian types who seem to believe that dumping millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of three centuries has absolutely no ill effects whatsoever? After all, these people show up on every single web forum anywhere to declare climatologists are frauds and AGW a global conspiracy of evil Communists out to destroy the economy...

    Oh wait

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Heh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Who would have thought these bots could get mod points?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Heh... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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

    3. Re:Heh... by davydagger · · Score: 1

      How do you think the "libertarian" types existed in the first place? Is it because "capitalism is good", or was it a mass effort, along with the re-branding of Anarchism/Invidualism to suit the needs of the system, and mass multi-level, push?

    4. Re:Heh... by fustakrakich · · 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...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Heh... by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...guess how many renewable energy companies are on that list). The other side does a lot of it's work with token research budgets. There is absolutely an underdog in this fight.

    6. Re:Heh... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, 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.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    7. Re:Heh... by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Nice straw man. No one is claming C02 and global warming have an immediate effect on health (obviously there are thoughts that if the climate shifts a significant amount we might see tropical disease and parasites expand their range but no one is claiming that is now).

    8. Re:Heh... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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

    9. Re:Heh... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Token budgets? I guess if you call multiples more spent pushing an AGW perspective relative to skepticism (the foundation of science) as "token", then you have a point...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Heh... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Using the "astroturf" label to describe large public movements is just a silly ad hominem argument. Feel free to rationalize whatever you'd like, but this strikes me as an indication of considerable ignorance on your part. I think a better course of action would be for you to understand the viewpoints you downplay as astroturf.

      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 indifference for the welfare of the individual (and often, rule of law) is evident. The abuses of government aren't concentrated just in a few divisions we don't like.

      The libertarian weighs the risks differently with government actions considered more dangerous and harmful than business actions. I side with that interpretation. No business has sovereign immunity, a captive revenue stream like taxpayers, or the raw power (on numerous levels) than government wields.

    11. Re:Heh... by MightyMartian · · 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-advocate Michael Behe plays with his (microbiology). They make a very loud skeptical sound in the press, but when it comes to actually doing science, oddly their published record is in the mainstream.

      Maybe the problem here is that you're too bloody infantile to accept that the universe doesn't give a fuck about your political and economic ideology.

      And before you accuse me of being some commie greenie, well let me educate you. I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative. What I'm not is a pathetic man-child who stomps his feet and declares "that science makes things difficult, it must be wrong!!!!!"

      Grow the fuck up.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Heh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      And yet there are crises that only governments can solve. War is an awfully good example.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Heh... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, 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 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...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:Heh... by Layzej · · Score: 4, 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...

      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”

    15. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought those crises were usually caused by governments.

    16. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hmmm... Why do we repeat and VERIFY findings by others?"

      Problem is the human mind has to interpret the results and there are many problems with the human mind.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

    17. Re:Heh... by CaptainLard · · Score: 0
      So first of all, James Taylor (who wrote your blog post) works for the Heartland institute, a well funded conservative group who could generously be labeled as AGW skeptics. 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?! Even if the entire $1.6B did go to pushing AGW, Exxon alone made a $9B profit...in 2014 Q2 alone! Thats profit, not revenue which I'd expect you to understand, being a reader of forbes and all. Don't worry, I'm not claiming they spend it all on AGW FUD (whatever they do spend comes out of revenue). If $1.6B for all major environmental groups vs hundreds of billions in profit and trillions in yearly revenue from oil doesn't count as token in your book...then I can't understand how you function in this society.

      And as to why I keep saying AGW FUD...

      the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.

      Thats a statement by the heartland institute, your bloggers employer, in regard to a billboard campaign claiming the unabomber, charles manson, castro, etc are really behind AGW (source: washington post).

      One more thing... your sig is spitting a neurotoxin...that gasoline companies spent many decades trying to say wasn't a problem. Must be their culture.

    18. Re:Heh... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:Heh... by khallow · · Score: 1

      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.

    20. Re:Heh... by khallow · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:Heh... by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    22. Re:Heh... by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Honest question LynnwoodRooster: Are you, in any way, paid for promoting particular views?

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    23. Re:Heh... by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      There is a scientific consensus on the topic, so one could see why it may appear like a 'pushed' agenda. Scientists are not easily swayed by adverts on TV, radio, disagreeable slashdotters, etc.. They come to conclusions by looking at data (try it, there's a fuck ton on climate science), examining their methods, examining the conclusions drawn from the data sets, verifying that other experiments of a similar nature present data that agrees or disagrees.

      And you know what? They keep looking for more data. They may even set up their own experiments. They are smart mother fuckers that love to know how the world works, their effect on it, and their place in it. They also enjoy finding out new things. So if they run a test and the results disagree with the current body of data, they present it all over the place, and they have their methods examined, their testing redone, and they are either shown to be right or wrong.... eventually. Hell, if they are right about something major, we give them a million bucks and a medal!

      Currently, there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that not only is the climate changing dramatically, but humans are the likely cause via the burning of fossil fuels.
      -h4x0t

      When you start your research, it would be prudent to start at NOAA before BP, as sometimes conflicts of interest exist -- even in science. Something something money.

    24. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be a bit more general, it's a spectrum between technology A (fossil fuels that cause global warming, which eventually kills people) and technology B (renewable energy that costs more, and kills people because we can't afford to save them). The question is: if we want to minimise the total number of people killed, where on the A-B spectrum should we be?

      I suspect the optimum will be something like a mix of solar to cope with daytime peaks, nuclear for the base load, and fossil fuels for things like aircraft that aren't practical otherwise.

    25. Re:Heh... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      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, 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 them by more than 1000 to 1.

    26. Re:Heh... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0
      There's the fact that there are real-live commie greenies who want to use the climate change fraud to introduce tyranny into the daily lives of all of us. Maybe the problem here is that you're too bloody infantile to accept that that there are evil people out there who wish to abuse the climate change situation in order to bring about their preferred political and economic ideology.

      Did you see the gigantic fraud they engaged in to pass Obamacare? The one where they blatantly lied and then were proud about it afterwards? Jeez it's the same people. Open your eyes already.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:Heh... by rioki · · Score: 0

      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 into the atmosphere has an effect on climate, is simple physics a rise from 300ppm to 600ppm has approximately 1.2K rise in temperature. Most skeptics also agree to these basic facts, since anything else would be nonsense.

      The things that climate scientists don't agree on are the how feedback mechanisms behave exactly and on how to model them. The IPCC report aggregates multiple models that are widely all over the place. That is why we get predictions all over the place ranging from +6K (catastrophic) to +3K (mild) (300ppm - 600ppm). In addition to the seemingly inability to actually predict the climate. The current slump was totally not predicted, let us hope that the revised models fare better.

      When divergent hypotheses (e.g. cosmic rays) are denied publication, because "consensus", then we really have a problem. Divergent hypotheses should be published and discredited based on data and peer review and not clout of the professors favoring the leading theory. The current state of scientific publishing is somewhat broken, where conflict of interest is not money, but possibility of loosing face. That there even was this half bogus* 97% report and that it keeps being parroted over and over tells you almost all you need to know.

      * half bogus, because the sample and sample size where very biased. It's like asking if Windows is awesome on the Build conference.

    28. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is not that CO2 would have a negative effect on health, but that we have accomplished a huge improvement in health and life quality by using fossil fuels and that there is no known way yet of maintaining these achievements without fossil fuels.

    29. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coincidentally, these happen to be precisely the same types of crises only caused by governments...

    30. Re:Heh... by Sique · · Score: 0

      Because there are people out there using some scientific results to further their agenda, it makes sense to deny the scientific results. And because some of the people apparently have stated things of a completely different topic in a way that can be construed to be not fully true, it is more reason to deny the scientific results. Yeah. Makes sense. Don't accept any results, because there might be someone whose political agenda might be furthered by the result. Deny the fact that high speed lead bullets entering the body might be bad for the health because it could be used to ask for gun control! Deny the fact that double speed means four times the length needed for a complete stop because people might use it to ask for speed limits! And because some people have not fully supported views about the role of meat in your metabolism, better deny the economic problems with anti-competitive behavior of monopolistic companies, because some of the vegetarians might as for the enforcement of anti-monopoly legislation!

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    31. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      divergent hypotheses are held to more scrutiny. they are denied publication because they are sloppy science. there are dozens if not hundreds of places to publish divergent hypotheses that would engage the scientific community without drawing the ire of the priests. They don't exist. why is that?

    32. Re:Heh... by radl33t · · Score: 0

      this is such myopic thinking. you do know there are hundreds of thousands of educated people all over the world with agreeable AND disagreeable view points that are not contaminated by your petty perspective, right?

    33. Re:Heh... by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Typical stupidity, is Research the same as propaganda?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    34. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because Africa with all it's strong governments has no problem with wars, it's actually the opposite. Countries with strong central governments tend to have less war because there is more stability and ability to plan for the future. Iraq is a perfect example of this. The country was far more stable under Saddam and will be less stable until the current government earns the respect and trust of the people. It's hard work to govern effectively.

    35. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I agree Boko Haram and Al Quaida are government funded...oh wait.

    36. Re:Heh... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      That's not my number, that's from the blog post the GP linked to. Knowing the source or even if it's true was irrelevant to pointing out the logic flaw in the blog post because that's where the assertion was made.

    37. Re:Heh... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I wasn't really talking about China's fence...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    38. Re:Heh... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      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 environmental group spends every bit of its money scaring people about global warming. There are plenty of other environmental issues that need to be dealt with as well (deforestation, endangered species, other pollution, etc).

      Thats about as best I can explain it...However... this whole argument is a red herring. The real problem here is that there is any money at all spent trying to deny AGW. The disparity should be vastly skewed towards correctness! Zero should be spent promoting false narratives!

    39. Re:Heh... by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. That billion dollars a year comes from a paper that claims $900 million "cumulative" spending per year by a large group of conservative groups which turn out to spend a lot of that money on other things. And as that blog post notes, the top three groups (the biggest two of which account for 30% of the alleged spending) rarely comment on climate issues. The blog also notes that the top two groups by spending support carbon taxes, which is kind of an odd target for climate "counter-movement" propaganda spending. The author claims 25% of the "counter-movement" money goes to "think tanks supporting global warming restrictions".

      The author find only $68 million explicitly opposing global warming activism while $22 million supports the same. That's not only a bit shy of $900 million a year, it also is suspicious in its substantial incoherence on the subject of climate change.

      In comparison, the author notes the presence of five environmental groups with $1.6 billion per year in spending and a far more aggressive and coherent climate change message.

      So no, that isn't the number from the blog post that the GGP linked to.

    40. Re:Heh... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I think the takeaway from the "we lied" scandel is not that we were lied to, but that stupid people were not educated. He never says we lied, he just says that stupid people thought it would work this way.

      I can see why you are offended, as a non-stupid, I'm not.

    41. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      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 operates to monitor the oceans? Remember the time that the Heartland Institute lost millions of dollars because their Orbiting Carbon Observatory was lost in a launch failure?

      Yeah, me neither. But don't even try convincing a contrarian that research is different from propaganda. You'd have better luck educating your coffee table.

    42. Re:Heh... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      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. They follow the $$ like anybody else.

    43. Re:Heh... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Public Service Announcement

      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.

    44. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      So you still haven't managed to write down a simple energy conservation equation 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.

      .. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting..

      Jane, you've been spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation for years. In the process, you've repeatedly, baselessly and libelously accused me and my colleagues of incompetence, dishonesty and fraud. I'll stop debunking your misinformation when you stop spreading it, and not one second before.

      Since writing down a simple energy conservation equation is apparently too difficult for Jane, I suggested asking Prof. Brian Cox this question:

      @ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
      Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

      It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

      And seriously, "rude and insulting"? Here are just a few of Jane's most recent charming statements to me. If Jane was telling the truth about my comments, Jane should be able to produce quotes of similar length which are just as "rude and insulting" as Jane's. Jane can't do that because he's just projecting his own rude, cuss-filled insults onto me.

      ".. non-person.. disingenuous and intended to mislead .. he is either lying .. dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty .. Pathetic. .. you've come out the loser in every case.. you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. .. cowardice .. odious person .. you look like a fool .. utterly and disgustingly transparent .. Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. .. You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. .. Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. .. spewing bullshit .. You're making yourself look like a fool. .. Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. .. a free lesson in humility.. you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. .. Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. .. if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) .. I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. .. stream of BS.. idiot .. Your assumptions are pure shit. .. I'm done babysitting you.." [Jane Q. Public]

      "Jesus, you're a dumbshit. .. your adolescent, antisocial behavior .. keep making a fool of yourself. .. you're being such a dumbass .. your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. .. you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. .. you were too goddamned stupid .."

    45. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      ".. 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 reasoning you want. I have already shown you the correct answer according to established physics. Give it up lest you make yourself look more of a fool than you already are. Because as I promised you, all of this is being recorded and will be made public, with your name displayed prominently. I promised that I would do that regardless of how it turned out. You have no reason to complain just because you lost. Further, I'm going to INVITE people who teach heat transfer to examine my write-up, and evaluate it. I already know what they will say about your half-assed thermodynamic reasoning. To be honest, I still don't see why YOU don't see, where I showed that you were clearly wrong. But again, I suspect that your CO2-based greenhouse gas religion will not let you accept the clearly established facts. I have said all I need to say here. Nothing you say will change it, and no, I do not agree with your fallacious "reasoning". I'll stick with the engineering textbooks, thanks very much. .. Have I reminded you lately that your grasp of logic seems a bit off? .. It's just bullshit. You're squirming like a fish on a hook. You just don't seem to realize you have already been flayed, filleted, and fried in batter. You're owned, man. .. PROOF that you're bullshitting everybody.. You keep making the same bullshit assertions, after I have proved them false. Why do you do this? You're just going to look that much more foolish later. .. YOU are disputing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But it is a known physical law, and this is a textbook demonstration of it. You lose. .. Your calculations contradict themselves, and your methodology contradicts itself. .. no matter how you cut it, your answer is wrong, by your own rules. .. I find it highly amusing that you derive your own calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then deny that it is valid. Every time you try to squirm out of this you just contradict yourself again. I am further amused that you find it "adorable" that you've been proven wrong. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. No more bullshit. .. I'm just trying to find out whether you're actually crazy or just bullshitting. .. Are you REALLY the moron you make yourself out to be? .. You are giving physicists a bad name, and I repeat that I am going to show this to all the world to see. .. This is so utterly obvious that I honestly don't believe you don't get it. .. I have finally concluded that you are just a very good troll. I honestly -- and I mean that: honestly -- don't believe you could be this stupid and possess a degree in physics. .. You're just wrong about how this works. And not just a little bit wrong, but completely out there in lala-land wrong. And you have made it perfectly obvious that I am wasting my time talking to you. You are either crazy, or stupid, or a very talented troll. Based on my experience, I vote for that last one, but I think that necessarily implies a little bit of the first, too. So we're done. I'm going to write this up as it stands here. I don't need anything else, and you've made it very clear that anything else would be further waste of my time. You refuse to change your tune, so fine. I'll just write it up that way. Don't worry: I am going to include

    46. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      ".. 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 different forum, you are advertising your own dishonesty. It didn't work. Don't worry, as I promised this will all be published when I find the time. .. pick up a textbook on heat transfer, and see what the accepted, textbook, "consensus" science says about it. Hint: they don't agree with you. I don't appreciate this constant harassment over something that has been explained to you clearly many times over. If you truly still don't understand it, that is sad but it is also not my problem. A textbook might help. .. Stop trying to be insulting. I'm not the one who got it wrong. .. you insufferable ass. .. Your constant blathering .. Stop pretending ignorance about things I already explained to you clearly several times. I can only conclude that you're doing this in order to harass. .. I repeat: look it the hell up. I have not just one but 4 textbooks here, plus Wikipedia, plus the testimony of experts in the field of heat transfer. They ALL disagree with you. It's that simple. .. are you finally willing to admit you have been proved wrong? .. Your BS "explanations" are not informative to readers who actually want to be educated. .. your methodology contradicts itself. I'm not even going to bother answering the rest of your blather. Because your whole argument was PUT to rest weeks ago and your failure to understand that (or at least admit it) is rather like a zombie which hasn't quite realized it is dead yet. I repeat: I have documented this all. I have the reputable and credible (and MAINSTREAM, "ACCEPTED") references which show you to be wrong. For a while I thought explaining this in different ways would show you that you were wrong. But over time, I have come to accept that you simply won't admit it, no matter what. That's too bad, because I had really hoped you would listen to the actual accepted SCIENCE behind this, and further accept that it was right and you were wrong. I no longer hold any such hope. I have myself come to accept that you are either a religious zealot, or a self-interested liar. And I very seriously doubt that you were ever actually a physicist. .. You're just re-hashing old arguments that I've already shot down. Why are you doing that, if your purpose is not dishonest? .. YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. .. you're wrong. If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. Instead, you're arguing ineffectively with some person on Slashdot, about something every textbook on the subject, as well as other sources, say your are wrong about. .. When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not a moron? .. You're trying to give me some crackpot story .. You're just wrong .. You are proposing a magical idea, not physics. .. You're trying to play some kind of trick .. EVERY textbook and online reference I've found -- and it's a significant list by now -- disagrees with you. .." [Jane Q. Public]

    47. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      ".. 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 time ago. I have nothing further to say to you at this time. .. I said you were "lying" .. lying by implication.. blatant dishonesty .. just another dishonest way to distort the argument. .. Another dishonest distortion .. Your continued insistence that it does is a lie. .. I reserve the right to laugh at you again. .. stop the bullshit .. just more blather .. You're either lying + trolling, or a sad excuse for a physicist. .. I proved you wrong a long time ago. You keep hammering at this like some kind of zombie that doesn't realize it's dead yet. And you've added nothing new in all that time. Just brainless repetition of the same things. .." [Jane Q. Public]

    48. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      ".. 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 of my words. .. Do you have any other ways you want to try to out-of-context or distort my comments, and claim that I said yet more things that I actually did not? After I had already clearly explained them to you IN context? You do realize the potential consequences of that, do you not? Remember, I'm recording all of this. .. this is just trolling on your part. .. I have demonstrated you to be lying, I wasn't just saying so. This time yet again. Distorting other people's words by taking them out of context in a deliberately misleading way is a form of lying. I've publicly caught you at other forms of it too. I know I've said this before, but no more replies. You're a very good troll, but when all is said and done, all you're really doing here is trolling. You already have answers to the questions you're asking, and you haven't once shown a legitimate error in my calculations. Everything else here is trolling in a hot-air balloon. .. just more dishonest out-of-context nonsense .. That is a form of lying. .. your habit of distorted out-of-context quoting is the sort of thing that gets journalists sued and fired. For someone who claims to be a scientist, it's worse than pathetic. .. Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself. .." [Jane Q. Public]

    49. Re:Heh... by Luthair · · Score: 1

      That is patently absurd.

    50. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      "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 ones who wrote the heat transfer textbooks I used to prove you wrong, dumbass. .. You've argued this every which way from Sunday, as the saying goes. You've even argued it rather dishonestly, as I have demonstrated. But as it turns out, you were wrong 2+ years ago, and you're still wrong. And I still don't think you're a physicist. Or, for that matter, even willing to pick up an actual textbook on heat transfer and understand it. .. You've tried to claim that POWER IN to the heat source is somehow magically dependent on the chamber walls. I really don't care which figure you want to manipulate via magic: the power in or the power out. It's still magic, not physics. There is genuinely no legitimate reason for me to be here listening to your BS anymore. .. I really have no further reason -- absolutely none -- to have to read this utter nonsense. .. Everything you've said ends up a violation of physics in one way or another. In fact you're pretty damned good at dreaming up ways to violate basic physical laws, it seems. .. this distorted nonsense of yours. If I reply to you further at all on this subject, it will merely to be to publicly deny your false claims about what *I* stated. I have no other reason to reply. And I would only do so for the edification of other readers; it has nothing to do with you. .. NO, it doesn't, and fucking well STOP claiming that it is. If YOU want to assert that, go ahead, but stop putting my name on it. I did not say that, and I do not say that, so stop putting my name on it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Holy fuck, you're a dimwit. .. No shit, Sherlock. If you keep up this level of "talking down", I'm going to start treating you like a kindergartner. .. NO, I VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED THAT I DENY NO SUCH THING. I don't have any patience for your lying anymore. Goodbye. I will record any responses, at least for a while, but I won't reply. Jesus, you're an ass. I mean the most incredible ass I've ever had the misfortune to meet online. I mean that very, very sincerely. .. You have repeatedly shown, quite clearly to anyone who bothers to read this, that you are willing to deliberately distort and misrepresent the words of others in order to have your way. That's LYING. And it isn't just right here.. you've been doing it for years. As I have documented. .. No, that's just another lie. .. You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable. Or they would be, if you weren't being such an enormous asshole. .. Get lost, liar. I will have nothing further to do with you. .. I have repeatedly demonstrated that this person who calls himself "kayman80" has been blatantly dishonest about past conversations that have occurred here on Slashdot and elsewhere. And that he has a habit of deliberately distorting what other people say, for reasons of his own. I have ceased feeding the troll. I recommend that you do so as well. .." [Jane Q. Public]

    51. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      "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 will take quite a while since he was actually trolling about this for over two years, in various forums. .. it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change"). Hmmmm... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot? .. you "scientifically" show squat.. you didn't even use the appropriate equations for the context of the problem under discussion. I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong. Your repeated, out-of context claims notwithstanding. I repeat: I will be publishing this for all to see. Your repeated protests are only going to make you look that much more foolish.. or dishonest. I'll let the readers decide on that one. .. Are you allergic to simply telling the truth? .. you do not argue honestly. That isn't an idle comment; I have pages and pages of proof. .. I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. .. Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want to see it to make sure you were being honest, because you haven't always been), or shut up about it. I am tired of your games. .. you've conducted yourself in a way that is impossible to take seriously. .. you display your talent for distorting another person's meaning. .." [Jane Q. Public]

    52. Re:Heh... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      We have been over all of this before. I am going to publish my proof that you were wrong, in time. Nothing has changed, and your insistence on a formula from me that is 100% irrelevant to the proof that you were wrong changes nothing.

      Period. The end. You will get no more response from me to this continued HARASSMENT.

    53. Re:Heh... by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      We have been over all of this before. I am going to publish my proof that you were wrong, in time. Nothing has changed, and your insistence on a formula from me that is 100% irrelevant to the proof that you were wrong changes nothing. Period. The end. You will get no more response from me to this continued HARASSMENT.

      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.

      That's why Jane refuses to ask a physicist he respects this simple question:

      @ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
      Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?

      It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

    54. Re:Heh... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Nope. Honest answer. But I am skeptical, and when one uses innuendo, slander, and insults to try to make their point I get quite dismissive.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    55. Re:Heh... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      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, 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".

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    56. Re:Heh... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    57. Re:Heh... by khallow · · Score: 1

      What is "fuel" for a war? Weapons don't shoot themselves. Well, at least not yet.

    58. Re:Heh... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      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 prove to you AGAIN what I have already proved. As others will have no problem seeing when I publish.

      I shall not reply again. Stop harassing me. Your comments have been reported.

    59. Re:Heh... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    60. Re:Heh... by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      Concerning divergent hypotheses on climate change cause:
      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 -- specifically the release of CO2 into the atmosphere through combustion of fossil fuels.

      Yes the models need to be adjusted, they will be, repeatedly. But it doesn't change the fact that the problem is somewhere between bad and hellish.

      Cosmic rays, as the previous comment suggests is an example of a differing hypothesis that may explain the same observations, is the theory that decreased activity from the Sun (sunspots and related activity) decreases the protection provided from solar wind and increases the effect of cosmic rays on the planet (reducing cloud formation/cover). This hypothesis has been calculated to contribute, at maximum, 10% of the change we have observed, and, since this is a cyclic process(the ebb and flow of solar activity) on the order of 11 years, historic data can show the effect during previous cycles*.

      *'Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate',T Sloan and A W Wolfendale, 2013, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 045022
      Also Check http://www.skepticalscience.co... for this topic.

      -h4x0t

    61. Re:Heh... by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      Yuck. Looks like I wrote the cosmic rays theory exactly backwards. Cosmic rays increase cloud cover(seed clouds). Increased activity from the sun decreases the cosmic ray exposure of the planet, thereby decreasing cloud cover.

      Apologies.

      -h4x0t

  2. Extra feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not polluting the ocean, they're adding an extra feature: flammability. Ocean 2.0.

  3. Ah yesss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who disagrees with the Group Think is a denier.

    1. Re:Ah yesss... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Ah yesss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, and the conspiracy theorists come out to play.

      How does the tin foil hat fit?

  4. It's a PR Firm... by Etherwalk · · 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.)

  5. What? by Jiro · · Score: 2, 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.

    1. Re:What? by CaptainLard · · Score: 2

      You've received emails/calls from Verizon, etc. saying you're not posting enough about their great service?

    2. Re:What? by plover · · 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.

      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.

      --
      John
    3. Re:What? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, its not like the renewables lobby doesn't use similar PR tactics, or any other lobby for that matter.

    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 focused on one tree that they don't even know there is a forest.

    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey congrats! Looks like plover has mod in his flock of like minds.
      Yay for literalists, boo for results!

    6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 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.

      Which country are you talking about? Maybe the USA, I guess. Everywhere else in the world, railways are planting poles and hanging catenaries over the tracks, because electric railway traction costs 1/3rd compared to diesel locomotives. Not to mention a 25kV, 50/60Hz AC powered locomotive can be as much as 6400kW strong, easily double of any diesel. With multi-phase AC / IGBT power supply and control, their torque is also amazing. And they sing the solfege as they are starting, a funny side-effect of the IGBT.

      (Some say, there is an old and weird, pre-Panama canal era federal law in the US, that makes it a crime to electrify railway tracks used for freight, because that way ironclads would not fit under the catenary, making their coast-to-coast transport difficult. By that time, the world's first heavy duty electrified freight railway had already been inaugurated in 1902, in Valtellina, north Italy.)

    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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. http://www.aldyegi.com/2014/10...

    8. Re:What? by q4Fry · · Score: 1
      Having worked in the CRM world, I agree. And their own article does, too, but only for one sentence:

      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.

  6. Only works with clients you like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...we have never created a website for a client with the intent to deny climate change"...

    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....

  7. ...and Greenpeace... by cirby · · Score: 2, 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.

    1. Re:...and Greenpeace... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 up sympathy and support?

      Keystone is oil for China, period. Learn to follow the money.

    2. Re:...and Greenpeace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowhere near the same sort of money. Nice try.

      And yes, oil pollution is bad and the big oil companies are fooling the dumb people with clever PR stunts and paying news media figures to lie and tell right-wingers what they want to hear.

    3. Re:...and Greenpeace... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:...and Greenpeace... by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:...and Greenpeace... by lippydude · · Score: 1

      @cirby: "...and Greenpeace... Does the same."

      Do you any evidence from verifiable third party sources for that?

    6. Re:...and Greenpeace... by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      Didn't Keystone XL die in senate the other day?

    7. Re:...and Greenpeace... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:...and Greenpeace... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Didn't Keystone XL die in senate the other day?

      That's just propaganda.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  8. biased reportage by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Astroturfing is the increasingly popular tactic wherein corporations sponsor front groups or manufacture the appearance of grassroots support to simulate a genuine social movement that is rallying for goals in line with their profit motive. end quote. it's Everyone (see Bloomberg's Everytown), not just corporations. so the definition given for Astroturfing is designed for the reporter's PR motive.

  9. Weird reversal by RyoShin · · Score: 4, 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.)"

    1. Re:Weird reversal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sqeeqee ?

  10. Neat trick by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    And it's working like a charm... Good move fellas... You're guaranteed a packed house...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  11. Definitions by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Definitions by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Definitions by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Astroturfing deals with opinions and not facts. What the Koch Brothers might be doing is just "muddying the waters".

  12. newspeak 'astroturf' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now convincing people of your point of view is astroturfing? Nice try.

    1. Re:newspeak 'astroturf' by lippydude · · Score: 2

      "So now convincing people of your point of view is astroturfing? Nice try.

      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 in the Internet .. Computer viruses or other destructive programs may also be inadvertently downloaded from the web site.'

  13. Re:Irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the fact that even after many years of brain loss, I'm still 3 times smarter than you'll ever be, you dumb cock sucking troll!

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

  14. The Software Big Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? The Software Big Oil? What does that mean? Another headline fail. You can't just string words along without any clue as to how they're meant to be parsed. It doesn't have to be difficult to write coherent headlines:

    "Software used by Big Oil's PR firm effectively shapes public opinion" actually parses and makes sense.

  15. An oil PR thread? Uh oh, better send in the trolls by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Cue the chucklefucks arguing about obamacare or global warming as if it were remotely relevant, the out-of-the-woodwork fake right-wing ACs complaining about "environmentalist whackos", shaggy dog story nonsense filler comments, etc. Paid oil shills: the same scripts every time, guaranteed, from the same minimum wage losers.

  16. Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

    1. Re:Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Suggestions that people kill themselves are unproductive.

    2. Re:Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? by Rujiel · · 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.

    3. Re:Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      No, seriously. Suggestions that people kill themselves are unproductive. Exactly what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've repeatedly told me to kill myself?

    4. Re:Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      Your response is akin to someone who has just spent the last hour rolling in his own shit and flinging it at passers-by, standing up all at once and asking the surrounding crowd what's wrong. You're seriously so bad at this. Even your employer would be better off if you killed yourself.

    5. Re:Can't troll worth a shit, so wall of text? by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      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:

      Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

      What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?

  17. Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer by khayman80 · · Score: 1

    Anyone who doesn't want to listen to Rujiel repeatedly tell me to kill myself should note that Jane keeps spreading Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation here.