I have just been watching a TED talk given in February 2015 by the acclaimed author and TV host Sharyl Attkisson, titled, “Astroturf and manipulation of media messages.” It’s only 10 minutes long, and I would invite readers to watch it and draw their own conclusions.
The following excerpts are some of the highlights from Sharyl Attkisson’s scintillating speech.
What is Astroturf? It’s a perversion of grass roots – as in fake grass roots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves, and publish blogs, Facebook and Twitter accounts, and publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply publish comments online, to try to fool you into thinking that an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. The whole point of Astroturf is to try to give the impression that there’s widespread support for or against an agenda, when there’s not. Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion, by making you feel as if you are an outlier, when you’re not.
One example is the Washington Redskins’ name. Without taking a position on the controversy, if you simply were looking at news media coverage over the course of the past year, or looking at social media, you’d probably have to conclude that most Americans find that name offensive and think it ought to be changed. But what if I told you 71% of Americans say the name should not be changed? That’s more than two-thirds.
Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them. They attack news organizations that publish stories that they don’t like, whistleblowers that tell the truth, politicians that dare to ask the tough questions, and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it. Sometimes Astroturfers simply shove, intentionally, so much confusing and conflicting information into the mix that you’re left to throw up your hands and disregard all of it, including the truth…
And then there’s Wikipedia: Astroturfers’ dream come true, billed as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The reality can’t be more different. Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests. They forbid and reverse edits that go againt their agenda. They skew and delete information in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established with impunity, always superior to the poor schleps who actually believe anyone could edit Wikipedia, only to discover they’re barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies. Try adding a footnoted fact or correcting a fact error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages and “Poof!” Sometimes, within a matter of seconds, you’ll find that your edit is reversed…
So now you may be thinking, “What can I do? I thought I’d done my research. What chance do I have of separating fact from fiction – especially if seasoned journalists, with years of experience, can be so easily fooled?” Well, I have a few strategies that I can tell you about, to help you recognize signs of propaganda and Astroturf. Once you start to know what to look for, you’ll begin to recognize it everywhere. First, hallmarks of Astroturf include use of inflammatory language, such as “crank,” “quack,” “nutty,” “lies,” “paranoid,” “pseudo” and “conspiracy.” Astroturfers often claim to debunk myths that aren’t myths at all. Use of the charged language tests well: people hear something’s a myth, maybe they find it on Snopes, and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it. But what if the whole notion of a myth is itself a myth, and you and Snopes fell for that? Beware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities and organizations surrounding it, rather than addressing the facts. That could be Astroturf.
And most of all: Astroturfers tend to reserve all of their public skepticism for those exposing wrongdoing, rather than the wrongdoers. In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority.
You might start to see things a little more clearly. It’s kind of like taking off your glasses and wiping them and putting them back on, and realizing for the first time how foggy they’ve been all along. I can’t resolve these issues but hopefully, I’ve given you some information that will at least motivate you to take off your glasses and wipe them, and become a wiser consumer of information in an increasingly artificial, paid-for reality. Thank you.
Some questions for readers to ponder:
(i) can you think of any online journals or Websites, whose content is largely or entirely made up of Astroturf?
(ii) which news Websites do you place the most trust in, and why?
(iii) what are some particularly outrageous incidents of Astroturfing that you’ve witnessed during the past year or so?
Over to you.
AhmedKiaan,
The theists here have bigger fish to fry, apparently. They seem much more concerned about people who agree with the scientific consensus regarding global warming, for example.
newton,
If they could separate the signal from the noise conclusively. Signal is total warming noise is the natural cycle vs the carbon effect. There has not been enough warming to do this. The climate models are not ready for prime time yet and may not ever be.
My belief is that we don’t know what putting carbon in the atmosphere really does and reducing emissions is a prudent thing to do.
Yeah…because you as a naive layman are so much better and credible at this than the experts…
*rolls eyes*
‘Nuff said. Why anyone would think your opinion is more credible and valid than analysis of actual measures by experts in the field is beyond me.
walto,
The same statement. It is astroturf that originated from the NCSE.
colewd, you wrote:
So, I ask again: What data are you referring to? We can all “look at it” and see.
What is the period of these natural cycles, this seems relevant. If the increase in temperature is more abrupt than one would expect from say a ten thousand year cycle but follows the steady increase in CO2 what would be a reasonable conclusion? What level of confidence would you require?
Does it cause you any concern that scientists who are aware of the complexity of the climate and these issues overwhelmingly are convinced that we are seeing the effects of an anthropogenic warming?
walto,
Here is data that looks consistent from what I have seen.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-100_yrs.gif
newton,
I think he’s denying the “overwhelmingly” there. But I don’t know what data he is relying on to do so.
ETA: Never mind. I see from colewd’s last post that I was wrong about what he was denying. I thought it was the consensus, but based on that post, I guess it was not the existence of the 97% consensus after all. That may exist, apparently, but if so, they’re just wrong, I guess, because he has seen a chart that suggests that.
walto, 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400000yearslarge1.gifIf you
This image shows long term 400k year temperature cycles before the modern age. You can see the natural cycle can move 9 degrees. The cycles are very abrupt. So how do you separate a cycle change from a man made change accurately?
newton,
Take a look at the longterm temperature chart. The swings are 9 degrees in what looks like around 10k years. Also the carbon is correlated with the temperature swings.
Why would I know that? Why do you think you know this?
Just curious, these are all conclusions draw by climatologists based on models, any qualms about using these conclusions?
Sorry link no good,see if I can find it.
Bill’s first link shows a significant (in the statistical sense) warming trend that’s easily distinguished from noise, even though the plot ends in the year 2000. His second link (if you manage to fix it) shows several hundred thousand years, where the minimum resolution is 1000 years. It shows that interglacials can arise on a “very abrupt” time scale if a few thousand years is considered abrupt. If that’s the sort of data Bill is processing, then he’s just as good at deciding the facts based on climate data as he is at reading evolutionary biology papers.
It is unclear to me what the x axis means, is year 2000 the far left?
Satellites temps are only since 1980’s, is this a combination graph?
walto,
I am not sure I do know. I do know I have not seen a proposed experiment to isolate it and cannot imagine how to do it given we only have historic data.
If we had warmed 3 degrees or more over the last 100 years I think I would consider that a statistical event has occurred.
Please prove me wrong on this one I really would like to know one way or another.
All you have to do is separate the link itself, which ends in “gif”, from the “If” that he managed to attach to it.
Thanks
I can’t “prove you wrong.” I urge you to show a little humility over these issues though. If you have no reason to doubt that there is a 97% consensus among the actual experts in this field as to what is going on, you shouldn’t be trying to devise your own experiments or turning to me for advice.
You made the same sort of remarks in the thermodynamics threads. When there’s a scientific consensus that is apparently inconsistent with some religious position you find congenial, you question the science rather than your religious position. I don’t think that’s the way to go myself.
per Forbes
“If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. “
Thanks. And has anybody suggested a good reason to doubt that claim?
Also, are there more than a handful (say a dozen) “climate scientists”? I guess that’s relevant too. I mean, if there were only seven, having “nearly all of them” agree might not be such a big deal.
From NASA references to actual studies
J. Cook, et al, “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: “The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
It is much like the “There is no theory of evolution ” , avoidance
walto,
I was ready to believe in global warming until I saw Gore’s presentation that showed temperature was rising before C02 on his charts. So the cause effect looked inverted. Looked at the arguments and thought the minority position was stronger. The 97% comment comes from a political group called the NCSE. Should I blindly trust a political group?
What in the world does thermodynamics and global warming have to do with religion?
I’m not sure exactly. Maybe that’s not right. But I think both claims of global warming and those of inevitable “disorder” (let’s not go into whether it’s really that, please!!) suggest that God is not taking nice care of his chillun.
I expect there’s a pretty high correlation between xtians and both warming deniers and 2LOT deniers. But I’m just speculating.
My point is, why do you substitute your judgment for those of experts in these areas? Do you do it when you read automobile repair manuals? “I know that most of them say the manifold should be connected here, but it seems to me that more energy would be conserved if it were done a couple of feet to the left.” I mean, maybe you DO do that. But I think in today’s society it’s important to have a divisions of intellectual labor. It’s not like the 18th century when people could be expert in five dozen areas. It seems to me a simple lack of humility to say, “Oh, all those scientists are just wrong.”
Crank Magnetism
Gore’s Inconvenient Truth dates from 2006. Are you saying that once you decided that there wasn’t any truth to the claim that you closed your mind to any new data?
That speaks volumes.
walto,
I never do unless I see a glaring problem that raises a red flag. In the case of global warming it was the inverted chart that got me to take a deeper dive. In the case of evolution it was inadvertently learning that proteins depended on sequence which took the steam out of the Darwinian story. In the case of thermodynamics it was a friend who wanted me to verify a religious fine tuning argument which I could not do because I found experimental evidence did not support thermodynamics described in bits which was the basis of Penroses fine tuning argument.
Explains plenty, though.
Glen Davidson
walto,
My question now is why have the experts been wrong or not shared the whole story? Should we trust them? Are we really dealing with politics disguised as science?
Thanks, it seems a bit strange, not sure exactly what it is measuring, satellite and s. hemisphere
GlenDavidson,
Instead of ad homenems why don’t you make a real argument that supports anthropomorphic global warming or are you just part of the political propaganda machine. I am ready to change my mind today.
There are plenty of links above. You might want to view the atmosphere as a bit more complicated, particles in the atmosphere tend to cause reflection of incoming radiation, much work has been done to reduce those emissions, volcanic eruptions also have an effect on global cooling.
newton,
Can John demonstrate how the data is easily distinguished from noise. Less than 1 degree over 100 years can be distinguished form 9 degree long term swings.
Just curious, but can anyone explain what a bunch of scientists, particularly thousands across a variety of countries, get in conspiring to promote a dubious, or worse, false assessment? What’s the upside for science in general or the scientific community?
ETA: I should note, I have read a number of folks’ quotes regarding the conspiracy of climate change. Folks like Inhofe, Gray, and Durkin for instance. Durkin has gone on record a few times claiming that the climate change conspiracy is “a multi-billion dollar industry”, yet has never gone into details about who is paying this multi-billions of dollars or why such a conspiracy would be funded. I’m just curious if anyone knows or has any ideas.
Those are all big issues among the religious right, I’m sure you know. Does your friend happen to be among that number?
Sorry cannot access that link, my guess is John understands there are several statistical ways to isolate a trend from the noise. When dealing with climate this is necessary, there is blog called Open Mind ,the author has a series of posts on the mechanics of statistics as well as climate. You will not agree with him but the tutorials are helpful for anyone
Again, I think some humility is in order. I am more inclined to believe the consensus than to believe your accusation that they’re all wrong and, in addition, hiding something.
Exxon earned a 1.7 billion in one quarter , BP lost 61.b on deep water horizon, if it was about money fossil fuels win
That seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it? But it’s the evil cabal of science non-deniers that are up to no good.
Which reminds me how good the book “Thank You for Smoking” was.
Really? Read what Tamino says at Open Mind and tell us why he is wrong, and what mistakes is he making
Yes. I’m well-aware of the BIG MONEY that flows around and through the energy industry. I can certainly come up some really plausible scenarios for energy industry funded conspiracies against the science of climate change. I’m just wondering why anyone believes in conspiracies to promote climate change. Clearly I’m lacking a level of imagination, but I just can’t come up with how anyone would benefit from such a conspiracy.
Hear hear! Loved the movie too!
The solar energy lobby!
Hee hee! Yeah…I was just reading a bit where they were suggested. Because they have soooooo much more money, power, and influence and, most importantly, stand to lose significantly more from climate change policies than…say…the Koch brothers…
Why don’t you look into it yourself?
Since you’re not welcoming of actual information that goes against your preferences, why should I bang my head on the wall that is you?
Glen Davidson
I think adopting that strategy makes eminent sense. I mean in my own case, I’m not really in a position to offer additional studies and/or arguments on the matter, but if I could, why would I expect that colewd would be more likely to accept MY arguments or studies than he is to accept those of the vast majority of acknowledged experts in the field?
I think it’s pretty obvious that he’s only interested in particular sorts of answers to these questions–ones that agree with his take on the matter, regardless of how heterodoxical that take may be. There’s really no reason to expect a difference in his approach to questions involving climate change than in the approach he’s taken with respect to the other issues mentioned above.
Let’s be clear: a long term swing is not noise. The first question to answer is whether the data show an actual trend. And that’s what I was talking about. They do; a simple linear regression ought to show that. Next one must consider whether Milankovich cycles can explain the data. I suggest not; the change is too rapid. Your 9 degree swing is over many thousands of years. How much does that translate to in 100 years? I suggest that your analyses are not in fact superior to those of the scientists who actually study this sort of thing.
OK, so now there’ll be a conversion, right?