Well this guy was not too amused at pictures of his family being posted...

Thanks Geoff and TinyCO2: lots of interesting stuff.

Geoff: the analysis of the opinionocracy certainly resonates. But I'm not clear whether it excludes the idea of better PR. Do you think the members of the opinionocracy are driven by an ideology per se, or by idea that they should appear to hold the most fashionable views of the time? My hunch is it is the latter, and if so then there is room to get the message across. And this is where I would argue for better PR.

TinyCO2: great post, and it seems to articulate what I was thinking about much more clearly than I ever could! As Geoff pointed out, one sticking point is that many of those who set the agenda in the MSM (including my publisher) promote the warmist line and appear to be members of the opinionocracy. The same goes for the policitians who are all devoted to a "progressive" agenda. (Btw, anyone know John Gray's v interesting writings, esp. "Black Mass," on progressive politics and the search for utopia?)

So, as you suggest, the views of the majority are seldom heard. It is the views of the chattering clases/opinioncracy that count. (Geoff: does the new term "opinionocracy" infer something different from the traditional "chattering classes"?)

Tiny, I would argue that the only way to influence these people is through presenting the message in a different way. I imagine this could start by addressing a few questions:

1) Why have skeptics failed to get their message across?
2) How could skeptics do better at getting their message across?

My thoughts:

1) I'm not sure it's quite as simple as saying that it doesn't suit the opinionocracy's ideology. I'm not sure they are shame the same beliefs and that they are all equally narrow minded. I feel that it is more because the warmists have been able to divert attention away from the skeptics message by shouting their message louder, and by labeling skeptics loonies, conspiracists, deniers etc before even discussing the facts. Also, the warmists have had a far better organised and far more clear message in the past, although this might be unravelling a bit now.

2) Present the message in a rational way and stop butting heads: it only makes warmists' job easier, as they can just continue to say that skeptics are mad. In fact, as TinyCO2 pointed out before, this is already happening in the bloggosphere. The tricky bit is getting the message into the MSM and subsequently across to the opinionocracy.

And this is where I feel that PR comes into it. A clever PR company could analyse how the messages have been presented in the past use this info to help skeptics re-orient and organise their message, not only to get it across more clearly but also to take the wind out of the warmists' sails, eg, by cleaning up the skeptics' image – so that "denier" and its associated narrative no longer had any traction – and by setting it within a new narrative that makes it harder for the warmists to fight.

The science is out there. It's just a question of getting it out there in the right way.

The above might include a new group of respected, reasonable scientists – who don't have the reputation of Lindzen et al – to start engaging with the MSM and the public arms of universities, scientific societies, and other respected institutions to get their evidence/views heard in a rational, reasonable context. The idea, again, being to not only show that there is contradictory evidence but also that not all skeptics are loonies.

It would have to involve some coordination, but if it were done in the right way it would be very hard for publishers or events manager to resist the polite overtures of a group of well respected academics, particularly if they were, for example, fellows of the Royal Society looking to write a piece for the Society's website or to contribute to a lecture series or debate.

This may sound very naïve. But as far as I can tell the skeptics have made very little attempt to coordinate a media or any other kind of strategy. But then who are "the skeptics"? This lack of coordination means it's impossible to say what "the skeptics" believe.

I get the impression that he has become an easy target. Is that not right?

To clarify: if I put myself in the position of someone who wants clarity on the evidence and opinions I can find plenty of discussion of lindzen's work being discredited from a quick online search. So then what am I to think? A new batch of unsullied skeptics on the other hand...

There are two ways effective PR will work, and none of it through any "paid" means...

a) Ridicule - where the holding of the position reduces their status in popular culture
b) Claiming back the term Environmentalist - "I am a true Environmentalist because..." one of the pale greenies biggest weakness is the "just because I wear green underpants, everything I paint green is gospel" trait. "I care about the environment that is why I oppose the policies of CAGW reduction..."

a) cannot be planned, but it takes a few prominent people in popular culture to start to do it and it will quickly have an effect. Greenies have nothing on their side, because Greens have no sense of humour (10:10 being a great example). A high risk strategy would be to reclaim the "denier" term... "Yes I am a denier, I deny..."
b) Requires political exposure - not paid for PR, but promoting under the guide of politics and policy. WHich is still paid for, but is perhaps the only PR that passes as "known vested interest".

CAGW is easy to subscribe to, no cost and I increase in social status. Once you start to shift the popular and political debate the bien pensant's will drop off quite quickly - they have no moral core, just a need for social status.

However, as the greenies control the media and Parliament and the higher levels of the civil service...

"Well this guy was not too amused at pictures of his family being posted...
Apr 8, 2013 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket"

This is an example of "what-about-ism" (©Rhoda) , a common troll tactic for continuing diverting a discussion, even though their previous point has been refuted.

Just so you know my background on this...

I know Hungary very well. It went almost overnight from a Socialist system to a Capitalist system.

The social status pricing changed so quickly. I met so many good Socialists who suddenly were good Capitalists.

And it might seem strange, but those senior Socialists, true card carrying ones, became some of the biggest bastards you could mention.

There was no social cost to being a Socialist, then suddenly there was. Without any shame the contradictions were squared.

And I mentioned a little earlier on the unthreaded about Maggie passing away. At these moments history is rewritten. The same will happen with CAGW. in 20 years time you will not a find person who seriously believed in it.

Mike Jackson, don't distort. Unless you have trouble reading you will note that I said nothing about McI posting such photos, only that they were posted. And neither did Faustusnotes. Here is what he said:

(I don’t comment at CA because they’re thugs: the only time I did, they started posting photos of me and my family, so I’m never going back there).

and later

Let me repeat: photos of my family. Think about that. They didn’t take them down until I made a peace offering, either [in which I wrote a post on my blog that still showed how incompetent McIntyre is]. RomanM and (to a lesser extent) McIntyre play the straight man while their flying monkeys unleash all manner of rage; they contribute to their (false) reputation as reasonable men only by contrast with their commenters, who do their dirty work for them (let me repeat: photos of my family).

Jiminy: I think you and I have a different interpretation of what PR means but I also sense we have different agendas so maybe it doesn't matter

E17, I have no agenda, I just used to be work for global Management Consultant companies. So see things differently. Effective PR is not writing a contract with a Mac wielding chap from Hoxton, with white large framed glasses and who drinks smoothies all day.

The 10:10 thing was a result of that thinking.

You need authentic grass roots belief in this both politically and in popular culture. I do not believe the PR you have in mind will achieve that. CAGW can only be beaten with authenticity and PR is not that.

"Let me repeat: photos of my family. Think about that. They didn’t take them down until I made a peace offering, either [in which I wrote a post on my blog that still showed how incompetent McIntyre is]. RomanM and (to a lesser extent) McIntyre play the straight man while their flying monkeys unleash all manner of rage; they contribute to their (false) reputation as reasonable men only by contrast with their commenters, who do their dirty work for them (let me repeat: photos of my family)."

I haven't missed a post on climateaudit for nearly ten years. As you can guess I've now gotten to know the regular posters there (not personally) and, by and large, they are expert statisticians, not flying monkeys. So BB tell us where these photographs were published, or retract this false accusation. BTW I've seen how you refer to the denizens of this blog when you think you're talking to your mates, so don't try to behave as though you respect us, you don't. So let's have the evidence, which if true I, and I assure you, the other aged curmudgeons on this blog, will go over and give the flying monkeys a hard time, as will Steve McIntyre, a man of impeccable behavioural standards. Unlike the sorry excuse for scientists that at whose feet you worship.

Sorry missed Laurie Child's post, but let's have the evidence bitty.

I respect some commenters here more than others. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high respect, you, geronimo, have to come near to 1. Laurie Childs, in contrast is way higher (sorry to spoil your street-cred LC ;-)

So now you've seen that LC confirmed that one or more photos were posted and later withdrawn, but you want proof from me... What do you want, the type of camera used, the focal length, the resolution, my respect rating for the photographer?

LC, to be fair, I don't expect the photo affair is at all related to T's failure to visit CA. Maybe he doesn't want to lend credibility to CA by making it the go-to place for statistics discussion - just speculating. As I said before, I think he has nothing to gain by talking at CA - McI and his flying monkeys are never going to admit that T is right about anything.

Geoff Chambers, Delingpole is an outcast, isn't he? I've seen no support for his latest rant over here...

Actually BB you do raise an interesting point.

Delingpole is what he is. Depending on your viewpoint, hits and misses.

His latest Nuremberg piece should have been passed by someone. It was poorly/clumsily written in places.

But would you want him put through the PR mangle?

Is his "authenticity" part of the price to pay. If someone did say "James my boy I have rewritten this for you..." would it have a negative effect on his place in the "market".

Really though, perhaps it is a sad reflection (as Geoff points out) that James has so much of the focus, that he has few competitors on the sceptic side of the media market.

Ps. I have little sympathy for Faustos. His ego told him he was shooting fish in a barrel... the reality was a little different. Either put your ego in your pocket, or justify it. If you walk into the Saloon looking for a gunfight, make sure you the guns are loaded or buy everyone a drink. Faustos was no innocent walking in off the street.

Jiminy Cricket, quite true. Delongpole is all about Delingpole. Difficult to separate what he really believes from what he says in order to be sensational (or at least noticed). He's a good self-publicist, but in being controversial he risks narrowing his audience too much to be of value to the Telegraph.

Sub, well geronimo for one - 7:35PM. No I wont be starting threads; I have no ego that needs feeding.