Last weekend, I conducted a poll asking this question that has been on my mind for a couple of years:
Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?
The results are in, seen below, and there is an interesting dichotomy that can be observed in the excercise.
I’ve closed the poll with a count of 2701 votes. While there was a clearly decisive result, there were over 440 comments on the thread, many of which argued for “no”. A common reason discussed was that “organizing skeptics is like herding cats” or that “it will provide a target”. While that may be true, I really wasn’t all that interested in herding or target practice, I was thinking about representation. By its nature, all representation of varied viewpoints of a group of people is imperfect, but it does have its advantages if that representation satisfies a common need. The common need I see is getting a slowdown on the freight train of bureaucracy that is growing from CAGW claims and more coverage in media.
Pointman writes about the poll results and that dichotomy in Get real, get organised and finish it.
Anthony Watts recently ran a poll at WUWT that posed the question – “Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
I voted “yes” and I’d like to outline my reasons for doing so.
Any scattered and disparate opposition to an unjust law, policy or controversial issue which doesn’t get organised under some umbrella organisation is not only politically naïve but a consequently weak faction which doesn’t need to be taken seriously. More often than not, they’re comfortable in their armchairs living in their own deluded and secluded cloud cuckoo land.
There’s nicer ways of saying it but if want to be a force to be reckoned with, you have to get all ganged up. You seriously want to take on that exploitive employer, get unionised brothers and sisters. You want political change, form a lobby group. You don’t want that wind farm monstrosity blighting your life, start a local campaigning group. You want equal civil rights irrespective of the colour of your ass, start marching en masse. You want women to have the vote, get those bustles out of the drawing rooms and onto the streets as a mob waving placards and make the powers that be listen to you.
There’s simply no other way to get an issue onto the political agenda, and if you happen to think global warming isn’t a political thing, you pop that blue pill brother and dream on.
Give people a standard they can rally to and if the cause has real popular support, they’ll flock to it and become a bigger voice which will be heard despite any attempts to suppress it. Those attempts will just serve to strengthen group identity and make it a much more powerful force.
The deep primordial history of us as a species is all about getting together and cooperation. You might be rubbish at knapping a flint spearhead, but as long as one of the group can do that specialist thing, everyone is happy. Crap at tracking game? No matter, that runty kid over there is somehow brilliant at it. You might just be a spear carrier, but you know you play your part for the good of everyone else. That compulsion to gang up and work together is by now deeply embedded in our DNA. It’s been selected for. Without it, civilisation would fall apart in a day.
The worst thing you can ever do is sit in grumpy isolation doing nothing more than bitching away to a few cronies, and that’s exactly what’s all too common across the skeptic blogosphere. I call it the whinge and dump mentality and in the whole history of the human race, it’s never achieved anything other than being known as a complete bore to be avoided at all costs. Here they come – run away, run away!
As I look at the poll results to date, out of 2,683 votes cast, the response was 63% Yes, 24% No and the rest going for unsure. Scanning through the five hundred comments below the piece, a substantial majority expressed a “No” for various reasons. That’s an interesting dichotomy but an unsurprising one given the web dynamics of such a controversial issue as global warming.
There are just simply too many polarised people on either side who’ve spent years doing nothing more than venting spleen at each other. It’s become a social activity, a recreational pastime, a macho ego trip, a catharsis for a lot of tangential frustrations. Log in quickly, hurl an insult or two and surf onto the next brawl. Underneath the most combative blogs, out of hundreds of comments, barely a single digit percentage of the comments even reference the original blog topic, whatever it was.
Full essay here: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/get-real-get-organised-and-finish-it/
He’s right, it has become a social spleen venting activity, and that my friends doesn’t get much traction.
This passage:
More often than not, they’re comfortable in their armchairs living in their own deluded and secluded cloud cuckoo land.
There’s nicer ways of saying it but if want to be a force to be reckoned with, you have to get all ganged up.
Could just as easily be used to describe crazy Bill McKibben. Most of us think he’s nuts, and he most likely is. The difference is he got out of his “armchairs living in their own deluded and secluded cloud cuckoo land” and formed 350.org. Now look at what we have, an organization that has successfully lobbied for blocking the Keystone pipeline by affecting the office of presidency. Do you think weepy Bill could do that himself without having organized first?
Think about it, and sound off in comments.
Go for it…the time has arrived…
Doing so, centers the position…think planting a flag, around which support can gather. Once organized, your voice, Anthony can rise above the field.
That makes a much more convincing case for it, I do admit. I know I do my part at DeviantArt (which is loaded with leftist politics and ideology… Idiotology?). I don’t know how this would work, but I would be pleased to be able to link to the Central (whatever it would be called) once it was in place.
Anthony,
I voted “no,” but I’m open to changing my mind. Certainly if there were such an organization I’d join it, even if I remained unsure as to the wisdom of the enterprise. But tell us more about it, What in your view would our tactics be? Would there be dues? Would there be an administrative committee running the thing? Meetings? (I vote Vegas for the first)
I enjoy pretty much everything Pointman writes, and I can only dream to be as eloquent..
But, any type organisation,I think would run a risk of perpetuating things…… Individuals like Mann, Mckibben, Cook, Lewandowsky need an ‘enemy’ to fight, so that the public and politicians, media etc are forced to choose a side…
I think now that time and observations and real world energy / policy decisions will make the alarmism around climate change fade away..
If all the sceptics were to take a long vacation, hard policy decisions would still need to be made, media articles would still be written, the climate conferences would still fail, for the same reasons, political and economic reality..
If all the sceptics were on holiday, the activists will still be failing, new ‘enemies’ would have to be created, and those policymakers, politicians, businesses, who have sat on the fence, or said nothing whilst the ‘deniers insults, the anti-science rhetoric, and all the political activist rhetoric was thrown at the ‘sceptics’. Will then find it directed at them and feel the intolerance and irrationality of the activists, and labelled ‘sceptics’ / deniers, ‘in the pay of….’, or cranks or conspiracy theorists, etc
And I think they will say enough..
The easy ride for eco-activists (in most countries) is over, it may take a few years, but it will fade away and every year it just warms or cools a little, and the models projections become more and more absurd, we will perhaps find in 5, 10 years that everyone who is anyone will say – oh I was always a sceptics about catastrophic climate change (including the majority of climate scientists)
much as I think we would all like that Berlin Wall moment, I think it will fade away by itself,
.. no doubt to be replaced by the next bandwagon, be it sustainability, global justice, or some other mantra.
I voted unsure in the poll, but didn’t comment in the thread reason being is it is far too late to stop the alarmism, green enegry drive and carbon taxes. Too many vested interests. It’s in and it’s here to stay. I don’t see Abbott abolishing the carbon tax in Australia.
How is this different from the GWPF? Are multiple organizations better than one?
I think we have a lot of energy and need to focus it. I have tried to contribute as best I can by supporting this site, Jo Nova, Donna LaFramboise and Mark Steyn.
On top of that I make a point of taking people to task in conversation and politely letting them know that there IS an alternative viewpoint to what is being spewed out of the MSM. Many people are genuinely surprised by that by the way.
I feel that it is easy for the powers that be to dismiss us as ‘just bloggers’ (see at JoNova how one of our leading scientists was dismissed recently by a lazy journo )
If there was some solid body that could put forward some ideas it might be worthwhile. I think the tide is turning so this is a good time to get something up and running.
If such an entity does come to pass, it will be interesting with statements how some MSM outlets choose to refer to it by way of qualifying adjectives, as can happen, often selectively. Or they may just settle on omitting mention at all. That can happen too.
It still all seems like the group would end up being way too easy to discredit based on the potential individual acts/positions of members. And make no mistake, infiltration with this intent is a certainty. A lowest common denominator issue. Secondly groups organized around a position of being against something are too easy to marginalize. What kind of traction would an international working group to debunk phlogiston get? Phlogiston isn’t even real while CO2 is. better to continue to attack bad science than to legitimize the politicalization by becoming political as well.
Get on with it, but I’ll keep meowing 8)
It would take guts for a President, or government, to act against the wishes of the “progressives”. Obama can ease back in his armchair knowing that McKibben is naught but a “useful idiot”.
Do it!!! and do it Now!!!!
I quote “There’s simply no other way to get an issue onto the political agenda”
I disagree completely. This ought to be a scientific issue, not political, The issue will, in the end, be settled scientifically. The Supreme Court of Physics is the empirical data. In the end the empirical data will prove that CAGW is a hoax. We just have to wait.
There is no harm in waiting. The politics is such that we are going to go on using fossil fuels to the limit of the finances involved. We are going to go on putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere into the indefinite future. With the current political crisis in the Ukraine, politicians are getting a reality check on the geopolitical implications of energy.
So, I believe, undoubtedly, the universe is unfolding as it should.
Having organised and run campaigns against proposals for waste disposal by landfill near us in the UK the biggest lesson I learned was how it changed the people involved. From feeling powerless, or an individual voice shouting in the wilderness people suddenly realised that they could change their local destiny, could take some control over what happened around them and understood that they could ‘Make a Difference’ when they worked together.
If we are to combat the eco-loonery of the green bandwagon with its billions of dollars / pounds / euros taken from outer taxes and income then we need to work together and to get truth out at all levels.
Great! Now, what are we going to call ourselves. Here’s one, “Society for Scientific Sanity.” No, too many S’s.
Rob Dawg says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:29 am
“better to continue to attack bad science than to legitimize the politicalization by becoming political as well.”
That’s stupid. The science is made to measure and only a tool that the alarmists use. It’s a symptom of the alarmist movement, not its cause. An inherently political movement cannot be fought by not exposing its political nature.
I voted against this organisational idea as I think that only mass subversion stands a chance. We are most effective as a million guerrilas and saboteurs of the brainwashing system. Orthogonal warfare. Little bucks, much bang.
Would it be a US organization, or international? Which languages would it use? If English only, how would it differ from the GWPF? – Personally, I do see a need for a clearing house that would provide articles and news in German, French, Spanish and Russian at least, not to mention Chinese and Japanese. But who’d pay for the translations?
Being divided, increases susceptibility to being conquered.
Ben D on April 25, 2014 at
3:09 am
Go for it…the time has
arrived…
Whats more to say?
when ones opinion is not welcome, with
open visor, why not loud with open visor.
Grüsse – Hans
./broken english I know/
I would argue that we are doing pretty well by *not* being part of an organisation.
Look at the achievements:
1. Skeptic government in Australia
2. Skeptic government in Canada
3. Skeptic congress in America
4. Rise of skeptic UKIP party in the UK
5. Germans laughing at their own alarmists.
6. Alarmists on the defensive worldwide
7. Skeptic government in Japan
8. Climate conference failure after failure
We have achieved all this because if we want to achieve anything, we *have* to do it ourselves. There is no organisation we can appeal to, nobody to do our job for us.
Jim Cripwell
I agree and disagree with you. You are right that this is fundamentally a scientific issue, But, and here is where I disagree, it is being promoted by Politics and politicians with political end-games who have been happy to corrupt science to their own ends. That can only be fought and exposed on a political basis where the lies, deceptions and falsehoods are fully exposed through verifiable science.
We are winning – we don’t need to “organise” like our opponents, our current model is more effective.
The Heartland Institute is already doing a great job with the NIPCC (Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change) reports and their International Climate Change Conferences plus countless publications, op-ed pieces, white papers, etc.
They are recognized as the world’s leading think tank in global warming skepticism. http://www.heartland.org
Somehow I missed the poll, but why not support Heartland by becoming an advisor or donor?
Success will be more than a little dependent upon the organisation’s name having a snappy acronym.
I sense a competition is needed.
As a former member of a political party, joining an organisation means you think someone else will do the work. As individuals who associate with each other as and when we choose, we know it is all down to us. That is why we are winning – we are enterprising when our opponents are lazy.
Trying to be open-minded. First thought is “aren’t there already anti-CAGW organizations”. Or, at least, organizations producing “skeptical” point of view reports. How would this new organization be different? What would it add?
Since this is a Skeptic site, we should be skeptical of saying “yes” to any major undertaking until a thoughtful, agreed plan is in place.
Perhaps there needs to be a roughed-out yet somewhat detailed plan “published” on this site. A plan including, among other things, how the “organization” might be organized, who it would include, what it specific activities and actions it would initiate, and a thoughtful analysis of pros and cons (by the author). That plan can be commented by the readers. See if something “gels”. Merely a suggestion.
Books could no doubt be written on this topic, but few would want to read them in this hair-trigger intellectual climate. I can think of scientific reasons why you and the mass of “lukewarm skeptics” are not the ones to raise the banner against the forces of tyranny now besetting us all. But I am feeling my way through what I have long now deemed an insane intellectual situation, so I will just say for now, you all should think about instituting a principle analogous to “separation of church and state”, to wit, separation of the current political dogmas (and all political argument) vs. the factual truths about climate science. Most especially, in other words, don’t pretend you know that any part of current climate science is “settled”–that there is, in your hubristic opinion (as you have made plain, for a long time now), a real greenhouse effect due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, only it’s “just not catastrophic”. Because you won’t get any sympathy from those of us who know, based on definitive evidence, that there is no such thing, and that to believe in it is scientifically indefensible, i.e., incompetent. To me, you are like the ineffective Republicans, and the climate alarmists are like the Democrats, who follow an insane agenda now. (For example, you overrate Bill McKibben and 350.org, in the above, as a causative force rather than just one symptom out of many of the present insanity. Why is there such a knee-jerk desire in the world now to do that, to reverse cause and effect, and thus aim only for failure in the end? Well, I think I can tell you, it’s avoidance behavior, of the true depth and breadth of the problems we face now.) The bottom line, for me, is that I don’t have all the answers either, so I will refrain, as far as possible, from merely exacerbating the emotional atmosphere. But of course, I won’t go silent, either–and you should take that seriously.
I have a lot of time for Pointman. I was no/unsure. Now I’m yes/unsure.
Anthony are you up for writing a constitution?
What Pointman fails to grasp is that that the MSM has already signed a Treaty with the alarmist faction. There is no safe platform for Skeptical or even Sensible science to be aired.
In the last decades of the 20th century there was a remarkable conjunction of ‘millennial panic’ on the part of the public who displayed a kind of yearning for ‘end times”.
This was exploited by minor, second rate ‘scientists’ like Michael Mann and James Hansen who quickly realised that their doom laden stories would be instantly disseminated by the Media bringing them enhanced status and financial gain.
When wily politicians (like Blair in the UK and Gore in the US) realised that Global Warming was a vote winning issue, (well nearly, in Gore’s case) the final piece of the infernal machine was in place.
Media, the scientific establishment and Government in lock step moving relentlessly forward with a program of research spending (remember Carbon Capture and storage ha-ha!) followed by taxation and legislation. Carbon Tax, wind farm, solar subsidies etc etc.The whole crappy edifice is now a self serving, bureaucratic, tax generating entity and the media to their eternal shame cannot and will not admit that they were duped and complicit in the hoax.
Going head to head with this monster will get us nowhere. In this battle we are out gunned.
We’ve got to think of ourselves as ‘the insurgency’ detonating horrid little facts in unexpected places. Sniping at them when ever they move out of their secure zones.
I make it a personal point to express my skepticism to friends, family and acquaintances, I don’t imagine I have made many converts but it all of us stand up in our daily lives and let it be known that we simply do not believe in CAGW…for very sound reasons, then we will undermine the scam from the grass roots up.
Eventually real science will prevail…it always does. The true loonies always reveal themselves eventually…think Mc Kibben, Suzuki, Flannery and Gore, each time they stand up they sound more shrill and irrational…even their followers aren’t quite as certain and convicted as they used to be.
Some crazy woman journalist in the Guardian the other day began her article with an open admission of the ‘pause in global temperatures’…that is unimaginable progress from even a year ago when I was banned from commenting because I insisted that the pause was real and had been mentioned in Climategate emails.
Ah Climategate…where would we be without Climategate?
It depends upon the goal you are seeking. If it is to promote the KXL, then yes organization is a must. If it is the pursuit of knowledge in a scientific method, then no. An organization will inhibit that (merely look at the “team”). I understand and sympathize with the frustration that leads to a yes. But that is all.
Organization = Corruption. You just end up with dogma.
“They are recognized as the world’s leading think tank in global warming skepticism. http://www.heartland.org
Somehow I missed the poll, but why not support Heartland by becoming an advisor or donor?”
I think the main problem with that is that by endorsing Heartland you turn this into a a R vs D issue, rather than than an issue organization that is open to all. I can see a lot of blue-leaning voters not wishing to strengthen an organization that also operates against a person’s other political inclinations.
Answer to Patrick says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:24 am
It’s never to late for truth to be told and discussed. Truth is that there never been a CO2-threat other in the world of alarmists who haven’t understood that ALL factors, not only chosen ones, needs to be taken into consideration when a computer-model’s fiction (it’s always fiction not reality) of predicting the future is on the table. As we said in 1970’s bad or corrected data in = bad unreliable figures out.
“… The worst thing you can ever do is sit in grumpy isolation doing nothing more than bitching away to a few cronies, and that’s exactly what’s all too common across the skeptic blogosphere. …”
It seems to me that sites like WUWT and many others are educating the public everyday. Many different voices pointing out the fallacies and wrong predictions of the “sky-is-falling” crowd is far better than one organization.
However, if we are talking about a call to form another voice in the crowd and all of us support it (if we can), then that can be a useful idea as long as we know that this is a political fight and not a scientific one. It only looks like a scientific fight — it is a political fight were the state is using the “scientists” to scare the population so they will demand that the state do something.
Friends, the fact is that as long as the state funds science (and academia) we will continue to get false results. The scientific method is no match for the power and money of the state.
A great read on what you are up against is given by T. Colin Campbell in his latest book “Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition”. Read as he talks about how one can not advance his career in science if he goes against the prevailing paradigm. Even though the book is about nutrition, and you don’t have to agree with Campbell’s views, it is ultimately about the forces that control all “debates” in science.
I’ve already left a comment at Pointman’s, setting out my doubts about the idea of forming a sceptic organisation. These can be summarised as 1) splintering 2) funding and 3) bureaucratic capture. If it could be done well though, it would be a great idea.
I think the most interesting comment to the original poll thread on WUWT was by Steven Mosher (link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/19/open-thread-with-an-important-question/#comment-1617522), that we should all make clear exactly what we do and don’t believe. It’s all too easy to assume others agree/disagree with one’s own viewpoint. I’ve put a post up at my own blog to do just this (link: http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/global-warming-what-i-believe/). I suspect I am a ‘mainstream sceptic’ and would appreciate others’ views on this.
Reminds me of this…
The problem with organizing AGW skeptics is that, while most of us agree that the conclusions of the believers are wrong, we lack their religious like passion for that position. We are more passionate about the economic fallout that would arise from their solutions and that would require a more political organization. Since there are a wide variety of political positions among skeptics, it would be a most difficult task to keep the organization glued together as a political force.
Maybe Heartland, GWPF ,”Bloggers United” “engineers united” ” sceptical scientists united”
“economists united” et al can come up with a statement that reflects the issue. Which people can rally round and push collectively and individually. And then repeat the process until it gains momentum.
If the weather keeps on cooling like this skeptics will morph to what???. Although I would be part of such an organization (skeptic etc) I don’t think it will be required within 5 years or so as the climate will not change…… Most will lose interest, even skeptics, warmist and yes even deniers. The whole issue of climate will revert to what is was 30 years ago…. daily meteorological reports… LOL
I’ll repeat my earlier suggestion … ClimateFactCheck.org … If we can counter alarmist press releases quickly it would take a lot of steam out of their propaganda. However, we need to have a set of scientists in fields related to topics used by the propagandists to give credibility to the statements. We may be able to see the truth but many others will only accept credentialed responses.
Agree with Peter Whale. There already are organizations around.
I was unsure originally. But now, if it comes to pass, count me out. I visit WUWT almost every day and appreciate the articles and comments greatly but if it becomes too political, I want no part of it.
I propose we call ourselves “Union of Concerned Skeptics”.
No dogs allowed.
Anthony, as you stated in your original question – a problem arises if such an organization is centred in one country. The organization required needs to be both a central resource and an umbrella organization for disseminating the necessary scientific information worldwide. The Climate AGW agenda is worldwide and needs to be counteracted on a worldwide stage. If an organization is merely American it will be sneered at for being parochial. To combat the current global scam you need an organization that is fully global.
To me the big question is: How to create a global organization that carries automatic accreditation in the eyes of scientists, academics and politicians so that it cannot be easily poo-poohed by the sneering progressive media?
A formal skeptical organization is like communism. It seemed like a good idea to the poor…
These things always get high-jacked by a few people who have more energy, less brains and little else to do than the rest of us.
The Power of an organization is really in the size of its membership. The NRA is very powerful, because it has a LOT OF MEMBERS that vote. It makes perfect sense that a very large organization of Skeptics, would carry a lot of clout
After reading this I realized I will post to WUWT but when amoungst my liberal cohorts, I fear to say anything. My conservative friends and I have always remarked how they have the upper hand in public debate because they will freely spout their rhetoric and the rest of us keep quiet lest we are marginalized. Enough is enough.
You’ve convinced me. We need to “unionize”. What are the next steps and where do I sign up?
I’m in.
we have seen the MSM repeatedly quote CAGW proponents claiming the MSM is giving too much time to CAGW sceptics, & how they need to learn to communicate better, yet we know sceptics are rarely given any MSM time at all & not one is a household name, except for those few who are mocked as being far right CAGW deniers.
yet the proponents sound genuinely fearful of this sceptical voice. why? it is not because of Heartland, or GWPF, both of which are easy targets for MSM stereo-typing & left/right framing. i am convinced it is because of the more broad political leanings (tho majority conservative) of the thousands who visit and/or participate on WUWT, JoanneNova, Bishop Hill, Climate Depot, etc.
MSM is monolithic when it comes to CAGW promotion. their response to Climategate proved that.
they will not budge, even if it means the further diminution of their audience, so i still believe it’s more effective to have an unruly CAGW sceptic blogosphere that drives The CAGW Team insane than to have an organisation. after all, how could a WUWT Organisation compete with this?
23 April: Time: TIME 100 Pioneers
Katharine Hayhoe
By Don Cheadle
An environmental evangelist
There’s something fascinating about a smart person who defies stereotype. That’s what makes my friend Katharine Hayhoe — a Texas Tech climatologist and an evangelical Christian — so interesting.
It’s hard to be a good steward of the planet if you don’t accept the hard science behind what’s harming it, and it can be just as hard to take action to protect our world if you don’t love it as the rare gift it is…
I got to know Katharine as we worked on Showtime’s climate documentary Years of Living Dangerously.
(Cheadle is an actor, producer and Academy Award nominee)
http://time.com/#70881/katharine-hayhoe-2014-time-100/
Christian News Wire: Evangelical Christian Named to TIME’s 100 Most Influential People for Work on Climate
FRANKLIN, Ind., April 24, 2014 Statement by the Rev. Mitch Hescox, President & CEO, Evangelical Environmental Network
We are pleased that Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, scientific advisor to the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), has been named TIME’s 100 most influential people in the world (time.com/70881/katharine-hayhoe-2014-time-100/). Dr. Hayhoe demonstrates that a person of strong evangelical faith can also be a world-class scientist. She understands that creation-care is truly a matter of life and speaks to churches and conservative groups across the country to demonstrate the need to take prudent steps to address climate change…
Dr. Hayhoe’s efforts have led to her being targeted by climate deniers like Rush Limbaugh, resulting in a continual fuselage of opposition — even threats to her family.
But it is precisely her love for her children and for Jesus Christ that has Dr. Hayhoe refusing to be intimidated from speaking the truth.
Dr. Hayhoe and her husband Dr. Andrew Farley’s seminal book, A Climate For Change, has been instrumental in educating the evangelical church…
My support and appreciation for Dr. Hayhoe is summarized in her own words:
“It’s not about saving the planet: the planet will be fine without us. It’s about helping people, real people who are being affected by climate change today. Higher energy bills for air conditioning, freak rainstorms, and droughts wiping out their food supply -rising sea level threatening their homes and fields. It’s the poor and disadvantaged who are being hardest hit: those very people the Bible tells us to care for.”
Dr. Hayhoe is a top communicator in the field of climate science and her evangelical prospective informs her views on the need to protect human life…
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5164474039.html
i rest my case.
“Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization..?”
Sounds like a damn fine idea to me. About time! (Wish I’d thought of it!)
I have scanned over all of the responses to your article and based on they’re responses, determined that 97-percent agree that a skeptic organization should be formed. So now that’s settled.
The best thing this site does is provide reference material that is up to date and credible. It also provides knowledge that there are other people out there who recognize the AGW folly for what it is. We your readers and contributors are scattered in all sorts of odd places in the world with different governments at local,state and federal level. I am proud to quote this site in an argument as I know it follows pursuit of excellence in science. Stick to your knitting and know you do an excellent job. It is our role to take on the politics. I suspect many of your readers have already got involved as I have done here in Oz. I would encourage others to do the same if they feel strongly enough.
Pointman makes a very good argument, but the discussion about Heartland highlights what would very quickly go wrong with any such organization. It was asked, “why not just support Heartland?” and in reply, the answer was “well that is seen as a purely Republican organization. We need something less political.”
As soon as any skeptical organization is created, some Republican office holder will praise it. (Inhofe, guaranteed,and there will be others) The instant this happens, those well funded forces on the warmist side (you know who they are) will INSTANTLY launch into a high dollar, multi-platform campaign loudly labeling whatever organization we may create as nothing but a junior farm team for the GOP and/or the tea party. Every mass media outlet in the country will repeat this message over,and over, and over,and the organization will be politically marginalized within weeks of it’s creation.
It doesn’t matter if this message is true or false; in fact I must say that anyone who thinks that concepts such as “truth” or “falsehood” have ANY bearing in the political arena today is touchingly naive. That’s one reason why this is such a hard fight – ALL of the official mouthpieces of the state and the culture are against us. The instant we give them a nice, solid target to aim at, they will spend every penny they can, and use every venue they control (which is just about all of them) portraying everyone who even thinks a skeptical thought as the next Clive Bundy.
Right now, men like McKibben are extremely frustrated, because they have no firm target at which they can aim the hundreds of millions of dollars of special interest money which has and will be placed at their disposal. Create an umbrella organization, and you create a focal point for all of their hate and destructive power, and it is vast.
Pointman, you are a fine man and a marvelous idealist. But as I recall, you live in the UK and thus you cannot appreciate how toxic, venal, and destructive the US political system has become. It’s already been well established, in open congressional testimony, that the IRS is being used to target those who are seen to be acting contrary to this administrations interests in an organized, political way. As a pseudonymous poster, I am not enough of a threat for the IRS to be sent after me – but as a supporter of an organization that will instantly be seen as “The Enemy”, I will be, and so will people like our host here.
Our anonymity here is our great protection. De Gaulle and the french resistance didn’t overthrow Vichy France by creating an open, public organization and sending all of their supporter’s names to Marshall Petain. If we *do* create some kind of “organization” (although I think we don’t need it) then the Resistance is the model we have to take – organization by cells, and no one knowing the full names of anyone outside their own cells. Anything other than that will expose us all to personal, financial destruction.
I know this may sound extreme, especially to people like us, who like to consider ourselves “reasonable”; but this is the nature of the forces we are opposing. We dare not underestimate them with foolish and naive overestimation’s of our own survivability when our enemies realize that their survival depends on their ability to marginalize and/or eliminate us.
But for those who think we really *do* need a public organization, then just sign up with Heartland, and make them as big and strong as possible. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel here.
Look to other activisms organizations. I am an activist, a bicyclist and a legally armed citizen, but I despise the NRA and LAB for much the same reasons. Both have subscription as their business model, so that their subscribers are unable to admit the dollar value of their foolishness.
What would be the aim of such an organization?
Would it be to present the scientific case against the AGW story to the general public of the world?
Would it be to persuade the world media to give more attention to that case?
Would it be to persuade the US government to change its policies?
Would it recognize that there are in fact other countries and other governments in the world?
Would it solely present the scientific case, or would it issue political pronouncments?
If so, what sort of political pronouncements? (A lot of commenters on this site spend their electrons on fulminating against “liberals”, “left wingers”, and so forth. This sort of thing may serve to vent their spleen – it may even have some truth in it – but it will just be rejected by the rest of society. Insulting half the world is not the best way of persuading them. And, if the main point is that AGW is probably not true, it is irrelevant to the main point.)
These, and probably a bunch of other questions, need to answered before any such organization is set up.
Too busy to leave original comment, however I can see value in creating a more organised sceptic view. One of the real problems is that sceptical views are reactive ie we only comment after the fact of a pro climate change paper or view. In other words we react rather than being proactive. It would be beneficial to publish analysis and views for the climate lobby to react to. Similarly, it would be good to sponsor original unbiased research. These would be ideal but they cost lots. An unbiased journal and genuine investigative research would go a long way to supporting real analysis of changes in the climate. However, the cost would I think be prohibitive and the negative press from the establishment would be difficult to overcome. Any research organisation that we sponsored would be castigated by the establishment. So my conclusion is that the idea is sound but the negative issues probably make it impossible without a mountain of cash. So I think we will continue as we are reacting to biased papers and poor research
I voted ‘yes’ and I largely agree with Pointman’s justifications. Ultimately, skeptics are not fighting a scientific battle; the scientific uncertainties are still wide enough to accomodate most scenarios, and perceptions about which scenarios are most likely are skewed by the most dominant players in a narrative war. Skeptics are fighting an apocalyptic narrative, which is still winning despite the long ‘pause’, and has gained huge representation. A much bigger platform of skeptic representation is needed to present counter-narratives. The GWPF are doing a great job, but more is needed, also linked to a perceived mass (or at least sizeable) movement, and preferably US based.
ONE QUESTION – membership organization or not?
So who will spin his so called “policy statement”, and be judge over the many disparate and contradictory ideas and beliefs? Which will be in, and which will be out?
I read and understood and agreed in part with Mosher’s critique about “what I believe”.
HOWEVER, I’ve actually run local level political campaigns and I am hear to tell you I could not win so much as a 4-3 victory on the local school board without making alliances with people and viewpoints I not only failed to share, but actively opposed.
What I believe is that the climate, changing or otherwise, is not worth going to war with China for. And that presuming the science is correct, and that the need for reductions in coal consumption are necessary, China (and India) must be persuaded or prevented from burning the stuff. A treaty and an international tax scheme are fine but without teeth, in the form of armed intervention to enforce (emphasis on the syllable FORCE) compliance, any treaty is going to be ineffective.
Do 97% of any group suggest that war or the risk of war is a good thing for this planet, polar bears, bald eagles, ice worms, corals, or what have you?
To avoid an unnecessary war I will make alliances with nutters who believe CO2 absorbtion in the atmosphere is already saturated. To avoid stupid war I will make alliances with nut jobs who oppose the UN Agenda 21, blue helmets, and black helmets. To avoid a useless war I will make alliances with whack-job radio DJ’s who abuse their publishers by tossing the word “Fraudulent” around carelessly. Etc.
Good arguments for the pro-side, but realize that maintaining discipline will be difficult for a climate skeptics organization. The CAGW crowd is emotionally bought in to their one bete-noir – CO2. Skeptics, on the other hand, are all over the lot on numerous issues and often at odds with each other. You also will have to have a firm policy on banishment of nutters who will claim to speak for the organization, or at least be categorized as such by a hostile press and opponents. Expect to spend lots of effort on damage control of bad press. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, just that you better count the cost before jumping in.
Anthony et al,
Good comments all around. I would note that:
1. There are a LOT of smart (self-taught or schooled) people who read, comment or post to WUWT.
2. There are a LOT of non-WUWT individuals and groups and organizations (Burt Rutan, NASA astronauts, etc.) that have come out and made public statements defending science and opposing the abuse and waste of the people’s money to fight a problem that doesn’t exist.
3. We love being here for the learning, the eye-opening science and debate that a fine place like WUWT provides.
What I’m trying to say is, Anthony, you have the resources at your disposal in terms of intellect, science and supporters to make a difference. Lives ARE at stake, and not because of CO2.
We can read here that the electrical grid is being stretched to the breaking point.
Does Congress know? Does the public know?
We can read here that coral reefs naturally adjust to sea level, and this was known over 150 years ago.
Does Congress know? Does the public know?
Many other examples could be provided but those will suffice for now.
I think if you can serve science, preserve science, educate the public and their elected representatives then this is a noble cause.
As a person skeptical of the so-called “greenhouse effect”, I will be left to the wayside by such a group anyway. Or will there be provision for those of us who do not “fit in”?
Keep it simple with a straightforward blanket mission statement that allows most nuanced skeptical positions in, something like ‘we don’t support the theory that industrial carbon dioxide emissions can effect the earth’s climate systems.’
Per Wikipedia: “According to Time, RealClimate is “in line with the Web’s original purpose: scientific communication” with a “straightforward presentation of the physical evidence for global warming”.[9]”
An organization which had a true scientific communication goal would communicate physical evidence either pro or con regarding the presently accepted arguements regarding ‘global warming’. Perhaps such an organizarion which is not oriented toward propaganda such as “Real Climate” is, could have an impact. The name of the organization should reflect that goal of non-partisanship. At least that is one way to look at it.
Back in June 2009 (five years ago!), here on WUWT, Mike D, TonyB and I discussed forming a Climate Realist organization of some sort. The idea as it evolved was to mirror organizations like the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, etc., but on the other side, in favor of Progress, Energy, and rational Conservation. At some point, in private correspondence, we came up with a name: Terra Home. I think Mike even registered a domain with that name, but I can’t find it now; the idea seemed to die on the vine (Mike’s own website, Western Institute for Study of the Environment [ http://westinstenv.org/index.php?req=/ ] appears to have been put on hiatus).
Maybe it’s time to resurrect Terra Home. FWIW, here are my contributions to the discussion back in 2009:
* * * * *
Re Mike D.’s post (00:02:57) on the need for political organization to combat the Alarmist onslaught, maybe we should think about marketing to the youth, as the Alarmists do, and as Obama did during the election, even to kids 12 and under (get your parents to vote for Obama!). . .
Perhaps the focus should be on CO2. “They want to take away our CO2!” “They’re coming for your CO2!” “Our plants need CO2! Don’t let the politicians take it away!” I.e., terms kids 12 and under can understand.
Other ideas welcome.
/Mr Lynn
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/lindzens-climate-sensitivty-talk-iccc-june-2-2009/#comment-139520
* * * * *
Not bad, Mike. We might also consider re-conquering the emotional high ground that the enviro-whackos have captured, e.g.: The International Society for Progress and the Environment (TISPE). After all, it’s about more than climate, though that is the current focal point. A shorter name wouldn’t hurt, either. How about Eco-Progress International?
/Mr Lynn
* * * * *
[M. Simon had some suggestions about “getting word out.” I responded:]
Sounds like a good idea for spreading the word, but I think what Mike D. and I were talking about was actually organizing groups of people, an organization (if not a movement) that would be able to exert political influence in favor of a Realist approach to issues of energy, climate, environment, and the future of humanity, an organization to counter the intense propaganda and lobbying of Alarmist organizations like Greenpeace, the WWF, etc.
Obviously there are groups or organizations today that promote Realist ideas and values (e.g. Heartland, or Fred Singer’s SEPP), but they seem small and scattered. I suspect that is because they do not market themselves to a broad membership base the way the enviros do. It is essential to promote such an organization with positive messages: not just that the Alarmists are wrong, but that we must band together to save civilization and yes, even “the planet,” from their destructive and anti-human, anti-ecological (plants including crops need ample CO2!) schemes.
The Alarmists have succeeded in painting skeptics and Realists as a small band of self-interested, greedy, flat-earthers. Well, turnabout is fair play. We can paint the Alarmists as head-in-the-sand Luddites and Marxists who are intent on taking us back to the Stone Age, putting a halt to the progress our children and grandchildren are entitled to expect.
The point is to get strong enough to inoculate world legislatures against the mad virus that has them careening toward a self-inflicted environmental and economic catastrophe. Given how short the time is, that will take some doing. The Alarmists have a big head start. And I have no real idea how to catch up. But I’ll bet there are some here who do.
/Mr Lynn
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/lindzens-climate-sensitivty-talk-iccc-june-2-2009/#comment-139791
* * * * *
[TonyB (02:35:48) offered some thoughts about how to counter the “prevailing AGW view” with better marketing. I responded:]
I agree entirely that the Realist (vs. AGW) viewpoint requires much better marketing than it has heretofore received.
And yes,
As for the ability of a Realist organization to distance “fringe groups, politically motivated viewpoints or vested interests,” as you put it, that’s a complex matter.
First, you have to realize that any anti-AGW movement is going to be slandered as ‘fringe’, made up of ‘kooks’, allied with ‘greedy oil and coal interests’, ‘crackpot science’, and so on, and so forth. Yes, it’s vitally important to establish scientific bona fides, but you know how easily those are dismissed by the AGW orthodoxy (’not peer reviewed’, meaning by the correct peers). The objective has to be to gain public credibility, and that’s where the marketing comes in, because as Senator Inhofe said (above), the science is over most people’s heads.
Second, because AGW has become a political issue more than a scientific one, the AGW crusade has be stopped in the halls of Congress and Parliament, and that means some kind of political action. You may be able to avoid identifying with other issues (social questions, foreign affairs, etc.), but there’s one you can’t dodge, and that’s the economy. The ‘remedies’ that the Alarmists propose are all top-down, statist measures, and the way to combat them in the public mind is to emphasize how much they will curtail economic growth and individual freedom.
Notice, BTW, that the Alarmists’ affiliations with extreme leftwing ‘fringe’ groups and with avowedly leftwing and socialist political parties has done nothing to marginalize them or damage their effectiveness. The reason is that, as you point out, they have taken the moral high ground, with rhetoric like “Saving the planet.”
You are absolutely right that we have to recapture the moral high ground. I think the way to do this is not by shouting “Fire!” in the theater, as the Alarmists do, but by shouting “Water! Quick!” The lesson has to be:
What the Alarmists want to do, with or without good intentions, is to stop Civilization and Progress in their tracks. But economic growth, which means cheap and abundant energy, is essential for progress, and contrary to the Alarmists, the CO2 that might produce is good, good for plants, good for the Earth, and good for you. They offer a dead and dying Earth, with everyone cowering in fear; we promise a bright future of development for all people on the planet, a planet of beautiful cities and fields and gardens, fueled by abundant energy.
That’s the form the debate should take, as I see it. . .
/Mr Lynn
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/lindzens-climate-sensitivty-talk-iccc-june-2-2009/#comment-140161
Jim Cripwell : “I disagree completely. This ought to be a scientific issue, not political, The issue will, in the end, be settled scientifically.”
Agree, but…. this is already a political issue. Like it or not. The science is clear in the sense that there is no theory that supports man made global warming and even less the catastrophic version of it. Still, people believe in it no matter that all predictions of the theory are wrong. The only thing that will make people reconsider is a generation (or two) long cooling period. Then the Manns and the Schmitts are sitting pretty with their pensions and uncountable forests have been harvested for their “bio fuel” and more people will wish that they could afford a Haitian mud pie.
From Rick K “Does Congress know? Does the public know?”
Excellent points Rick. The trick is, how do we persuade Anthony Watts to issue press releases to help publicize the material posted here? 🙂
Haven’t time to read the comments above. But any such organized opposition to the AGW juggernaut should remain focused on the subject. I wouldn’t like to see mission creep turn an important scientific argument into a crusade against open forums. Like this one.
I am all in favor of organizing for truthful representation of data, for complete scientific transparency (i.e., against the cloaking of cherry-picked hokey stick methodology), for inclusion of science from other fields (geology, anthropology, statistical analysis, meteorology, oceanography, etc.) in the peer review of this “climatology” cult, for opening the editorial processes of the IPCC organization, etc. In many ways, this is what I turn to this blog.
The difficulties I see in organizing “the skeptic opposition”. The disparate views representing one voice would be well-described as Pointman’s herding cats. The opposite concern also comes with organization. Selection and rejection of which views to promote. The “skeptic” party line may be as restricting as the CAGW party line. Money and politics become incentives driving organization (e.g., IPCC, climate research, unionization, term limits, PACs…).
Sorry state of science reporting in the popular media does a great disservice to the very scientific method supposedly being touted. The thirst for the next story leads to garbage such as Lovejoy’s 99.9% certainty grabbing headlines rather than ridicule.
I wish I had the answers to these dilemmas. The hope that enough of the decision makers are able to separate the chaff from the wheat. In the meanwhile, the role of the skeptic is to call out the untruths, bias, and other devices used to mislead the folks that spend our money.
I might recount my own experience as “chairman” of the Scottish climate and energy forum (Not the original name – but someone who no one knew turned up at the first meeting – registered the domain name – and then wasn’t heard of again.
But the big problem, was that many skeptics are very “open with their opinions” and it wasn’t easy to get compromise. Unfortunately, this led to the initial aims being so “aggressive” that I personally couldn’t join the organisation. (I have family in government) Eventually we did form the organisation with the aim of lobbying Scottish politicians & media.
But, whilst I had met and lobbied politicians before, this time it turned out to be far harder than I had imagined. Whilst, before I was lobbying as an individual for better policy to create jobs in wind in Scotland. Now, even though I was representing a reasonable group of people, Scottish politicians & civil service were (are?) actively hostile and many would willingly break their own rules to exclude us. So e.g. there is a rule that civil servants will meet with groups about policy. They just outright refused. The media refused to print anything we wrote. E.g. the Scottish government gave MSPs the incorrect figure for the economic case for wind when they passed the climate change act. Only one small local paper and no politicians took any interest. This was a major scandal (and still is) and if it had been any other act, I’m sure heads would have rolled. But in Scotland, there was a conspiracy of silence by press and politicians
So, lobbying was a complete waste of time. The politicians, civil servants & journalists treated us with contempt and short of taking them to court, there was nothing we could do. it was so bad, that my own MSP refused to see me on a legitimate constituency matter when I told her I was a skeptic. If I were black, catholic, etc. she’d been slaughtered by the press.
However, I did learn some things from that process:
1. The first question a politicians or the press asks is the number of members. So, whilst it doesn’t matter to skeptics, you should aim to get as many members as possible.
2. Unless or until we had a visiting dignitary (Salby), physical meetings were unnecessary. The most successful enterprise was a leaflet “Global Warming the Facts” and as I recall, that was done entirely by email (mostly be me – but the help was invaluable)
3. The most useful thing I could do is “write on behalf of skeptics” in response to all the nasty comments made in the press and media.
Despite being undoubted qualified to have a view given my science qualifications and direct experience in the wind industry and having experience of lobbying before, unfortunately, the politicians and press were going out of their way to ignore the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum leaving me banging my head on a brick wall of bigotry. So eventually I gave up trying to talk to the Scottish media or politicians.
But, there was still a need to “speak up for skeptics” after each of the regular attacks. And the role morphed into one of a “skeptic (trade) union”. When skeptics were being personally attacked, I would sit down for a few hours, draw up a letter explaining that skeptics were reasonable people and that it was wrong to make comments that often were libellous. And whilst it didn’t get a lot of coverage, it did seem to change a few minds, tone down the attacks and general help us.
So, I would suggest, that the focus of the organisation should be to protect those individuals who through expressing a skeptic view have found themselves to be discriminated against, particularly in their work. There are many such individuals. Unlike “lobbying” where it is seen to be legitimate (why?) to repress views from those outside the establishment of academia, society in contrast, takes a dim view about libellous comments and hatespeech and other forms of discriminating practice targeted against people intending to repress their right to free speech.
After re-reading Pointman’s article on his blog, I’ve come to think that he is more open to a nakedly politically movement than I may have thought. But even still, in practical terms, for him, being in the UK, that means signing up for Nigel Farage’s UKIP and saying goodbye to any of those who don’t see things that way. (no one else in the UK political arena dares to breathe a skeptical word about the global warming movement)
Here in the US, if there was a single Democrat Party officeholder in the country who didn’t bow down and worship Global Warming every morning, I would believe there was a chance at creating a bipartisan organization. Even one!!! But there isn’t, and so any organization created is going to be instantly labeled by every media outlet as “far right wing”.
So, if we want to be politically active, cut to the chase and send campaign money to Senators Inhofe, Cruz, and Paul, because those men are our only real allies. And accept that we will be saying goodbye to anyone who doesn’t see things that way.
I Would Need To See The Logo First And How It Looked On A Jacket. It Has To Be Cool Looking And Sounding. Also Be Nice To Have A Title To Put Behind My Name…Dr. Anxiety PhD, PhD, PhD, M.Wattsup
Not necessarily. What if there’s another Sandy-like event to scare the populace? What if the GOP folds, and/or doesn’t do well in 2014? What if China gets talked into agreeing to a new Kyoto treaty, with the sub rosa “understanding” that it wouldn’t be expected to observe it and that its claims of compliance would not be checked?
I think a true sceince based skeptic organization would be a good thing. So many think the science is settled, and a group that truly represents the science against AGW would be helpful.
pochas says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:45 am
Great! Now, what are we going to call ourselves. Here’s one, “Society for Scientific Sanity.” No, too many S’s.
I suppose “Association for Scientific Sanity” is out of the question, too.
🙂
Seriously, I would hope it would be based around this:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Oregon Petition Project)
@wws “De Gaulle and the french resistance didn’t overthrow Vichy France by creating an open, public organization and sending all of their supporter’s names to Marshall Petain.”
Uh, I thought the Allies had something to do with it.
In any case, organized action based on sound science applied in a principled way is preferable to a hodge podge approach.
Further to Terra Home:
[In private correspondence, Mike D. and I discussed starting a website, and briefly raised issues of organization, though without coming to a conclusion:]
Mike D.:
[I don’t think Mike will mind my quoting these important points. I responded:]
/Mr Lynn
There are far too many sceptics like myself who might best be described as “enthusiastic amateurs” and who would be prepared to join an official “climate sceptics” organisation. However, what that organisation might gain in numbers it would lose in credibility. If, on the other hand, membership of the organisation was limited to those professionals, such as astronomers, astrophysicists, biologists, botanists, chemists, “climate scientists”,engineers, geographers, geologists, mathematicians, meterologists, oceanographers palaeontologists, physicists, statisticians and zoologists, the “warmist” lobby and their supporters would have difficulty in rubbishing any statements emanating from that organisation.
In other words weed people like myself out and concentrate on those whose credentials, both academic and experience, are irrefutable and even the politicians might have to listen..
OK, the vote is a clear yes, so it should be done. Plenty of comments have pointed out many major potential pitfalls, so they should be taken into account when setting it up. Anthony’s judgement has been exemplary throughout the whole WUWT exercise, in particular the emphasis on science, the provision of access to all possible third-party data (the data is 100% external to and independent of WUWT), and the welcoming of all civil points of view. I trust Anthony’s judgement on this exercise too. It will take a tremendous amount of hard work from better people than me, but any assistance I can give, I will.
I have seen GWPF, Heartland/NIPCC, etc, and none of them does the job the way I think and hope that it will be done. As I see it, this will be the go-to site for an accurate/rational/scientific view of everything to do with climate, and in particular it will explain exactly what is known, what is not known, and everything in between, plus corrections for everything that is often misunderstood. There will be immediate attempts to discredit it, to target individuals, and every other trick in the political book – but they have been doing that for years and it shouldn’t be too hard to prepare for.
I look forward to seeing it rolling off the production line!
Moderator: My previous comment is still in moderation, presumably because I mentioned The Boss. This one should follow the previous one, or it won’t make sense. Thanks. /Mr L
Contrarian Climate Coalition
Pronounced ContClyCoe (?) OR “3C”
londo, you write “Agree, but…. this is already a political issue”
Yes, I agree. One of the problems writing bits on blogs is explaining what one wants to. I took it that the idea was to form a union of scientists. That I am opposed to. If it is a political issue, then some sort of political organization needs to be formed. For me, thanks but no thanks.
The scientific problem, as I have said over and over again, is that the learned scientific societies, led by the RS and APS have endorsed CAGW. They are the problem. The APS is rethinking it’s stance, and a report should be out this year.
I hope scientists can deal with the scientific issues, and I believe that proper science will prevail in the end.
heysuess says:
April 25, 2014 at 5:55 am
“Keep it simple with a straightforward blanket mission statement that allows most nuanced skeptical positions in, something like ‘we don’t support the theory that industrial carbon dioxide emissions can effect the earth’s climate systems.’”
Better yet, how about ‘we only support what good scientific observation and analysis shows.’
‘The Climate Reality Organization’ so sthg similar would be a better name. No science whatsoever supports the greenhouse theory; nor that Co2 has much to do with anything; nor that pre-modern climate was stable; nor that the earth is not a complicated million-variable convection system.
Name it correctly and many will join. Reality is not scepticism.
This article has certainly generated some interesting comments, many quite black and white!
Why does creating a organization preclude the continuance of WUWT and other blogs? Why would an organization intended to fight the politcal nature of CAGW delegitimize the science? How does membership in such an organization preclude making comments to blogs? Does the organization need to be US based, or could it be based in the UK or Europe?
I believe based on my own personal evangelizing that the blogosphere lacks credibility with the population at large. People can’t comprehend long, detailed articles laying out reams of data and complex calculations. They need sound bites and hocky stick graphs. This absolutely is a political battle, and without the masses the governments of the world will continue to dismiss us as nutters off in the corner.
How did envirofacism become so strong: organizations like Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, et al.
I am, in general, in favor of an organization which would articulate my views on climate change. However, be prepared for a withering barrage of negative press from the MSM and snarky/condescending press releases from the CAGW scientists. And be prepared to be ridiculed publicly if you choose to be connected to such an organization.
However, here is the main issue for me. The warmists are gathering HUGE sums of money in an all out effort now to impose their views on society. Be prepared for a multi-MILLION dollar campaign to convince the lay public that climate change is a problem and that we must change our ways of life or else. If we do nothing they win. And trust me, this battle is NOT about climate change (it never was) – it is about our freedom.
I’m mixed on this (but not on the name…PLEASE DO NOT ((if formed)) include anything in the title to suggest they are skeptical of climate) because if you have an organized group to counter the alarmists, I fear it will descend into a group willing to use the same discredited tactics of the Manns and Jones of the world.
I would rather that PEOPLE PRACTICING REAL SCIENCE would be the counter group to this scam. They need not be organized and when they publish/announce it will not be seen as a concerted effort but just a scientist doing his/her job in an open and upright manner.
The momentum is so far skewed to the alarmist cause I fear such an organisation would be little more than straw against the wind (Straw wasn’t my first word of choice!). The Skeptical view will prevail only if Mother Earth continues not to play along for long enough and/or the sheeple rail loudly enough that rising energy costs and economic hardship are not worth the candle and politicians start not getting their votes. In my view the only way to speed things up is for the emergence of a skeptical spokesperson of such charisma, media skill and scientific integrity to emerge who can shoot the whole thing down for what it is. If Feynman where with us he would have been ‘da man’ I’m sure…..not sure theres another of his ilk right now….
I’m retired, old, with a body slowly fading away, but I can still smell a rat. Count me in as a supporter of the effort to bring common sense and civility to the climate discussion.
The Moral Minority?
Three-Percenters United?
pochas says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:45 am
Great! Now, what are we going to call ourselves. Here’s one, “Society for Scientific Sanity.” No, too many S’s.
====
DEE-nier Central , of course. What else?
Lets say we do this, what then?. Do we put on boiler suits and chain ourselves to offshore wind turbines?. I’m not convinced it would get us very far. We’d just be labelled yet another “right wing thinktank” and marginalized. If we were to organize it should be for the specific purpose of holding to account the media that has failed us dismally. They hold themselves above reason and seem to be accountable to no one. They are traitors to their own raison d’etre. Where is the scrutiny?. Where would we be without the blogosphere and the genuine people who go there. Up sh1t creek is where.
I’ve resisted joining organizations all my life except those I’m obliged to for professional reasons (to be able to practice as a professional engineer, for example). Even this lofty organization is a pain as its governance ends up attracting those who go more for real hands-on governing and less for engineering itself, expanding rules and bureaucracy ever farther away from the domain of engineering.
Formalizing an organization eventually leads to a stifling degree of dogmatism. They even learn how to herd cats. Individualists (non-team players!) ultimately tend to get marginalized, no matter what contributions they are making.
Frankly, Pointman scared me a bit – it was too EU for me. If it were to be headed up by Anthony Watts, I would go along, but the first sign of a mission statement with PC doggerel would do it for me.
Politics is politics, its tools are different and inherently corrupted by its very tools. Politics and science don’t mix as the science will always lose. That is what has happened to the CAGW bunch. Join them in character, politics, and condemn the science, prove to everyone that science is not what matters, politics is what matters, and how skillful and well funded your gang is… Big Mistake.
Your first job will be to marginalize those that are not “mainstream” luke-warmers. Right? The character of your blog will immediately change, watch the drop out rate and those with the “biggest” voice dominate, not the science. Make the CAGW crowd proud.
“Cooler Heads Coalition”?
I think the word sceptic (that’s how it’s spelt where I come from) is unhelpful, it’s too easily associated with ‘naysayer’, ‘denier’ etc. It sounds like a group of grumpy old men that just like to oppose stuff for the sake of it 😐
Allen63 says: “Trying to be open-minded. First thought is “aren’t there already anti-CAGW organizations”. Or, at least, organizations producing “skeptical” point of view reports. How would this new organization be different? What would it add?”
Allen, to the question what would it add, my own experience as Chairman of the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, is that for policy makers, the relevance of an organisation is largely the number of people it has.
In Scotland, I think if we had got to around 100 members, then even though the political establishment and media were actively hostile, then doors would have been opened. It’s a simple as that. The equivalent in the US might be 1000.
The second key issue is money. As SCEF chairman I was working for free and as such I felt I should not also pay to run the organisation. In retrospect, that was a mistake as lack of money was the biggest barrier I faced. Realistically, if one is to lobby in person, attend meetings, go to see people about issues and generally “keep active”, the cost from where I am (40miles to government) was probably around £5000 in travel and paying for meals, etc.
I would guess, in the US, the costs are far higher. I would not be surprised if the running costs of a one-person lobby organisation were $20,000 – $50,000. For a $25 membership fee, that would consume the membership fees of 800-2000 members leaving no money to do anything else.
This is why I think it is unrealistic to think in terms of a lobbying organisation. Instead, an organisation speaking up for the right of skeptics to exercise their right to free speech without being attacked – particularly by establishment figures, is a more manageable and achievable objective.
In other words and organisation asserting the rights of skeptics to be treated fairly and with respect like any other civic group would be a very laudable achievable and worthwhile end.
Anthony somehow I missed seeing the original poll post. I think it is a great idea – the sooner the better. It is important that any such organization is clearly recognized as having no political agenda or funding from economic entities with an interest in the outcome of climate science so that all discussions reports publications etc are based simply on the data and the science.
How about calling it the “Oganization of Skeptical Scientists.” The OSS.
There are folk here asking how it would differ from GWPF – the Global Warming Policy Foundation is directed towards policy only – not the science. Their advisory panel includes people who “agree with the standard climate science” and are tasked with policy recommendations.
What will this group do? Protest against misrepresentation and name-calling as “deniers”? Argue for Free Speech?
Better still, request research into pre-1950 warming episodes – why did they occur?
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have voted “Yes” here. If it were simply a case of us being able to disseminate cool-headed, more accurate interpretations of the latest climate news, I might have.
But, as other similarly untrusting voices have pointed out above, it’s not. It’s a dirty political fight, in which the voice of reason is routinely slagged off, howled down or (usually) simply ignored by the essentially monolithic block of big money power which is using its pseudoscience and its control of the media to bedazzle the public into supporting and voting for its own enslavement.
If we organise and become even moderately effective, then the organisation will be compromised and discredited, until there is once more nothing to impede the greed of the big money addicts. No, I think this is a job for the “crowd of peasants with torches”, so “They” never know where to look next while “We” chat informally with ordinary people and spread the truth. As Big Youth once sang, “You are a big tree … I got a small axe”. Between us, we’ve got a lot of small axes.
and for those with lots of vigour.
Skeptical Assault Scientists – SAS.
Pointman, as always, persuasively presents his case…but what I don’t see is any appreciation that “science” (not “politicized junk-science”) IS prevailing (IMHO inexorably albeit not nearly fast enough for, perhaps, most).
If credentialed “climate science” practitioners are to survive with credibility intact (a necessity, IMHO, for future viability), that impetus must emanate from a re-affirmation and re-commitment to traditional scientific methodologies…politics be damned…as they WILL be.
Dance with the girl what brung you. 2016 may change EVERYTHING.
“I’ve closed the poll with a count of 2701 votes. While there was a clearly decisive result,…”
Not if you measure the poll’s decisiveness by its entropy (i.e. its implicit uncertainty) I’m afraid. There was clearly a majority in favour of the proposal, but the poll’s decisiveness was just 11.50%, which is less than half-way towards unanimity. This means that the voting group was far more uncertain (88.50%) than certain (11.50%) that it was in favour of the proposal.
So contrary to its superficial appearance of a decisive vote in favour of the proposed organization, this result provides only weak scientific evidence of popular support for it in fact.
I have some experience in politics and lobbying, and I think it is a good idea to get organized. The only official entity, the NIPCC, is unfortunately and unfairly tainted by its connection to the Heartland Institute. It is therefore too easy for the CAGW community to dismiss the group as right wing radical so that those on the fence are un-swayed. Nevertheless, I think a group of skeptics could be a very effective political tool if it can be organized in a way that eliminates and prevents the connections that are too easily mocked and dismissed.
And it must stay as far above reproach as possible. It should not be a blog. Keep it civil, keep it focused on facts, keep the extremism out of the official discourse, go where the data leads. Find a board or steering committee made up primarily of credentialed physical scientists. Consider a primary mission of education and clearinghouse, as opposed to fact-checking or debunking “main stream” science and discourse. There is no way to win that debate. Such a group would be better served to simply ignore the noise of mainstream debate and focus instead on simply trying to gather, understand, and disseminate the best of the available science – on ALL SIDES.
Further, it needs a good name. Science, we all know, is driven by skepticism. But somehow skepticism has become a bad word. So, avoid the word. Just call it “Good Science.org” or something equally simple, non-confrontational, and generic. It should be non-partisan. It should not seek to grab the spotlight, but rather build a reputation as fair and honest over time. Direct, aggressive lobbying is only temporarily effective and the most aggressive groups run out of steam, and especially credibility very quickly.
Properly organized and led, it could be effective and useful. Zealots and wackos within the skeptic community, and there are many, should not have a seat at the table.
I’m with Anthony on this. There needs to be an effective skeptical organization that acts as an exchange between the various skeptical groups and also as an additional and powerful voice. Let’s do it.
Count me as a yes vote. In my mind the leaders begind the CAGW/Climate Change agenda are 100% political which is why the IPCC is an “intergovernmental” panel. The goal is to use propaganda disguised as science to get power. We must unite politically to stop a political agenda.
I agree.
I grow weary of special interests becoming eternal activists. Never adjusting dogma to evolve to new facts on the ground. Organizations pool money and power. Money and power corrupts the hearts of those involved when the end justifies the means.
It seems to be the condition of Man. We have struggled since the dawn of mankind. GK
If, as many did on the poll post and now did on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is phrased and expressed in military terminology, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now did on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is advocated for the purpose of any political objectives, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is described as an ‘anti-ideology’ campaign, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is envisioned as a ‘communicate skepticism’ mission, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is to be formed to publically demarcate what is science and what is pseudo-science, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is tasked to promote publically a ‘position’ on science, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is envisioned as any kind of ‘union’, then I cannot participate.
CONCLUSION: I have maintained and still do that this climate science dialog is best served by simple individual applied reasoning in the circumstances each individual finds themselves in.
NOTE: I voted no on the poll.
ON THE OTHER HAND: I would strongly participate in and provide a large amount of my time, resources and energy to support the formation of an Academe to further critical applied reasoning to the study of the Earth-Atmosphere System; which would be strictly a Philosophy of Science purposed collaboration.
John
I didn’t get in on the poll, but a climate realist organization is desperately needed. For the person who asked why GWPF doesn’t already provide what’s needed, I quote from their website what they say they are:
“◾The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.
◾On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism.
◾Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.”
It is essential to state and keep repeating the many reasons it is clear that under mild scrutiny (no phd. required) the claims of catastrophic human-caused climate change are utterly and transparently unfounded based on science and common sense. This must be done in common-sense terms ordinary people can understand, and repeated over and over where ordinary people will hear it. An organization is required and I would join it and donate to it. The economic consequences of the green assault are massive and un-survivable if not stopped.
I voted not sure, because I expect I’d often disagree whenever scientific arguments become less precise. I’d be looking for an organization mobilizing quality processes in science, a bit like TQMI perhaps, meeting a concern that such get diluted as the scientific community steadily grows, working with social theory of knowledge.
Sorry, but science will not be sufficient.
OK everyone – it’s time to stop telling Anthony to “Go do it” or similar. This is up to US to do together. Having said that:
Anthony, what do you need/want to get this moving? I don’t want to spell out my qualifications in a public forum, but I can offer a lot to this and am ready to jump in to get this moving.
Tom
@David Ball says: “As a person skeptical of the so-called “greenhouse effect”, I will be left to the wayside by such a group anyway.”
As you may be aware, to go against the prevailing “consensus” or “paradigm” will certainly get you into trouble with the Church of Scientism. Periodically I ask why there has never been a real-world experiment that would prove that “greenhouse” gases do what they are said to do, but I am usually just told that there is no need for any such experiment or that I should read “first year physics”.
To answer your question; no your kind would not be welcome and you know it.
I think what Chris is describing is something like a new professional Society or Association of scientists. Perhaps it could be called the Association of Earth Sciences, or something, aimed at restoring balance to the CAGW tilt evinced by the existing science associations, and encompassing scientists from a wide variety of disciplines. This is certainly a laudable goal, and I think we’d all love to see such an organization founded.
The ‘Terra Home’ organization a few of us discussed back in 2009 would be a different animal, a general-public membership organization set up like the Sierra Club, or maybe the National Space Society, with the broad goal of encouraging the Progress of Man, especially the rational exploitation of resources to bring the benefits of civilization to all the peoples of the Earth, while maintaining careful stewardship of the planet. See my comments above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comment-1621368
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comment-1621397
There is no reason not to work toward the creation of both such organizations.
/Mr Lynn
1 Money?
2. Money!
3. Money……and fundraising.
4. and the ability to swing elections, which takes money.
5. Did I mention money?
6. It helps to be a religion, but do’t forget to pass the collection plate.
7. Useful idiot fellow travelers are also nice to have. The collect adulation (and provide money, or endorsements to raise same).
SO, even though many love the idea, it boils down to money.
I belong to several very narrow organizations. They tend to the moribund, generally supporting a cause, until there is a specific threat, in a case that appears winnable. Then the floodgates, or trickle valve, can be opened and the group becomes efective. Otherwise, its a newsletter and one overworked, underapid lobbyist. Seaplane Pilots organization is a good example.
What are you going to be “for”, that will focus on events to galvinize people to give money? Dead birds are motivators: birds flying in the sky are a nice nirmal state of affairs. “Acid Seas” is a headline grabber, while any high school science teacher will tell you that teaching ph & fluid solutions can put folks to sleep. Charges makes headlines; mea culpas appear on page 4, under the obits.
Specific, affirmative foci work: Your surface stations project is a great example. Photos of badlt sited thermometers were sufficient to motivate specific action to fix same.
But the audience here doesn’t have to stomach, I fear, to base a campaign on utube videos of birds being cusinarted by windmills, or of freezing Brit kids while the north sea windmills rot, or of African villages burning dung to cook while the coal trains don’t run. I don’t either.
I don’t generally have the energy of the haters to personalize and ridicule them.
To rally round the flag, we need a flag that stands for something to rally round. And, realistically, as we haven’t framed the argument, we won’t win being for the things the warming-na**s are against. We would be excoriated for that name even though ‘denier’ seems OK. “Go BIG OIL” doesn’t cut it.
Neither does Rah Rah common sense.
No matter how many PhD folks we pile up, if we can be portrated as screaming “don’t save the planet!” and money we raise (remember the money?) goes odwn a rat hole.
So I put it to you again: in ten words or less. What are we for?
You are probably aware of Friends of Science based out of Calgary, Alberta.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
They do an admirable job considering their small budget. Several learned members post here.
It’s been an uphill battle for FoS. The exec may have some insights about operations etc.
Think of it, outfits like the David Suzuki Foundation get millions in funding. Why not a unified voice of reason?
WARNING regarding funding. Eco foundations get mega bucks from BIG business interests. But the moment $5 comes from the “resource sector” the opposition will scream shills for “BIG OIL.” Just a thought.
Clive
There are just simply too many polarised people on either side who’ve spent years doing nothing more than venting spleen at each other. It’s become a social activity, a recreational pastime, a macho ego trip, a catharsis for a lot of tangential frustrations. Log in quickly, hurl an insult or two and surf onto the next brawl. Underneath the most combative blogs, out of hundreds of comments, barely a single digit percentage of the comments even reference the original blog topic, whatever it was.
Yes, the key here is: “It’s become a social activity” … which I would only disagree with to the extent that it was always a social activity.
Skeptics are a very social community. Indeed, referring to the recent paper analysing the skeptic blogosphere, I can compare skeptics to a similar activity on political blogs I carreid out in Scotland. Whereas I think all skeptic blogs list a host of other blogs both for an against their position I was quite horrified to find that almost no political blogs in Scotland had any links to other blogs.
Skeptics are almost all highly articulate (if a bit erratic in spelling), and very good at putting their case. As such skeptics are quite capable of lobbying for themselves and don’t need an organisation to support them.
Indeed with Kyoto dead, the UK government now against onshore wind and public opinion turning to the hostile against wind, I’m not sure there is that much more we could achieve by more lobbying!
However, where skeptics have problems is that they are up against the hugely powerful establishment, large institutions like Universities, powerful & rich lobby groups like the greenspins. As individuals, skeptics have been constantly attacked by these large groups often in the most vile way with references like “tattooing them” or concentration camps or even extermination.
As individuals skeptics have been unable to defend themselves against these powerful groups and this has created a culture amongst the establishment permitting us to be denigrated, ignored and ostracised – not because our views were not entirely valid – because our views were never even considered, but because it was deemed legitimate given the culture of attacking skeptics to refuse to listen.
If Anthony’s organisation could achieve one thing it is this: next time I have a legitimate constituency issue and I go to see my elected representative, I would like them to see me as a person and not some vile “greenspin parody” of a hate figure who had no rights.
I don’t need them to agree with me … I just want them to treat me as a person … and then they will listen and then, given the facts are entirely on our side, they will agree.
Organize. The opposition is organized. It is not a matter of debate, but of politics and propaganda and that means that you have to organize if you wish to effect results. Spleen venting effects no cures and the POTUS is pushing a load of **** on the gullible public, utilizing all of the power of his office. The only efective resistance is through organization.
Stay with the empirical evidence, don’t go near any controversial theories. Leave that for the warmists so they can be shot down.
Have a core set of beliefs which ideally should be lukewarm.
Avoid a political stance, particularly that of the right.
Be open with funding and avoid big oil, coal etc.
Sympathise with moderate environmentalists, but go after the nutjobs.
Hound the opposition at every opportunity, but above all use science.
No time to read the comments. I read a book decades ago, written humorously, about the nature of organizations. If I weren’t out of town I’d provide the title, author, and quotes. But the gist was, organizations never end up doing what they were originally intended to do. They always take on a life of their own and evolve into marvelous machines of unpredictable function. They tend to become dogmatic, nepotistic, intolerant, and so on. Moreover there exist already a number of organizations which are competently taking on the task of debunking junk climatology, so far at least (in spite of said book). All we could do is add to the list.
How does one fight dangerous dogma and name calling? Primarily with facts. Secondarily with facts. Third, facts. Counter dogma and name calling are low on the list. Get educated and educate. Most believers have never heard of M&M. Those who have heard of S&B accept dogmatic assertions that their science was flawed. Most have heard of Lord Monckton, and for that reason he is demonized like no other. He’s out there doing the job that needs to be done and it behooves us to expose his detractors for the dupes they are.
WUWT is the most eclectic and widely read climate blog out here, and it’s doing a darn good job too without being evangelical, but many of us can’t keep up with it, and it’s only one of many. And it does a good job of keeping us apprised of what’s going on in the more specialized blogs. Lobbyists are supposed to be evangelical as far as their special interests are concerned. Professors are not. So what is the difference between an evangelist and an educator? The educator never hides the truth, is never afraid to explore new perspectives, is willing to present “inconvenient” facts, is beholden to none except those who write his paycheck, is beholden to no dogma and must adhere to no organizational stance.
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists did more than any other group or person to keep back good science (Continental Drift). Microsoft has done more than any outfit to keep back good computer operation (I’m writing this on Windows 8 as the cursor dances around the screen without my asking). If you want to become part of the problem, get organized and evangelical. Rather, get educated and keep educating. –AGF
While the issue is political the battle is being fought on the scientific front. We don’t need another political organization. We need one to counter the propaganda continually published by the alarmists. We need it to have a scientific face. The face to the public must be PhD skeptics like Dr. Robert Brown or Dr. John Christy or Dr. Judith Curry (etc.). The rest of the skeptics can provide support roles, funding, and pretty much anything to help. I think there are journalists out there that will print the message if it has a strong scientific foundation.
Snappy acronym required I think. The following came to mind.
I.S.I.S (International Society for Independent Science)
A.S.I.S (Associated Society for Independent Science)
Not merely as a platform to fight the ‘Greens’ and their paymasters but ideally to provide crowdsourcing and an umbrella organisation for future independent research.
Scottsh Skeptic makes a lot of sense @ 6:51 am above. Really, there are a lot of excellent comments here.
+++++++++++++++++++
John The Cube says:
How did envirofacism become so strong: organizations like Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, et al.
When the Berlin Wall came down, the KGB did not disband. It became the FSB. It had already infiltrated the large enviro groups, and now it has firm control. Leaders who put the environment as their top priority are gone. Now politics is #1.
Don’t listen to their words. Look at their actions: everything they do, and everything they propose, is directed toward their goal of hobbling America and the West.
====================
I think we have to fight fire with fire. Any new organization must begin with a ‘preemptive’ press release acknowledging that the backers of the carbon scare [my words] will instantly try to frame it as a “far right wing” anti-science organization, and demonize it per Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals. So as a lawyer would do in opening arguments, explain what the opposition is planning.
Any such organization needs several top tier climatologists on its board, like Prof R. Lindzen, and others, such as Prof Freeman Dyson and Dr. Judith Curry. This is where the rubber meets the road. They will all be personally demonized. But that is what we’re dealing with. Point it out at the beginning, and when they do it, say, “We told you they would do that.”
David Ball says:
As a person skeptical of the so-called “greenhouse effect”, I will be left to the wayside by such a group anyway. Or will there be provision for those of us who do not “fit in”?
Good point. And what if folks like Steve Mosher or Doug Cotton get on the board? The answer has to be a solid hypothesis as a mission statement. John Who suggests the Oregon Petition:
Let them try to falsify that.
We’re talking about forming an organization for political purposes. I need to know a lot more details before I’m signing up. What are we going to be doing, what’s our agenda? What are our tactics? Our goals? Our leadership?
I’m game to discuss further, but without details it’s hard to know what the heck we’re really talking about.
The problem with climate science is politicization. Sounder forms of politicization is not the answer. Einstein said in response the the Nazi “Consensus” against Jewish Science (i.e., relativity) that it only takes one scientist to prove somebody wrong. I would rather skeptics remain as independent sound thinkers. Besides there already are formal organizations for issuing statements not that anybody in media listens to anyway.
What we really need is well-organized gloating process once the warmist fantasy crashes and burns for good. A Guy Fawkes type holiday where we burn Hansen, Gore or Mann in effigy, perhaps? The problem with professional gloom forecasters is that they can count on amnesia and keep right on with the next excuse to constrict liberty and hate mankind. How else could a spectacularly wrong, utter buffoon like John Holdgren wind up as a White House science advisor?
So I think the emphasis should not be countering that which will die of its own stupid accord but to make sure that there is permanent public embarrassment attached to public advocacy of this crap. Given the damage these clowns did to science and what they wanted to do to the world political and economic order and the viciousness they directed at those who disagreed there needs to be a scarlet letter applied and a annual celebration of science freed from PC.
Let us, together, promote scientific truth, critical thinking and rational discussion about a politician generated fraud on the people of the world. Politicians in the US and EU hugely support only the CAGW view because it increases their power and fills their purses. Lets vote the rascals out everywhere.
There is truth to #Pointman’s statement on need for a central organization that lends weight to an argument, or at least shows that there is some relatively large number of people who adhere to its’ basic tenets. This extends to all the social alternate media sites.
I have noticed that on #Twitter, especially, many of the more well known ‘names’ will not follow the public which supports their positions. Whatever the reasons for this behavior are, it limits the spread of the message that it’s good for science to allow dissent, and that there are legitimate reasons to doubt #Consensus.
Scottish Sceptic says:
I think he meant social hobby.
What we need to do is take back the organizations that should have been skeptical from the get go: NASA, NOAA, APS, USGS, etc. etc.
For me, nutrition is a historical point of reference. The fear mongering about animal fat, with no scientific basis, started in the 1950s. Congress put its stamp of approval on that Lipid Hypothesis in the 1970s. There might have been a few skeptical protests, but these were quickly silenced. With three million ministers in the public school system, nutrition “scientists” in academics and government, “scientific” organizations like Diabetes and Heart, along with major media backing the Hypothesis, “healthy whole grain” and “unhealthy animal fat” became part of the popular lexicon. Anti-science would actually be a polite term in describing the USDA’s removal of the word “fat” from its recommended diet for the American people (see MyPlate).
The Human Carbon Dioxide Hypothesis (or whatever) uses the same ministers, scientific organizations and media for another round of fear mongering.
I do not know what to think of a skeptic organization taking on the responsibilities of the National Academy of Sciences. It might be best to stick with the present collection of web sites.
Government sponsored religions are tough to fight.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 25, 2014 at 7:08 am
I’m with Anthony on this. There needs to be an effective skeptical organization that acts as an exchange between the various skeptical groups and also as an additional and powerful voice. Let’s do it.
————————————————————
I could care less if people want to organize themselves but, skeptics have been effective without organization. Skeptics have a powerful voice without an organization. Their power and strength comes from science, not head count. The only purpose of an organization is political, as it is a political entity.
@David Ball
Rather than being “left out”, would a position that states something along the lines of:…
“the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere slows the escape of heat to space, without which our world at night would be as cold as the dark side of the moon. But empirical measurements used to calculate estimates of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases have demonstrated that additional GHG’s added to our atmosphere have a measurable, but generally small effect, and that effect is approaching maximum due to nearing saturation”.
…serve your interest?
when this happens you know something is changing,
German tv mocking green energy.
Organize, then disband. Most good ideas live on well past their usefulness. Noble statesmen lose all nobility the longer they stay in office. Movements keep moving way past their original purpose and become corrupt.
There are many good reasons to organize. Most of the ‘nay’ votes seem to be centered around the idea that time destroys all good organizations. The solution is to set a self-destruct for the organization. Specific goals, once achieved, will trigger the self destruct, and any new goals will require a reorganization with a different title and organizers. Or simply set a time limit: ‘The organization will disband on June 1st, 2024’, although that would give our enemies a helping hand in their strategies.
Will those in the organization that have gained power and achieved success be able to walk away? It seems to be a very difficult thing for people to do. Still, too much damage will be done to society by the warmists without an organized opposition. That is all ready happening.
So we should organize and set a goal of disbanding when success is achieved. That goal of disbanding may not happen, but it is a risk that is well worth taking.
Scottish Sceptic, in answer to my post (above), provides some “fact based” reasoning as to the potential benefits of a “climate skeptic organization”. Moreover, the answer provides some concrete “dollars and cents” considerations.
That’s the kind of discussion I was suggesting was needed regarding the utility of a “climate skeptic organization”. Not vague, not platitudes, not ideology. Rather, facts, figures, and logically valid/sound reasoning — along with a “straw man” yet concrete plan of organization and “attack”. Then, follow that with more concrete/logically sound debate comments similar to that of Scottish Sceptic. See where it leads.
If it’s going to happen, here is the place to start. Where do I sign up?
It is very hard to fight the Hockey Team, when they admit to exaggeration and justify it….
http://www.naturalnews.com/044856_global_warming_dishonest_science_climate_myths.html
We skeptics seem to have the momentum, based upon public opinion polls….I voted “no” and believe that organizing is not needed. CAGW grows less convincing the more shrill the other side gets….
One of the most quoted axioms from “The Art of War” is some variant on the theme: “When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, stay out of his way.”
I think it’s a terrible idea. First comes the organization, then comes the dogma, then comes the tribalism. “If you’re not 100% with us, you’re against us” type of nonsense.
Only need to look at the current Republican party (over the past 20 years) for how that can ruin a movement of people.
It’s better to kill the beast with 1,000,000 small paper cuts than one blunt mallet that is susceptible to fracturing.
The book I alluded to earlier: “Systemantics,” by John Gall. –AGF
The issue is that this is a political issue. The issue is not so much a debate about a scientific hypothesis or a series of them. The debate is about what measures are to be taken. When things are at that point, because what is at issue is political action, those who advocate policies have to act politically.
The sceptics differ greatly in their views of the science. But I suspect there is much more unity on what they think policy ought to be.
If you want to influence policy, get organised in a political grouping. So I would vote yes. You do need to keep this separate from the scientific debae, but it needs doing too.
@ Joe Public says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:47 am
Being divided, increases susceptibility to being conquered.
—————————————————–
“Decentralized” does not equal “divided”. Otoh, “centralized” is ripe for infiltration and co-option (as others in this thread have noted).
Same for Pointman’s “There’s nicer ways of saying it but if want [sic] to be a force to be reckoned with, you have to get all ganged up.” Being “all ganged up” is why the US won in Vietnam and the Brits put down the American Revolution, and not being properly ganged up is why Gandhi lost India’s bid for independence, yes?
Getting “all ganged up” certainly looks attractive, but the “reasons” for doing so look more like rationalizations from where I sit.
But, by all means, go ahead and organize. By giving the alarmists a clear and obvious target, you can prolong this climate-policy conflict indefinitely! Honestly, what would you do with your time if they threw in the towel?
The thing that bothers me enormously is that less than 3,000 votes were cast. What a small group we seem to be.
I will continue to work to correct the bad science that labels carbon dioxide as a pollutant and claims it is a powerful greenhouse gas that is causing run-away global warming, and if an organization is formed I will join its efforts.
But, I fear such a small group will not have much impact.
“But empirical measurements used to calculate estimates of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases have demonstrated that additional GHG’s added to our atmosphere have a measurable, but generally small effect, and that effect is approaching maximum due to nearing saturation”.
that would be something if you could actually show that conclusively.
The biggest danger to setting out a skeptical “position” on the science is that you actually have to
do science.
and then you have to police folks who say crazy stuff.
A friend of mine once said: “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.”
All the comments on this topic, no matter what side they take, are worthy of due consideration. To add to what others have noted:
I trust Anthony Watts. His passion for truth and fairness in the cause of science and understanding is unmatched. I share, like many here, his wonder at all the fine layers of reality and marvel at their workings and construction.
I don’t think any entity of the type we are considering here means the end of WUWT. Nor is it the end of science. But don’t kid yourselves; science and truth are under attack from many quarters: a lazy media; a “scientific elite” whose prime interest is perks, grants and favors — not science; a political cabal interested in money, control and power, not necessarily in that order.
I observe (my opinion) that many on the Left will accept anything and/or anyone and/or any dogma that promotes in some way their views.
The difficulty that those on the other side of the political aisle have is… they have principles. Some adhere so tightly to those that they have difficulty associating with would-be allies over minor differences.
However, some things ARE black and white:
The country — the world — is spending billions or trillions it doesn’t have to fight a problem (“a trace gas will destroy the planet”) that doesn’t exist.
Taxes are going up as result. Living standards are going down.
In our increasingly-dependent world on electrical power, we are at the point of reducing the availability and dependability of that resource.
I see no harm in an organization of respected individuals from a broad spectrum of backgrounds [ that leaves most of us out. 🙂 ] making the case for science and sensibility to a brain-washed; dumbed-down; don’t care; in-it-for-me; the-people-be-damned factions.
People deserve the truth. That’s why we come here, in a search for that. If we seek it so earnestly; why then would we shy from promoting that which we value so highly?
Oh, it’ll be a bumpy ride alright. Buckle up!
Anthony, I must repeat what I wrote on the poll’s thread comments:
The side of the skeptics is all about independent thinking.
With all due respect, I find myself NOT agreeing with many things written here (well, not many, but for argument’s sake…). So, do I bow my independent view to the “representatives” of skepticism? I don’t think so.
This blog is the best argument against “settling down” to becoming some sort of political organization. What next? WUWT will be the opposing view’s 350.com?
And as for McKibben: his success has nothing to do with being powerful due to politics. It is rather due to him preaching to the choire. I do remind you the people in office now in the States are another form of that McKibbism.
Just look at Australia – I do not see Jo Nova going political there or establishing organization. Do you? And yet the tide has turned there decisively (with amazing outcome!).
Some time the sheer power of reason is enough.
I believe this is one of these times.
A couple of things: once you organize, you become a lobby, a “consensus” lobby. And you have to have set positions. As I understand climate skepticism, there is no set position, other than that the science is inconclusive and shouldn’t be used as a basis for policy at this time.
That said, there are lobbying organizations in Washington doing this work, although most are not exclusively devoted to climate alone. There is Heartland and AEI, just to name two. And then, there is the mythical “Big Oil.” (Didja get your check yet, Anthony?”) Seriously, there are energy affiliated groups who are trying to get the truth out because they understand that alternatives are ridiculously expensive and most likely unnecessary. There are a lot of people in Washington trying to do the right thing on climate, which at the moment, could best be characterized as “less is more.”
While it may be that these groups are not as noisy and as interesting to mainstream media as Big Green, they are working.
So while I might even join a lobbying anti-Big Green group, the situation is not as dire as it may seem and the polls reveal that. People do not rank global warming or climate change as very important in the list of issues that are problematic for Americans specifically and mankind in general.
Skepticism is not wholly compatible with activism. It’s the job of the activist to “Show Me” the truth about climate and it’s the job of the skeptic to apply reasoning, analysis, and common sense to the activist version of that truth. We do not have a carbon tax because of skepticism. Carbon trading schemes are a joke because of skepticism. So the informal, disorganized lobby is working. Okay, it’s not working with the Keystone Pipeline, but left-wing reactionaries are in control of the White House at the moment and that’s a problem that can’t be overcome. The public favors it overwhelmingly.
A formal lobby runs the risk of taking positions that may not be viable in the future. I know that’s never stopped the activist lobbies, but again, we are dealing with a different mindset.
In short, I’m skeptical of any activist organization, pro or con.
To continue my previous post, I’ve been looking for the proper road to take. It could be Knowledge Management, plausibly fit as curator for – at least in principle it does include – Verification, for organisations of all kinds, and individuals. I know it can be nebulous, often not ‘present’ really. At least, here is part of a kind of manifest acknowledging it hasn’t lived up to what it could have been, but still could become, from: Easterby-Smith, M, M Crossan, and D Nicolini, 2000. Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future. The Journal of Management Studies 38(6): 783-796.:
” … the time is ripe to start addressing learning and knowing in the light of inherent conflicts between shareholders’ goals, economic pressure, institutionalized professional interest and political agendas.”
I voted against, because I think such an organization would be ineffective. However, I would support such an organization if it existed.
Yes, but it needs to be led by people with science “cred,” not politicians or marketers or media spin meisters.
If you’ve ever read the “about me” at my place, you’d know why I blog. There’s a little bugger of a thorn that burrows deep into your soul and you’ll never quite wiggle out.
Anthony teed up a ball and I happened to be the one who obligingly hit it hard, but speaking as a badly lapsed Catholic, God has no other hands but ours, as a commenter reminded me.
Sure, we’ve problems putting it together but none that we can’t overcome. Like Anthony, I’ve thought about this thing for a few years and now I suppose must put them down. I’ll get summat out for next weekend.
In the meantime, I’m sure we can discuss something more substantial than what it’s to be called.
Pointman
What I think would be helpful is a clear statement that we all can agree about, like the fact that the definitive conclusions being made are not supported by any definitive science. We need a policy statement so that our position is not misunderstood.
In my many years of commenting on newspaper articles and blogs I’ve found that CAGW believers assume- 1. I don’t believe the climate changes. 2. I don’t think CO2 is a greenhouse gas (or understand how that works) 3. I have been brainwashed by Fox or oil propaganda and am unable to think for myself or understand basic science. 4. I don’t care about the environment. 5. I believe in conspiracies. 6.I must be dishonest to deny the “truth”.
I spend so much time correcting these basic misunderstandings that it ends up taking too much of my time. Clearing these points up so people in the mainstream understand where we are coming from will free time up to address the specific falsehoods and distortions being made by the media.
The majority of the population is either incapable of or unwilling to think for themselves. That is why the 97% consensus meme is so effective at making people conform to the ideology. Very few of these people have any understanding of climate science. When I share facts with people at social gatherings who have swallowed the kool aid they have looks of disbelief. They can’t believe that their worldview shaped by the media could be so wrong.
A credible skeptics organization with impeccable credentials (no ties to oil) would be helpful if it could gain a legitimate voice in the mainstream media.
All human institutions end up being corrupted by money and power issues. How can that be prevented?
richard says:
April 25, 2014 at 8:12 am
“when this happens you know something is changing,
German tv mocking green energy.”
As that is from our state media, it only indicates that the regime tests the usefulness of further CO2AGW scare tactics. Or maybe they allow a little satire right before the EU parliament election to maintain the illusion that there is freedom of opinion or a working media in Germany.
The state media are as controlled now as they were in the DDR.
I missed that poll and did not vote. i would say most definitely yes. I worked for a cabinet Minister some years back, a very competent and well respected public servant. Anytime someone would come to him with a serious and actionable concern, he’d ask them to put it in writing and send in a letter. my point being that one well presented argument in writing holds much much more weight than a bunch of people griping on blogs, not to denigrate blogs, but you get what I mean. Formal organisations hold much more weight than a bunch of loosely affiliated individuals. I say go for it. Organize. I will most definitley be willing to do anything I can to help.
Bill Sticker says:
April 25, 2014 at 7:50 am
“Snappy acronym required I think. The following came to mind.
I.S.I.S (International Society for Independent Science)”
I would discourage the ISIS idea as the name is likely to get you an appearance in front of a FISA court, given the general competency of the state.
Different goals. If you want to achieve a political outcome, you better get organised. If you want to get some knowledge on the inner workings of the climate system, you better stay away of organizations.
jaffa says:
April 25, 2014 at 6:45 am
“I think the word sceptic (that’s how it’s spelt where I come from) is unhelpful, it’s too easily associated with ‘naysayer’, ‘denier’ etc. It sounds like a group of grumpy old men that just like to oppose stuff for the sake of it :-|”
Worse; it is already taken by Randi’s promoters of consensus science. And by Dana’s Panzer command.
Anthony, your poll question did not ask whether YOU should form such an organization. Right now, you play a essential role and I’d be extra careful about doing anything that might interfere with your current function.
The CAGW consensus/religion is disintegrating already. Sure, maybe one of the currently existing organizations should expand their role or spin off something different. You might want to be involved, but founding such an organization might not be your best role.
Here’s my two cents:
While we may have varying opinions on a number of topics, I think there is one thing we all have in common and that is we are appalled with what passes as science these days. I think that should be the main focus of the organization. Maybe call it Bring Back Science or The Scientific Method. And rather than be political, I think it should be apolitical, but with a goal of eliminating policies based on bad science.
Perhaps there could be a rating system where papers and scientists are judged\rated on a number of criteria such as:
– Use of empirical data
– Openness of data and programs
– Past predictive value of a scientists work
– Precision of data and results
– Manipulation\adjustment of data and whether there is documentation and reasoning for doing so
– Cherry picking
– Use of weasel words: may, could, etc.
– Time scale of forecasts made
– Make open offers to scientists to visit the site and discuss there work in a moderated forum
– etc.
For me personally, I used to believe in global warming, but the more I researched it the more I was convinced that the science (proof) wasn’t there. It may be someday, but I believe that day is far away. What bother me most is how pseudo science is being used by politicians to force their ideological beliefs.
Lastly, I do not think the site should be limited to Climate science. I think the aim should be to discredit all forms of bad science, with a goal to restore the integrity that science once had.
Is it too late to join the poll ……… I was unaware of it … Please count me in for a YES. It’s high time that we do something to combat the fraudulent claims that are being made from right and left, by some who are definitely mentally deficient.
John Coleman says:
April 25, 2014 at 8:28 am
…But, I fear such a small group will not have much impact.
Absolutely right but even with 3M members the impact wouldn’t be enough to address the true cause of the problem. The UN is the true cause of the problem.
Fix the UN’s publisher’s clearing house approach to science with proper standards and practices and, IMO, the real issue is resolved.
In the interest of brevity- and because I realize it won’t do any good anyway, just a short comment where an entire book is required:
Pointman says: “There’s simply no other way to get an issue onto the political agenda, and if you happen to think global warming isn’t a political thing, you pop that blue pill brother and dream on.”
Now, what if your premise is NOT expanding the political agenda but reducing it? His notion is the equivalent of adding more leeches to cure anemia. I say ‘stop feeding the beast’.
He does not get it at all that ‘group identity’ and ‘flocking’ are antithetical the critical thinking which is done by individuals, only individuals and nothing but individuals.
Any collectivist, aware of his hidden premises or not, will naturally cry for more of what causes the disease of socialism and proclaim it as the solution- only this next time it will require a lot more blood and treasure – yours, of course, because the only reason gangsterism didn’t work out so well is because there wasn’t enough of it!
Being as how voting and paying taxes has always worked out so well in the past…. wait- that’s exactly how you got here- by many steps down this path, each time expecting a different outcome… ok- let’s try it again- it’ll be different this time- we just need a gang of our own so we have an authority to appeal to, so we can submerge reason in a sea of popularity polls, so we can find consensus…. wait.. didn’t Teh Team already do that? By god, we have to wave we-we too! If we aren’t just like them only more so- why, we can’t win at their game!
If you want to play that game, fine. The game is rigged. It’s only the individual who gets it – the players are gambling addicts with a problem that won’t be cured until they’re broke. That time is coming. If history is any guide, failure to make sufficient sacrifice will be blamed.
Fighting and winning are entirely different. You want to fight? You will lose.
You want to win? It won’t be done by playing the game.
Stop paying for it and it stops instantly.
Hey Pointman- you really should take the purple pill. It will give you strong powerful erections and then you can go around passing out pills when you wave it.
The organization could be modeled on NumbersUSA. In about a decade it has grown to 2 million members each of whom is politically empowered by the ability to send free faxes or phone calls to politicians expressing his or her views. For speed of response, a fax has a prefabricated wording but this wording can be changed to match the view of the sender. In this way, NumbersUSA has been organized as a coalition of people with similar but not identical views. Over the years, they have built up a technology for doing this that might be bought or leased from them.
NumbersUSA maintains a Washington DC office that lobbies on Capitol Hill for favorable legislation. These days, it is virtually impossible for Congress to pass a piece of legislation on immigration policy that is contrary to the desires of NumbersUSA members. The director, Roy Beck, is the former chief Washington correspondent for a chain of midwestern newspapers. The chief lobbyist is a Harvard-trained lawyer who specializes in immigration policy.
‘Sceptics Organisation’
My feeling is that any new sceptic lobby group should concentrate on breaking the stranglehold of the green lobby rather than try to oppose the IPCC science. There is an unholy alliance between Mainstream climate science and the environmental lobby groups/NGOs. Each mutually support each other with the latter acting as cheer leaders for the IPCC scientists, both benefiting through enhanced funding. This unhealthy alliance has now spread into government departments, business and political parties with increasing financial interests becoming dependent on continuing the CAGW scare.
AR5 is honest about the science and the uncertainties in feedbacks, particularly aerosols and clouds. It is just the selective message of the SPM and associated media spin that is wrong. There is a growing recognition that natural cycles like PDO play a role and that climate sensitivity is likely lower than past predictions. It’s just that they can’t explicitly say that because they know it would undermine the CAGW juggernaut on which they and their paymasters depend. So it should be one of the jobs of any new organisation to explicitly state it instead.
Unfortunately there is a gravy train rolling that has picked up a huge momentum and heading for the buffers. It is time to apply the breaks using reason, logic and accountability.
It would be a mistake to try to found some sort of ‘alternative’ climate science organisation.
Anth0ny:
I write to support the suggestion provided by Monckton of Brenchley because I suspect a political organisation could only be self-defeating. A political sceptical organisation would set sceptics against sceptics on the basis of political biases.
At April 25, 2014 at 7:08 am Monckton of Brenchley suggests:
I, too, would welcome such an additional “exchange” and “voice” to complement the weekly summary provided by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
Also, the problem of a name for the organisation has been addressed by other organisations with similar problems. For example, early followers of Jesus Christ were mockingly called ‘Christians’, and the ‘Oxford Group’ which included John and Charles Wesley were insultingly called “Methodists”. Such insults were overcome by embracing them.
Hence, I suggest the name for the proposed organisation could be something like
Deniers of Unchanging Climate (DUC).
Richard
The name of the organization would be critical.
I would be interested in joining a group that had a broader perspective than just climate change. Somewhere that opposing views surrounding important and/or controversial subjects based on science could be discussed. Some day Climate Change will no longer be the issue of the day, but there will be another Great Cause in it’s wake that will also warrant more scrutiny.
The other thing I would do is if there was a skeptical organization is to invite the CAGW crowd to join. Make it a big tent and NO POLITICS. The global warming argument is compelling to many and hence the reason for true believers. The growth of the skeptical community was as much a result of being vilified for asking hard questions as it was for the questions themselves. Swallow your opponents whole by embracing their passionate beliefs and letting them make their case. You never know some of us might become convinced of their science. The only caveat is that they must also listen to your views.
When you plant a flag in the ground and take a fixed scientific or political position you are now a fixed target. You must then prepare for a pitched battle. If you like World War 1 battle scenarios this is what you will get with lots of casualties and little change.
You will never convince someone to change their mind through force or argument. Remember that they are as skeptical of our positions as we are of theirs and that is the common ground between the two groups.
I’m not interested in joining a group that looks like the people we are arguing with. When you do that you have become your enemy. Show me something bigger.
Enemy identification is what causes polarity, misunderstandings and entrenched positions. CAGW believers are victims of sophisticated mind control propaganda and should be treated with compassion rather than as enemies. They have no frame of reference to understand the current state of climate science and so are ignorant of the empirical facts.
mellryn says:
Being “all ganged up” is why the US won in Vietnam and the Brits put down the American Revolution, and not being properly ganged up is why Gandhi lost India’s bid for independence, yes?
I could provide many more examples than those, showing that dividing your forces costs you the war. [ex: emperor Julian.] There is strength in organization, otherwise organizations would be rare.
A simple mission statement in the form of a falsifiable, testable hypothesis that would put the ball right back in the alarmists’ court. For example:
At current and projected concentrations, atmospheric carbon dioxide is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. The earth is measurably greening as a result, and any minor warming that might result is also harmless and beneficial.
Let them try to falsify that. When they erupt into ad hominem attacks and baseless assertions, rein them back to the hypothesis. They can either falsify it, or they can’t.
The entire debate is about “carbon”. They have demonized it without credible scientific measurements, facts, or observations. Time to hold their feet to the fire using their own wild-eyed words and always wrong predictions of catastrophe. If there is no catastrophe from more CO2, then their entire argument deflates.
======================
Steven Mosher says:
that would be something if you could actually show that conclusively.
We have. Repeatedly. It’s basic science.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
BTW, I like JoNova’s suggestions for alarmists, some of which are:
• Stop making predictions that never come true
• When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen
• Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying
• Stop the hate
• Stop avoiding debate
• Answer questions
• Stop enjoying catastrophes
• Don’t use invalid arguments
• When you are wrong, admit it
• Stop falsely claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are significantly warming the globe
• Stop lying. If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong
• Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific or unethical way
• Stop blaming every event on Global Warming/Climate Change
• Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?
Some folks are arguing as if an organization would take the place of WUWT and other skeptics’ sites. But it wouldn’t. It would be an addition to what already exists.
Something that I find odd is that even with limited competition between news sources, they never seem to want to correct each other. Every other competitive enterprise jumps on the chance to show up their competition. Why don’t we see some journalists jumping on skeptic dissection of other news outlet hype? Even if they agree with the idea of CAGW you would think that the chance to show up their competition would inspire them to correct other stories?
The fact that we do not see this at all is a mystery to me. Is there some secret covenant among journalists on this issue? Thou shalt not correct thy competitor? There is natural resistance to admiting you are wrong but one would think it plays into the same human weakness to desire to point out the mistakes of your rivals.
Herein lies a huge obstacle for voicing the skeptical position. No one with a pulpit seems to criticize anyone else with a pulpit.
The book I alluded to earlier: “Systemantics,” by John Gall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics
–AGF
Reg Nelson, I think we’re aligned, and what you suggest is what KM verification could do, for a policy-maker, the target of IPCC’s SPM, apparently the competition. See social epistemology’s criteria, roughly: the scientific arguments proper, additional expertise, meta-experts and credentials, interests and biases, and track records, here: Goldman, AI, 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85-110. http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/goldman/SeminarFall2007/October%2031st/Goldman%20-%20Experts%20Which%20Ones%20Should%20You%20Trust.pdf
I agree with Mosher it’s about the science. The other side however, is probably not any skeptic, maybe not even modelling-focused debunking, it may be Holocene geology.
I voted “unsure”, but I’m open to changing my mind.
I’m also aware of alarmists who claimed “Only 5 years to save the planet” more than 10 years ago as part of their demands for immediate action: ‘No. Don’t stop and think. You must do as we say. Now.’
My point being that I may possibly join such an organization. But I’m not about to start denigrating those who don’t, those who choose not to be angry in public, those who may still achieve much behind the scenes. Politics never was simple, even before the internet.
gnomish says April 25, 2014 at 8:59 am
“Hey Pointman- you really should take the purple pill. It will give you strong powerful erections and then you can go around passing out pills when you wave it.”
QED or quod erat demonstrandum …
That’s their game, who’s up for something a lot more aspirational than obscenities scrawled on a urinal wall?
Pointman
On the other hand,
I made a bold and defiant claim back here:
And that’s great.
But the fact is, without a larger organization, when the time comes my not going quietly is going to amount to putting the government through the same difficulty you or I might have in squashing a bug, or flushing a dead mouse down the toilet.
The opposition is organized and numerous. Perhaps Ignoring their efforts and doing nothing but blogging is the same as consent.
It’ll be far too late to realize this when they come for you and I.
I personally believe nature will show how scientifically sound the cultists’ conclusions aren’t within just a few years, but it couldn’t hurt. And after the fact at least the public will see that not all scientists were pushing a political agenda and masquerading it as sound science. We need to mitigate the damage done to the reputation of science from the movement.
before starting, you’d better realize that science or political efforts on our part are going to be competing with a full bore religious cult with an already strong political wing and the leaders of this cult are cut from the same cloth as jim jones.
[snip you are long time banned here sir, you know why – Anthony]
Whenever you read or listen to MSM or many pollies its nearly always “scientists are telling us etc” or “what the science is saying is etc”. I don’t agree with an organisation but if it must have a name delete “skeptic” – too much of a target and conveys and reinforces the perception of unrepresentative ‘denier’ voices. It has to be ‘Concerned Scientists.org” or similar, that would have greater traction and counter the ‘all scientists agree’ position. Most people who post here have a scientific or engineering background.
If I might toss out some suggestions:
One of the things I would like to see such an organization focus on is the things underlying the policies that have cost us all so much real money and are hurting people. For example, the study that caused polar bears to be listed as “threatened” has been retracted and shown to be bogus. Therefore, the “threatened” designation should also be pulled and with it, the justification EPA used to regulate CO2.
In California there is an entire package of regulations designed to reduce state CO2 emissions to 1990 and is used for justification of bypassing local governance through projects such as One Bay Area. We are already at 1990 levels. The goal has been reached. Force them to justify any further projects, programs, and regulations. They have no legislative justification for them any longer. There are similar projects in other states.
Use their own “lawfare” tactics against them. Force them to PROVE in court their claims. Too often we have had this notion where projects and companies are forced into a position of trying to prove something won’t happen in the future against claims by “environmentalists” that someone has predicted that something might happen in the future. What other predictions have also been made that have caused decisions to be taken where the prediction never came to pass? It is time to start hammering them on their credibility and hollow out the foundation on which they stand. Show the court the other “predictions” that have been made and what has actually happened.
Go back into the regulations that have been imposed since, say, 1980 based on various “predictions” of “environmentalists” and start unwinding them. Once the underlying assumptions have been successfully refuted, start removing the piles of regulations built on top of them
For example, reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels is the basis of California’s project to convert 30% of power production to renewables. Since we are already there, there is no reason to add even a single additional kilowatt of “renewable” power to meet that goal. Force them to justify it. Show them how the entire emissions reduction would have absolutely NO global atmospheric impact at all. Put the onus on them to PROVE their regulations would have any impact at all and force a cost/benefit approach. Spending billions of dollars for something that has absolutely no measurable impact is called waste. Expose them.
Why not approach Big Oil ? Maybe they might be interested in supporting the skeptic side of the debate .It would be interesting to see a proposition that they could either agree to or dismiss .A small step for the skeptic community but a giant leap for man kind . I can hear the howling now :>)
I voted yes. No hesitation.
michel wrote: “The issue is that this is a political issue. The issue is not so much a debate about a scientific hypothesis or a series of them. The debate is about what measures are to be taken. When things are at that point, because what is at issue is political action, those who advocate policies have to act politically.”
Excellent point! Skeptics of many different stripes can agree that expensive measures to reduce greenhouse gases is not a good use of our resources.
I think this is essential. We should focus on goals, not specific theories, or methods, or even ideologies, except for broad general principles. And the goals should be positive. ‘Terra Home’ would look to moving human civilization forward, by the wise stewardship and use of the Earth’s (and eventually the Solar System’s) resources. The underlying principles would focus on the rights established in the US founding documents: to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to individual freedom, and private property. Skepticism and good science are essential concomitants to achieving those broad, general goals. The problem with the Climatists and their supporters in the erstwhile ‘environmental’ organizations is that they aim for goals that work to the detriment of freedom, science, progress, prosperity, and civilization. In the long run, it’s about a lot more than ‘global warming’.
/Mr Lynn
What the newly formed group would need is a prominent leader. The person that comes to mind is Freeman Dyson. Can you get him? He is both an Obama supporter AND a sceptic. Also, maybe get a couple of other top scientists and Nobel Prize winners to sign on. Then we will get noticed and not so easily marginalized.
I skipped the bulk of the comments so apologize if I’m repeating anything.
I voted “no” because I think the matter is too complex and the opinions on the science too diverse for an organization that spans large demographics and geographies to arrive at a consensus position that can be effectively promoted.
That said, I would absolutely join anyway and work to make it successful in the fervent hope that my opinion above turns out to be wrong!
FWIW, I once challenged a warmist to a debate. He was allowed to bring any materials and expertise to the table that he wished, and I would come alone, armed with nothing but a single web site for reference – WUWT. He ran away like a frightened rabbit. I’ve since thought about the value of an organization that could bring local presence to the debate and engage with local media and challenge local warmalarmists (in my geo, Suzuki and Weaver) as well as attend local events (like Michael Mann speaking at U Vic a while ago) to get local context.
I echo David M Hoffer. I voted no. But I will support it.
I am still undecided.
I remain skeptical. I don’t listen to scientific organizations. I don’t like my thinking done for me by a crowd. I think we are winning the debate. But only because of the temperature record. I can argue on those grounds. But what if the temperatures change and there is a causal link to CO2? Keynes’ comment springs to mind.
I am a lukewarmer, and I do not agree with a lot of you-all on the science. Our paper crew finds that bad microsite — unchanged over time, rating unchanged — has a profound effect on trend. But in order for microsite to affect trend in that manner, there has to be a genuine trend to affect in the first place.
I look at the record from 1950, when CO2 became an issue, and I see pretty much the final version of Arrhenius — without much (if any) net positive feedback. Two full PDO phases and ~1.1C per century warming left over. We are in a negative PDO now, but with less cooling than in there is warming in positive PDO phase. I think that CO2 is a constant thumb under the scale. A fairly small one, but ubiquitous in effect. In order to believe otherwise, you must also reject the science that claims a very large effect for the 1st 100 ppm, with a diminishing effect of a constant per doubling.
Where does that leave me in such an organization? Is there a “stance”? I echo the words from my March 2008 guest post here: Who Decides?
I do not fear the future on our current path. I think we are winning the war of attrition on all fronts. I do fear having to choose between opposing and embracing an organization which I love but makes me cringe. It would offend my independent mode of inquiry. It would shut me off from access to the other side. And I hate changing a winning strategy, especially when doing so cramps my style.
Pointman has long extolled the virtue of the partisan. Now he proposes forming logistics, donning uniforms, and creating corps like Tito’s partisans after the Invasion of Italy. It worked for Tito. It defeated Milosovic and even (sort of) kept the beastly Sovs at bay after the war. But I am not sure that there is room in such a new organization for me. I may find out that I am in the position of a Milosovic.
I am not a convert. I have been skeptical since day one in this entire debate. But now, when things are going better than they ever have, when our paper nears completion, after years of elbow grease, we want to go org.
Well, maybe. I will join. I will fight. I am a rare hand at herding cats, too. But I am one of those cats. And I don’t like to be herded. And that is not going to change. I fear the experience would be analogous to a marriage that goes bad. Fear is not always a mindkiller. It can be. But it is also a survival mechanism. Despair, however, is a mindkiller every time. And I fear coming to despair over this. I don’t want to wind up like Auchinleck. I don’t want to wind up “deserving better”.
But I’ll tell one one thing for sure. If this shindig does materialize be ever, ever so careful about what acronym you wind up with. The alarmist blogs know all about this here modest proposal, and they are cranking out the parodic names and acronyms as we speak.
I will be with you if you go there. But if so, it is a war in which I will likely become a casualty, one I will not survive. And the bullet could as easily come from behind as from in front.
Anthony says:
“…. out of 2,683 (2,701) votes cast, the response was 63% Yes, 24% No and the rest going for unsure ….
Think about it, and sound off in comments.”
——–
If a “target” data base of “names and E-mail addresses” was created for those persons and organizations that are “spouting” the CAGW manta …… and including the same for those who have “decision making” power or influence on/over government policy/law making …. and they all began getting “flooded” with E-mails from the current 2,683 WUWT voters each and every time an “issue” is raised or mentioned in the media ….. it will surely get their attention as well as entice others to “join the cause”.
And when the proponents of CAGW start making public comments about the “barrage” of E-mails ……….. the ranks of the E-mailers will surely begin to increase.
No organization, no lobby, just a “data base” of names for one to voice their concerns.
REPLY: And the SPAM laws would surely be used in that case. – Anthony
given the billions at stake it is naive to think it won’t be taken over by agent provocateurs and or vested interests who have the time and the money to dominate.
its a science issue not a political one. Doing this is politics. The reason it doesn’t get in the media is because they have decided not to print any anti co2 stuff not because there isn’t a voice or case for it.
Just tell me where to send my contribution / membership dues.
I’d suggest 700.org for a doubling of Blubbering Bill’s gang, but that might echo the 700 Club too much. So maybe 800.org, which is about the CO2 concentration IMO “safe”, but actual greenhouse levels like 1350.org could also work.
Or 3500.org, the average ppm on boomers (big, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines), a little lower than on smaller nuke attack subs (mean of 4100). But the range is huge, with some levels higher than Cambrian Period concentration, ie 7000 ppm, or even Precambrian.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/
given only co2 programs get funded whats needed is an alternative research program rather than another media tub thumper. Setting up and funding [thro online subs] that would be of more use imo.
I kind of liked Mr Lynn’s: Association of Earth Sciences. Add to that focus on methodology and hypothesis-testing. What media might embrace is a proper other side: less contrarianism, less activism, more equivalence (as in ‘false equivalence’).
I voted yes. A rope is stronger than a strand.
One thing WUWT whould do is produce a page setting out the main sceptical position. For example:
The world has warmed.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas.
Man’s co2 has helped in the warming. Blah blah.
and end with a question: How much of the warming since 1950 is due to man’s greenhouse gases? Nobody actually knows.
cbb says: “I would be interested in joining a group that had a broader perspective than just climate change.
Mr Lynn says: “I think this is essential…”
Danger, Will Robinson! Bad advice, very bad. There are already plenty of groups with a “broader perspective.” That “broader perspective” would weaken our focus and create more dissent than the primary issue. Yes, there may be other issues that we’d like to address, but these should not be allowed to divert us, nor should they be listed explicitly by whoever is in charge.
I’m still wondering how many of the naysayers were people we’ve never seen on here before.
Science will eventually settle the issue, but in the meantime damaging and unneeded policies are being developed at all levels of government and in all kinds of organizations. A ‘skeptics organization’ could help us fight such efforts at local levels – person to person. Remember the thought – “all politics are local”? An organized group that believes that “all is well” (that’s us) could help by developing material for presentations at local club meetings, for example, or for letters to the editor of local papers.
The average guy and gal are beginning to wonder about all the warmist hype, even those who believe there is something to it. We need to be able to talk with people in a sensible way about all that is wrong with the warmist agendas, to calm fears and get our friends and neighbors to question the powers that be.
I voted against the proposition but if it gives ahead I believe the organisation needs a built in review of its goals and reason for existence and be prepared to dismantle itself if it is not fulfilling it’s purpose …..the review should occur after every two years ……otherwise it becomes just another organisation whistling in the wind ……and the power hungry take over sanctioning acceptable views and ostracising the adventurous and courageous …
once you go into advocacy then you leave the world of science and enter the world of lawyers who end up debating the meaning of words like ‘the’ and ‘a’. Does it advance the search for truth?
If people want to get into politics of it then they should be harassing their elected representatives and naming and shaming and picketing and organising boycotts and staking out universities and all the things the warmers do.
The controversy may be about the climate but the underlying philosophy is about scientific honesty and critical thinking. And journalists always need good stories but they tend to ignore blogs which are seen as competition. There have been many posts here which some of the media would have taken seriously had they been issued as press releases from an organisation.
One of the main advantages the skeptic insurgency enjoys is we are net native. “Organisations” are anchored in the pre-net world of newspapers, hand written letters, dead tree journals and Washington based lobbyists.
The “alarmist” cause has prevailed to date because it has an inherited mastery of the pre-internet world. Where the skeptics have been winning is where we have used the net as a force multiplier.
On the one hand we have easy blog publishing – not for nothing does the climate establishment hate WUWT, Climate Depot, Bishop Hill – which the establishment cannot match for depth or traffic. On another, we have a self organising rapid reaction capacity – Steve MacIntyre, Judith Curry, the Blackboard, Lord Monkton, Willis – to expose and question bad science.
Self organising and distributed with a lot of flexibility. Now, compare that to the alarmist establishment. Here you have inflexibility and rigid conformity. Dissent is not tolerated – disagree with any particular and Dana and Mikey will give you a severe ankle biting.
Plus, the alamists are blessed with a Prussian sense of humour. They are SAVING THE WORLD and there is nothing funny about that. The happy warriorism of Mark Steyn, Steve MacIntyre’s Scots irony, Anthony’s nearly limitless good humour and Momford’s deadpan makes the earnest few at SkS livid. It has been so devastating that Real Climate has almost ceased publishing.
These are qualities which are amplified by the ‘net but which could all too easily be destroyed by a serious attempt to organise.
< AGW_Skeptic says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:50 am …
What he says. Let Heartland take up the political onus. The true issue is the formation of policy in a vacuum of genuine knowledge. There is a fundamental absence of working knowledge at the very base of the scientific side of the debate. If you set aside the “faith” that you know how climate “really” works, then the evidence is overwhelming that no party has a viable hypothesis of climate, much less a well supported theory.
It is important to remember that absolutely any hypothesis with delusions of theoryhood must account for any climatic effects over any geological time span and for climates operating anywhere in the solar system or beyond. Simply constraining the analysis to the satellite period, or the historically collected temperature record of one planet will not serve anyone’s genuine need for a viable general theory of climate. Nor will massaging data until it “looks” right aid in the construction of a scientifically-useful hypothesis. That, at worst, could lead to conflicting massage jobs and data sets that are tailored to suit the needs of given hypotheses. At present it appears that there is a general agreement on the energy source that drives climate and the storage bodies where that energy abides until it achieves some work in the physical sense. That appears to be the outer limits of what everyone agrees is known. Ideally, politicians should be bound, gagged, and kept in a dark closet until the people studying clime at any time scale and at any time depth can say, “you know? That really works?” As long as we lack a theory of climate that is not at least as reliable as Newtonian gravity or Boyle’s Law we do not have a theory of climate at all. The assertions in circulation barely qualify as hypotheses.
Any new organisation would need to be rooted in science and concern for the environment, in order to encourage more scientists and other involved professionals (e.g. economists) to be comfortable with being associated with it.
It would take only a few “oddballs” to be involved to scare off a lot of key people.
I’ve recently read Mann’s book about the hockey stick, a very long book because every mention of an opponent contains the phrase “with links to the fossil fuel industry”.
In reply to DirkH
“I would discourage the ISIS idea as the name is likely to get you an appearance in front of a FISA court, given the general competency of the state.”
Unlikely Dirk; it’s just an acronym. I can think of several others that have different attributions. Why on Earth would the use of said term cause arrest, trial, even in absentia and presumably subsequent imprisonment? Especially by a secret Federal court whose only jurisdiction is in the USA. Explain please.
The problem with ‘climate science’, as we all well know is keeping the ‘climate scientists’ honest.
I suggest a simple check list should be devised for every alarmist paper:
1. Is the original data available? If not, or behind a paywall, then F
2. Is the original code and the methodology of processing data freely available? If not, then F.
3. Has the paper been peer or pal reviewed? If the latter then F.
4. Does the paper use industry accepted statistical analysis? If Mannian, or other, then F.
5. The ‘if, could, might, maybe, perhaps’ factor – a count of >10 will result in an F.
6. If the paper produces a conclusion that more research is needed, then this is incomplete research and is thus unacceptable, and consequently an F.
7. Are all the input variables, and how they are used, for any model produced freely available and has the model’s accuracy been tested in hindcast? If not, then F.
8. If the sponsor for the research paper is a known activist group with its own biased agenda, then F.
A more comprehensive list is obviously needed, but that should be enough to scare the poo out of the average ‘climate scientist’.
“Contrarian Climate Clique”?
The overwhelming “No” comments compared to the overwhelming “Yes” poll results are suspect, imo.
That said, go for it An-tho-ny — if you feel the need to do this, you should.
I will not join. I stand by what I wrote in my comments on the original poll thread.
I see CFACT and several other organizations already doing a fine job of fighting AGW propaganda. Another organization is not necessary and the potential costs outweigh the benefits.
I still support YOU, though, An-tho-ny.
(Just not your new venture.)
I would like to see:
1. One paragraph charter
2. Statement of beliefs (short version & long version).
I would like to see the charter focused on education, not lobbying. After voting no, I realized I like the idea of a group for courageous college kids to organize under.
I would like the statement of beliefs to focus purely on the science with no mention of new world order etc. I would like it to unambiguously exclude skydragons.
At the core levels of activism Alarmist/Warmers are linked by collectivist ideology, it’s a liberal to extreme left-wing subculture. That binds organizations since they agree on many core solutions to almost anything. Skeptics are diverse politically and will fracture over degrees of Green compromising very quickly.
While the left-wing Greenshirt community is despicable it has the tactical benefit of any other fanatical movement in history among it’s peers. What strikes me in the comments is the naive belief that logic and “science” are going to win and the even more ridiculous sentiment that the debate really is over “science” at this ancient phase of the debate. The left in the U.S. and aligned global organizations such as the U.N. are operating in the post-normal science arena for decades now, the scientific method requiring actual proof has long faded in importance. Consider what is turned out in public schools and ideological academia today and project where we are and where it is going even another generation from now. Orwell wasn’t off by many years in “1984” when you are objective.
I don’t think enough skeptics have grown up to accept the totalitarian undercurrent of what the actual AGW movement represents. Any organization opposing AGW Alarmism but minimizing the political agenda driving it is likely to fail.
There were in the end only a handful of actual Bolsheviks in 1917 in Moscow itself but who won at the time and why? Many skeptics find a thousand reasons to play ball on Alarmist terms and seek to avoid political identification of the issue at all cost. Either as a personal preference or for fear of losing. Exactly like 1917. The political failure lies in the hands of those who generally oppose collectivist leftism in general and surrendered to 60’s Greenshirt “Idealism” as a campus backwater at the time. Now it’s a monster ready to destroy the Republic in its own way. Corrupting every public policy you can think of in the name of “Green” which really coded word for “Marxist Solutions”.
Many skeptics aren’t going to accept what it really is,many never have and have thousand absurd rationalizations for the persistency of the movement. If you do start one you should start with James Delingpole as President, someone who really does have the big picture of the debate down pat and really as large and long as it is it remains a very standards man-as-god, statism first agenda better understood by prior and less socially rotted generations.
The hate I’ll get from other “skeptics” here is a true indicator that we are no “band of brothers” simply because we dissent from climate change orthodoxy at numerous levels. In fact, as is often the case in sweeping conflict I’ve grown to despise whimpering middle of the road skepticism as much as any Michael Mann image in a “Che” tee-shirt lecturing about “science”. Greenshirt success was inversely proportional to skeptic cluelessness in my lifetime and I’ve seen the fiasco actively since the 70’s and Ehrlich crowd and the “Zero Growthers” as they proudly called themselves in that form.
“Just the Facts”?
Although that might be copyrighted, as would be “The Cold, Hard Truth”& “It’s a Gas, Gas, Gas!”. “How I Quit Worrying & Learned to Love CO2” might not present the same problem.
But seriously, folks…
How about emulating the ploy of SkepticalScience & calling such an organization “Green the Earth” with a beneficial greenhouse gas of which plants need more?
crosspatch says:
April 25, 2014 at 9:38 am
If I might toss out some suggestions:
…
==========
These are great suggestions crosspatch!
A “watch dog” organization focused on public awareness would be a great benefit to the media and residents. It could include all groups associated with the climate debate if it solely focused on public policy and taxpayer interests. Note, taxpayer in this sense would include business, industry, and the general public.
Something on the order of a consumer protection agency makes sense?
I’d want to say ‘no’ but only because being disorganized makes me feel like the plucky underdog fighting an uphill battle against a lot larger force (funny enough I bet this is how Mann and other CAGW activists feel). Fortunately my cooler head prevails. I agree with Pointman on this one.
Yes.
Understand the shorter term benefits noted for an “Organization”. Remember some of the longer term downsides to Organizations –
Successful Organizations are targets to be co-opted. Look at the co-opting of various green groups by Big Crony Money and more nefarious political movements under the facade of Green. Scientists must be Very weary of all Politicians, especially those who “appear” to be skeptical. Many Politicians are fickle pathological liars and change with the changing tides.
Organizations can and will be infiltrated – top middle bottom. Distract, disarm, embarrass.
Organizations have issues with leadership and cult of personality – i.e. Algorism. Many a group/company/organization has had an admirable set of founders only to be replaced by sociopaths in the next generation.
Power corrupts. Power attracts sociopaths.
To succeed, there needs to be constant continued skeptical alternative competition to skepticism – to keep discourse healthy and alive. Claiming “one voice” undermines. Key to develop multiple alternative, skeptical voices.
There are a growing number of credible, influential skeptical sources. Maybe energy should be devoted to increasing awareness of the existing sources and nurturing additional new voices.
I also think as much as possible you should use language that a layman can understand. Keep the message simple. When I first visited this site (as a layman with an interest in Science and Technology) I was overwhelmed with the jargon and acronyms.
And perhaps have a section called Climate Science for Dummies, where you explain in easy to understand terms things like: What is Global Temperature? How is it measured and by what methods? How was it measured in the past? How do satellites measure temperature? A brief History of Science and the Scientific Method. etc.
dbstealey says:
April 25, 2014 at 9:12 am
CACA adherents would claim their rigged, GIGO models falsify your hypothesis. They don’t of course, & can’t, but that doesn’t matter to the propagandistic media & susceptible politicians.
WUWT says, “Could just as easily be used to describe crazy Bill McKibben….Now look at what we have, an organization that has successfully lobbied for blocking the Keystone pipeline by affecting the office of presidency. Do you think weepy Bill could do that himself without having organized first?”
I would like to suggest that it was not the organization but the number of signatures on the petition. I believe the roles of petitions in putting enormous amounts of pressure on companies and politicians is not recognized. For example, Change dot org sets up world wide signatures to demand companies do green and costly things. The number of petition signatures also gives the politicians the cover to say that they are representing the public will.
It is possible that WUWT is misattributing the power and funding of the 350 dot org organization for the petition process. I see this as a potential problem. Personally, I do sign petitions, but on a grand, world wide scale, petitions of this size are actually a threat to local rule and democracy. I do not know if all of those signatories were from the USA, for one thing. And I do not think that global petition drives are anything close to representative government. The main point is, petitioning was used in the process of claiming the people of the US do not want the pipeline. If it was 350 dot org as an organization that did not want it, I do not think there would be any legitimacy to caving in to the pressure. So please consider the petition process – it seems to be an omitted variable in your analysis.
I missed the poll and my first thought would have been the ‘target’ issue, but wuwt is already a target so that does not matter.
The fallacy of the ManBearPig scam has real consequences and negative impact in real life.
Getting organized makes sense. Let’s go for it!
Green Earth Team (or Project, although that doesn’t spell anything).
GAIA: Green All Intergovernmental Air
WARM: Warning Against Rigged Models.
PLOUGH CACA: Pull Legs Out Under GIGO Harmful CACA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism).
Citizens & Scientists for Climate Science. Also doesn’t spell anything but CSCS is close to Union of Concerned Scientists.
Also, there is a saying that if the whole body were a hand, where would the seeing be? If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? The role of WUWT in the whole body of skeptics is that of the eyes. Things come into sharp focus and clarity, that otherwise would go undetected and unremarked upon. This role of bringing sunlight is obviously vital to the survival of all the different people working on these issues.
In the post, I found this remark to be startling:
“There are just simply too many polarised people on either side who’ve spent years doing nothing more than venting spleen at each other. It’s become a social activity, a recreational pastime, a macho ego trip, a catharsis for a lot of tangential frustrations. Log in quickly, hurl an insult or two and surf onto the next brawl.”
Open society and rational criticism can sometimes be rough; but the dismissive attitude and the lack of appreciation for the success of simply discussing and highlighting issues (as reflected in the above remark) is not helpful and not an accurate appraisal.
But….but wait just a minute! What’s the point of going to all that trouble:
“Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
Isn’t the tide with the truth? Isn’t this the year that the global warming scam is going to implode? And once the (overdue) Great Global Cooling kicks in, then it’ll be game over anyway 🙂
How about “SINS and CAGW”?
Of course SINS stands for something most of us would agree with, namely “Science Is Never Settled”. What did you think it meant? ☺
A true skeptics organization would state up front that we should continue to learn from climate data that comes in, as Anthony has said. A skeptics organization would not have a “denier” platform, where a position is taken on the issue of climate change and we stick with that position no matter what new information comes in. That is what bugs the hell out of me with pro-global warmists, they look at the issue as if the debate is a contest can be won or lost like a baseball game. They want to “win the debate” by having prominent scientist pick their side like a judge with a scorecard at a boxing match. As a skeptic myself I do not think global warming is an issue that warrants costly global policies to try and influence climate, but I do think pollution is a health problem. I am NOT pro oil company, I do think humans need to move away from petroleum energy sources, but not because of climate issues. Hopefully a skeptic organization would make it clear that world wide pollution is a problem, and it is a problem now, and that the skeptic organization is not at all in favor of continued increase of usage of fossil fuels, we just don’t think the climate impacts of greenhouse gases from burning carbon fuels have been significant enough to force global mandates on greenhouse gas emissions. But we will continue to learn from new data.
“crazy Bill McKibben… weepy Bill”
Classy as always, Watts.
Magma says:
April 25, 2014 at 11:42 am
““crazy Bill McKibben… weepy Bill”
Classy as always, Watts.”
Do you like “corrupt” or “hypocritical” better?
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/14/rockefellers-behind-scruffy-little-outfit/
Bill Sticker says:
April 25, 2014 at 10:38 am
“Why on Earth would the use of said term cause arrest, trial, even in absentia and presumably subsequent imprisonment?”
Well maybe not; depends on whether they count as your allies.
My rule of thumb is to avoid any organization that would accept me as a member.
I think the difficulty in creating such an organization is keeping it focused, preventing it from being co-opted by big-money interests and keeping it from being infiltrated by global warming fanatics. How many philanthropic organizations have been taken over by left-wing interests? How many activists have purchased stock in corporations in order to change how the company does business?
Katou says:
April 25, 2014 at 9:39 am
“Why not approach Big Oil ? ”
Because they support the CO2AGW scare. Oil contains less carbon per calorie as coal; Big Oil uses the Green Shocktroops to kill coal.
The East Anglia CRU (workplace of Phil Jones) was funded with money from BP. For instance.
Also, Rockefeller Brothers Foundation pays Weepy Bill McKibben for his hypocritical propaganda.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/14/rockefellers-behind-scruffy-little-outfit/
I voted no.
The organization already exists as a self organizing system.
WUWT, Jo Nova, Donna, ect…
If a thing needs doing, word needs spread, money needs raised, it is already getting done.
The best cure for the political derangement of science and public policy is not another political organization.
The activism and mendacity of the UN and their sycophants is destroying their cause.
The measured, reasoned and civil actions of Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre particularly blow the emotional ravings of our activist friends apart.
The role of the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind is always difficult.
Our power, politically, is our disorganization.
The Alynisky tactics of the professional liars cannot get a grip on the motives of people driven by a belief in the value of truth and the scientific method.
Every attempt to demonize, demean and isolate sceptical questioners of the CAGW Cult has created even more sceptical questioners.
Due to the arrogance and contempt for the public that saturates the “communications” from the Team.
As with The Mann, I could not have invented such characters, the likes of Lew, Glieck, Trenberth, Dana,Cook… What a cast.
Consider the comments on MSM Global Warming/CC articles now.(Where they allow them).
The public has turned and is gonna get ugly.
The policy SNAFU’s are coming to bite the pocketbook of the uninvolved, now the true discussion will begin.
My thoughts are these:
I am not much concerned by the range of leftist vs conservative politics among skeptics. Opposing AGW is necessarily conservative, because the prime reasons we oppose it are first, the abdication of personal responsibility, a conservative value, in the faux science used by alarmists; second, the economic effects of AGW-driven policies, which are based in central planning and are opposed to free markets, a conservative value; and third, the micromanagement of people’s lives needed to meet AGW objectives, a tyranny which contradicts the concept of limited government, another conservative value. Those who subscribe to socialist or other collectivist or authoritarian political philosophies will ultimately be forced to recant their beliefs if they recognize the true import of AGW, how it destroys liberties and economic opportunity. Whether they acknowledge it or not, their beliefs provide the basis for all of the bad aspects of AGW – the dogmatism which suppresses investigation and dissent, the disregard of individual rights which is inevitable if the collective is deemed superior, and the concept of a central elite which knows best. In essence, you cannot be a true skeptic if you follow a leftist party line otherwise.
If we organize we ,must do two things simultaneously which may seem contradictory: take a firm position that AGW is false in all its essentials, and encourage discussion and diversity of particulars as to details. The firm position that AGW is false in its essentials is that climate change is wholly natural and is not materially affected by human activity or carbon dioxide levels; and that the methods by which AGW claims are derived are inconsistent with the scientific method. The diversity and discussion of details is to serve two purposes: to facilitate the gathering of additional evidence to support this basic position, and to assure that errors in details are brought out and corrected. This should leave plenty of room for investigation and give-and-take amongst ourselves on the issue. As for any assertion of dogmatism about taking a firm position, I submit that it is no more dogmatic than declaring that the Earth is not flat. The obvious is not dogma.
This website and others demonstrate that open review is more vigorous than peer review. It seems to me that with some sort of community rating system, especially of reviewers, the skeptical community could put out a professional online journal of climate. To be credible, it would have to be open to both warmist and skeptical literature meeting suitable quality standards. The benefit would be not only a forum for skeptical research, but also a path to publication for scientists who have found themselves blocked.
So when is “The Key to Science March on Washington” or the “Skeptics March on the UN, NYC”? I’ve never demonstrated, but I would fly to that one, and I live in the Baja.
It would be a different kind of “Earth Day”…
J. Philip Peterson says:
April 25, 2014 at 12:25 pm
“It would be a different kind of “Earth Day”…”
Yes. One without any media presence or reporting.
more soylent green! says: April 25, 2014 at 11:59 am
You and Groucho. Shameless lack of attribution 😉
…Now look at what we have, an organization that has successfully lobbied for blocking the Keystone pipeline by affecting the office of presidency. Do you think weepy Bill could do that himself without having organized first?…
Organising, in this sense, means submitting to the will of another, and agreeing to support what he says without thinking. Bill McKibben has had no difficulty finding a lot of people to follow him. Greens are essentially mindless, and have no difficulty obeying him – no matter what he says.
Skeptics, by their nature, are not going to agree to support something they don’t totally agree with. Net result, a Skeptic list of agreement will be very short, and contain little but fundamental principles.
JimBo,
I thought he was Groucho Marx.
I personally think the skeptic side of the argument is winning , slowly but surely. Look at the polling numbers & the trends in the numbers. As the old saying goes : “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – I think the current skeptic structure (or lack there of) is working just fine – so I would vote No for that reason
I really like the idea of a properly organised, online petition. If supported by all the major websites I’m sure the number of signatories would be impressive. The wording should be spread as wide as possible without becoming meaningless. The size of the thing would demonstrate we are not just a few isolated cranks. This is an important point to make.
Anthony: Could I suggest making a permanent or sticky post for your organization “AGW skeptics organization” or similar because no one is a “climate skeptic” its a non-definition. Ask people to sign up, provide name/blog pseudonym and degrees (if any), position or work, and a 2 sentence reason why and when they became/are skeptical of AGW or do not/never believe(d) in it at all (aka deniers). Im sure you’ve thought of it in any case along something like that. All information personal information (ie names) to be kept personal. I wonder how many would actually sign up. Or you could simply put the AGW skeptics organization in brackets under your main site Whats up with that. After all you’ve got it all set up anyway…
.
No, it would be a huge mistake “to take a firm position that AGW is false in all its essentials.” I think that if the goals of the organization are energy prosperity and human progress, than it will logically follow that the null hypothesis about ‘global warming’ (late 20th-century warming was natural in origin) has to be the starting point, and any claims about AGW requiring us to stop using fossil fuel or institute other draconian measures will have to be demonstrated empirically.
We want to bring the scientific method into the debate, not rule it out with dogma. That’s what the Climatists do!
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn says:
April 25, 2014 at 12:49 pm
“No, it would be a huge mistake “to take a firm position that AGW is false in all its essentials.””
Well IF you find ANYONE who still takes IPCC science seriously (and not just as a pretense for global control which it is), then you gotta attack one simple point: The preposterous wiggling around of the IPCC given their models have no predictive skill; and the preposterous notion that public policy should be made following the output of unvalidated models (worse, models that have been shown to be wrong for 17 years straight already).
Nothing ’bout IR absorption or MODTRAN or what have you. Just kick them in the groin; into their models.
DirkH (April 25, 2014 at 12:57 pm): If you start with the null hypothesis, then it’s up to the Climatists to demonstrate that their preposterous models have any predictive skill. No harm in loudly pointing out that they don’t.
/Mr Lynn
WINC: Warming Is Not Catastrophic.
[Note: “pyromancer76” is “beckleybud” and “H Grouse”. He is the same sockpuppet. Banned multiple times. ~mod.]
I note that MikeUK commented:
(My emphasis.)
To all those stating “no” on forming a climate skeptic organization,
for various reasons–IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER.
Whether a formal organization exists, or not, all skeptics are going to
be tarred with the same brush. If you speak up as opposing the almighty
climate consensus, you are going to be called a “loon”, or, “a tool of
Big Oil”, or, in the United States, “funded by the Kochtupus”. This will
be the case for you as individuals. It will be the case for any formal
skeptic organization. Even this blog has already been subjected to that
smear–note the large and well-coordinated response to A. Watts’
interview being aired on a cable TV channel, and the number of vitriolic
claims that he is, in fact, “funded by Big Oil”.
I believe that the huge political pressure being put on by organized
climate alarmists calls for a means of response. I’m sure someone
out there recalls Burke’s statement: “When bad men combine, the
good must associate, or they will fall, unpitied victims in a contemptible
struggle.”
evanjones says:
I do fear having to choose between opposing and embracing an organization which I love but makes me cringe. It would offend my independent mode of inquiry. It would shut me off from access to the other side.
Why would you think that? This would be one more organization. It would not shut anyone off from any access, or stop independent inquiry.
Some of the most perceptive comments are those pointing out that money, and lots of it, will be necessary. That is just the way it is in this brave new millennium. From crosspatch’s points about ‘lawfare’, and the suggestion to Go back into the regulations that have been imposed since, say, 1980 based on various “predictions” of “environmentalists” and start unwinding them. Once the underlying assumptions have been successfully refuted, start removing the piles of regulations built on top of them.
That all takes money.
An umbrella organization would not eliminate any skeptics’ voices or blogs. Rather, it would fill a currently unmet need: a way to provide a recognized source of relevant expertise and credentials in one place, and for lobbying. When someone writes their representative these days, it means little. When an organization with ten thousand dues-paying members contacts representatives, it is orders of magnitude more effective. It is exactly what Greenpeace does, and no one would argue that they are ineffective.
Chad Wozniak makes good points above. In America, polling shows that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by about a 2:1 ratio, and that ratio has remained unchanged for decades. The problem is that most conservatives are out working and raising families, and they don’t spend much time on issues like this. But they certainly oppose the proposed ‘carbon’ taxes, and the flagrant waste of money they see every day, and they know most of it is self-serving. They just need a rallying point.
I would like to see some sort of finger in the wind, where Anthony can gauge the liklihood of:
1. Getting sufficient numbers of highly credible professionals who will add their names, maybe along the lines of the Oregon Petition, and
2. Finding out how many readers here would actually commit to an annual dues payment to fight the anti-science and misinformation in the media. And for ‘lawfare’ when necessary.
Because without those two requirements, we might as well continue as we are.
Skeptics don’t organize. Mr. Watts has visions of grandeur.
richardscourtney says:
April 25, 2014 at 9:06 am
Hence, I suggest the name for the proposed organisation could be something like
Deniers of Unchanging Climate (DUC).
Richard
If it looks like a DUC, talks like a DUC, …
wait,
never mind.
🙂
In this age where nothing is achieved without lobbying we must be represented by a strong group and I would love this to be based on this site. Please go for it, I for one will support it.
AGW skeptics come in many types, but most of them fight awfully hard about their positions. So getting agreement on a given subject might not be easy.
Maybe something like this could work, or maybe not. Suppose that Lindzen and Curry and McIntyre and McKittrick and Christy and Spencer and Watts and Michaels and Lomborg, to take a few names, could agree on something like a manifesto. I imagine that it would start by stating that, yes, CO2 is warming the planet, but that by itself isn’t a spur for costly present reductions, that is just basic science. It would then lay out many of the issues that cause the kinds of uncertainty that Judith Curry in particular discusses. At the end of the day, it would be kind of what the APS statement of 2007 SHOULD have been, but wasn’t.
Then let’s see who would sign up for such a statement. You might get a large contingent of APS members, for one, if the science is stated well. In other words, lots of real scientists.
I’ll bet that whatever the statement, only a minority of WUWT readers would sign it, although I could be wrong.
Just a thought for what its worth.
Why not simply get all the global principals, which take issue with the scientific stance/rush to judgement, to agree to approach the UN as a single group. Its highly likely the UN would like to put the IPCC issues “to bed” and move forward in a logical way.
This is a highly news worthy approach which will properly position your support for resolution.
The benefits for the UN are numerous and they hold all the cards and the purse. All you’ll need to do is present the benefits in relation to needed change.
If the UN refuses, it’s a solid reason to move forward as a separate group.
Dr. Curry and others would likely support this approach.
Blue Sky says:
Skeptics don’t organize.
And you know that how? The OISM alone organized more than 30,000 co-signers. No CAGW organization has come anywhere close to those numbers.
You may be right, or not. There are ways of finding out. But your assertion is probably wrong, based on the success of WUWT.
Sorry, I meant to add that as a movement together we cannot lose. If we never have a movement then we will lose.
Friends:
There is a series of posts in this thread which demonstrate why a political anti-AGW organisation would be harmful for AGW-sceptics.
The series of posts assert that AGW is a left vs right issue. It is not (except perhaps in the USA). But the untrue assertion sets AGW-sceptics against each other. The posts making this assertion are calling for a political organisation to be formed as a tool for right-wingers to attack left-wing AGW-sceptics.
These posts can only derive from misguided political bigots or from AGW-alarmists who are trying to encourage internal strife between AGW-sceptics.
Richard
Quick note: two different “Johns” at 1:34 comment time.
Seriously, I’m not so sure the word “skeptic” (or any derivative) needs or should be in the title or “mission statement”.
Are we skeptical of proper science – not just regarding “climate science” either, but any science?
Every scientist in any scientific organization should strongly support proper science that undergoes the scientific method and is written up in a properly peer-reviewed manner. That so many clearly do not is, dare I say it, a travesty.
There is a need for an organization that supports proper science, as well as a group that presses for proper science in the “global warming/climate change” arena.
Maybe the call here should be for “skeptics” to unite behind one of the organizations that is already functioning in this capacity?
Just an observation.
conscious1 says:
April 25, 2014 at 10:54 am
“CAGW believers are victims of sophisticated mind control propaganda and should be treated with compassion rather than as enemies. They have no frame of reference to understand the current state of climate science and so are ignorant of the empirical facts.”
There are always prols who do what they are told but many understand the deceit involved in greenshirt authority politics of which the AGW movement is a subset. Therefore they are perps not misguided intellectually at all, they know exactly the road to power and at times money. They need to be destroyed with as much compassion as you like but destroyed none the less.
AGW is like any other “we need to control” for the “common good” meme. Keynesian global monetary order, U.N. sanctimony, high levels of government and regulatory authority in general are all rationalized in the same fashion. That there isn’t empirical or classical science supporting the hypothesis but that isn’t going to end it by a long shot. There is a social discontent always and in the case of the West and the U.S. in particular it can easily be tracked back to anti-industrial schisms predating the Civil War but certainly evident during the industrial revolution and the sentiments about “robber barons”. “Big oil” conspiracy rhetoric leads right to William Jennings Bryant and J.D. Rockefeller and the talking points only evolve but the same class hatreds, envy, reactionary emotions are the same. It’s all really old hat when you trace the history.
Rather than “sophisticated” the success of AGW politics reflects the continued social erosion and intellectual dishonesty of progressive advocacy but also opposition weakness. Common sense and critical thinking are near all time lows. Declining birth rates, broken families, crime, educational politicization (and anything else that in prior times was kept non-political compared to today) and general decline in social ethics are all fruits of the same tree as “science” by “consensus” which means “political consensus”. So it isn’t out of ignorance that AGW has thrived but social decline which is far more complex.
cwon14 said- ” So it isn’t out of ignorance that AGW has thrived but social decline which is far more complex.”
I agree with your comment. My post was in response to an earlier post and not meant to be a stand alone statement. I wish this blog had a reply function like discus so that individual discussions could take place in their own continuous thread. Anthony would get much more traffic and posting if it did.
That being said, my experience is that most people don’t have science backgrounds and are unconscious as to how they are being manipulated by the media. It comes as a surprise to most that there are sound reasons to question the alarm. Those are the people I was speaking about, not the environmental activists who use those people’s good nature and ignorance to further their anti-human crusade.
The more I think about this, the more I am against, and am with Eric Worrall’s various comments at the top of the page.
Also note that when you organise into one group that group as a whole is an easier target to attack by the alarmists in conjunction with the MSM. The alarmists can get away with all sorts of nefarious behaviour, e.g. Cook and Nuccitelli in Nazi uniforms on the SkS website, Nuccitelli posting articles for the alarmist cause when there is a clear conflict of interest with Tetra Tech, and indeed the likes of the Sierra Club tarring opponents as “fossil fuel funded deniers” when they have taken $26m from Cheapeake.
Anything slightly untowards and you have create a bullseye for them to target with typical bandwagons, faux outrage, hypocrisy, and double standards that we frequently see in the M.O. of Guardian rabble rousing by Monbiot et al. Note that “crushers” can get away with a private forum in SkS to coordinate trolling across the blogopshere, and even when that has been exposed they have little to fear as there are few repercussions. If things were the other way round, e.g. a private forum hidden with WUWT uncovered, imagine the MSM guns all targeted at Anthony, feeding into their narratives of scepticism being highly organised and funded, which is really just a way to divert from what is their own M.O.. We all know how fierce the MSM can be, we’ve all seen it with the media circus associated with the highly flawed “BEST” drafts (prior to any ability of sceptics to review them) with Muller on a publicity spree, as well as the couple of days after a release of a new IPCC report.
I see the success of scepticism being due to a many headed hydra, and indeed the number of “heads” continues to grow. Take out Anthony, and there is still Jo Nova, Judith Curry, Dr. Spencer, Bishop Hill, GWPF, HI, James Delingpole, Chris Booker, Nir Shaviv, Lubos Motl, etc., etc. The more “targets” there are the more frustrated alarmists are as marginalisation is more difficult.
I would also like to see what kind of coordination is intended. Would there really be much difference from the current way we go about things? We can’t really have private forums for the reasons I have outlined, and such forums can be highly susceptible to nefarious infiltration. As per EricW I see the glass half full, not half empty, and we are generally in good shape, including via. ClimateDepot as a central DrudgeReport like portal (although some may see pros and cons of that), along with the likes of GWPF.
John says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm
Quick note: two different “Johns” at 1:34 comment time.
Thanks John, I’ll add my last name to future posts.
John says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm
Quick note: two different “Johns” at 1:34 comment time.
=====
Too funny, we had the same thought and posted at exactly the same time. What are the odds ; )
richardscourtney says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Richard, there are always people who split from their groups but your point is well…..pointless and delusional. The entire U.N. regime conforms to classical central planning and authority, wealth redistribution beyond any scale in human history. How is that only in the U.S. on right vs. left splits?? That many countries have effectively zero public libertarian/conservative/free market representation can’t be addressed effectively here but your statement is false.
For the semi-rational and more moderate among the collectively minded they are second or third fiddle in their peer group. They failed to moderate their or their peers inclinations. Curry, Lomborg and the rest are preposterous in their hair splitting positions.
You’re the delusional skeptic who will end up in a reeducation camp before you figure out the obvious to many others.
richardscourtney wrote:
“There is a series of posts in this thread which demonstrate why a political anti-AGW organisation would be harmful for AGW-sceptics. The series of posts assert that AGW is a left vs right issue. It is not…”
I agree totally. If all a new ‘sceptic’ organisation does is pick political sides, it is pointless. Why not just go and join an existing political party of whatever flavour takes your fancy, and start your campaigning from there?
It is because so many alarmists are politically polarised that opposition to them must not be. Political neutrality is the greatest weapon that could be used against them. Expose their real motivations while coming back yourself to the science.
John says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Interesting John but here’s the thing; do you really think Dr. Curry for example would cross the full AGW meme picket line? It’s taken her close to 10 years of incremental public hair splitting and her denouncement of AGW fanaticism is quite selective, vague and obtuse even today. 500000 words and she still fess up and admit the Green movement is exactly what I, Morano or Delingpole can state in a paragraph.
The central idiocy is that want remains is essentially a legitimate “science” debate when in fact there is no classical science structure left after decades of academic social engineering to achieve this new and much less rational standard. Until the central political motivations are acknowledged there can be no honest evaluation of AGW meme and even many of your imagined “skeptics” or “moderates” will conform to pander to political orthodox with the drop of a hat.
Dr. Lindzen was the best on the list intellectually but even he wasted decades in obtuse discussions of the topic. It’s a vague science exploited for that feature by a political agenda. Like economics or psychology topics by political operatives both at the academic levels or government counterparts. Some have gotten better over the year but seriously how can you explain their delays and even their current obfuscations of the obvious political alliance supporting AGW power politics to this day?
@richardscourtney –
I strongly disagree that recognizing the relationship and consistency of opposition to CAGW with fundamental conservative principles (which, by the way, were liberal principles 50 years ago) in any way sets up a conflict between left-leaning and conservative skeptics. The differences of opinion on other matters would not be relevant to discussions of climate, and need not get in the way of unity on the basic issue, which is that AGW is wrong. However, I would urge those who lean left to recognize that the reasons for opposing AGW may well be inconsistent otherwise with their world view, and will put them at odds with people who otherwise share their worldview.
I would further caution everyone that “taking a firm position” does NOT mean shutting our minds to contrary evidence, if any emerges. A true skeptic keeps an open mind no matter how firmly he believes in his position.
Maybe start an organization that will collect plans and initiatives for skeptical adds, books, papers and presentations etc., where members and other visitors can donate to the plan or initiative they like, so that the individual or group with such a plan can actually make it happen? The best plans will get the most attention and donations.
You will only need a website and get coverage on blogs and websites of skeptic-minded people.
Funding for this website can be achieved by asking 0,04% of the donations made.
United Realists for Freedom, Energy and Prosperity. I can see that happen.
But a centralized skeptics organization with one view and one voice? I don’t think so.
I think the organization should remain apolitical. It should stick to the science,
and known facts. My only contribution to the discussion was the idea that
it should have an articulate and entertaining spokesman, one who could
use wit and sarcasm as a weapon against the Elmer Gantry’s on the other
side.
I know it would be better if that person were a scientist, but someone needs to ask
Mark Steyn what he is going to do after the Mann lawsuit is over.
It would shut me off from access to the other side.
Why would you think that?
Don’t you see? They would shut me off.
Attend TEA Party meetings. CAGW, or Global Wierding, or whatever the lame stream media decides this week, is about government control. Grants, regulations, taxes, all geared to re-election of “progressives” explains stuff like the “Hocky S(ch)tick.
Contribute to candidates that use science rather than theology to formulate policy.
My involuntary gut-reaction? ‘Uh-oh. Oh-boy’.
Although WUWT is no doubt extremely rewarding, it also has to be confining. I see many signs, that Mr. Watts chafes; yearns for the wide-open intellectual spaces. For how long has it been the seven-year-itch?
There is always the urge for completion & resolution, in all forms of contest & competition. In fact, a major feature of contest-strategy, is to exacerbate the impatience of the opponent, and then arrange for his imprudent indulgence to cost him dearly. Getting antsy, gazing at the greener grass, becoming deeply concerned about the other side of the hill …
The exploration-urge has played a huge role in the dramatic success of humans. But we see too, that it comes with an extraordinary built-in tolerance for very risky situations and contexts. Jane Goodall found that as female chimps approach sexual maturity, they become possessed by an overpowering urge to investigate neighboring troupes: 30+% of them are then viciously killed, in their first ‘outside’ encounter.
Success & dominance can instill a similar, presumably related ‘anomalous’ tolerance for risk. Once a red-breasted robin believes he has acquired possession of a lawn, he attacks male interlopers with astounding ferocity. He courts females like he is Fred Astaire, on major drugs.
This ‘situational’ tolerance for risk is obviously an ancient element of species success … but it comes at an often extravagant price, for the mere (evolutionarily disposable) individual acting out its role.
====
The arc of climate-alarmism appeared to top-out about 2006. It may have been sagging already, but was somewhat artificially buoyed by Mr. Gore’s Inconvenient. My sense for some years now has been that we are steadily moving in the right direction. The new IPCC material is much-moderated.
I think we’re ‘getting there’ … and I think Anthony Watts & WUWT are the best tools we have for cajoling the process.
But tell that to my 25th grandfather, who was doing just fine in Normandy, but still jumped in the boat to Hastings, in 1066.
I only have one question: Where do I sign up?
@Jonathan Abbott –
If there is to be political action against AGW in the US, choosing sides – one of the political parties – is inevitable. The Democrats are one hundred percent AGW believers, even the coal and oil state Democrats whose constituencies are under attack by the Obama administration. Only Republicans so far have shown any understanding of the mendacity of AGW, and only some of them at that: Senators Vitter, Inhofe, Tim Scott and maybe a few others, That really leaves only Republicans who can be persuaded and cajoled into supporting the skeptic position.
And as it is, other Republicans too are believers: Christie, Jeb Bush to name the best known, and they will have to be convinced of both the unscience and the uneconomics of AGW before positive action can be taken against it.
This is not just a scientific conflict. After it became too obvious in the latter half of the 20th century that free enterprise provided more prosperity to common workers than did communism/ central planning, the left floundered for lack of a moral issue to justify their totalitarian instincts. Now they believe they have it in climate alarmism. They might grudgingly admit that free enterprise provides immediate material benefits to the masses, but it’s at the long-term expense of the earth itself. Freedom destroys the planet, so there must be less of it!
The scientific battle must be fought, but the collectivist ideology driving climate alarmism must also be exposed. It is this ideology which explains the methods of the climate alarmists: on a collectivist ethics, it is not merely permissible to lie if it benefits most people, it is morally required to lie.
Any ‘skeptic’ organization that attempts to defeat climate alarmism without addressing the political aspect would be fighting with one hand tied behind its back; the moral case for energy freedom is just as important as the scientific case.
On the “science” side, of course a go-to-source for a journalist that wants to actually do some fact checking and one that would issue its own press releases would be good.
But I think a SINGLE ISSUE political ranking such as the NRA does would be essential. Not to tell people how to vote but to let them know how the politicians have actually voted on CAGW issues despite what they say.
(In my state they once gave a republican conservative an “F” rating vs the “A” rating they gave a democrat liberal. Single issue advise.)
Here is my idea for a group name
Rational Environmental/Energy Action Leaders, focusing on REAL solutions to real environmental/energy problems.
One thing I would like to see is a falsifiability metric. Something that says if X happens the group (or sub group should the group expand), will willingly disband.
ie: a REAL Keystone XL group, once it is over the group disbands or REAL Climate Change once warming hits a rate of X deg C over Y years the groups accepts action is required.
This will up the trust factor considerably and controls the spiraling dogma issue.
It’s been my experience that in any and every group, you get your share of close minded militants as well as people willing to reason with you. I’ve had what I consider reasonable discourse with two major Skeptical Science (of all things!) contributors. I made no secret of my positions or what I call my ‘tribal affiliations’.
On the other hand, the close minded militants are going to cut you out sooner or later no matter what, and good riddance to them I say, anyway.
~shrug~ Just some thoughts.
Lots of really good comments here. FWIW, my suggestions:
– If its objective is to promote accurate climate science, then ..
– .. It shouldn’t start with a position such as ‘the IPCC is wrong’ or ‘CO2 is harmless’ (the point being that by pursuing good science the truth or otherwise of such statements should become clear).
– .. it’s not a sceptical organisation, and shouldn’t have ‘sceptic’ in the title.
– .. it should be open to all opinions [one of WUWT’s strengths]
– Over time, it needs to make a carefully-reviewed sober factual statement about each aspect of climate.
– It needs to get its statements into the MSM and to politicians in every country.
– It needs to become the ‘go-to’ site for scientific climate information. ie, where people go to get arguments to counter extremists.
Name – ‘Open Climate Science’, ‘One Fact’, ‘Weather or Not’ – almost anything without ‘True’, ‘Real’, ‘Sceptical’, etc.
Notwithstanding all the above.
The choice is truth over lies.
Lies kill.
Truth is life.
If formed the org. should seek truth and expose lies no matter who, what, when or where.
I reserve the right to disagree vehemently with the official organization’s “policy statements, press releases, and educational guidance.” Beyond that, I’m in.
@David Longinotti –
How ironic it is that the “green” solutions propounded by climate alarmists are actually more destructive of the environment, in so many ways. There is the damage done by wind turbines and large solar arrays (dead birds and bats and destroyed ground habitats over vast areas), there is the damage done by denying fossil fuel energy to people on poor countries (stripping of vegetation for fuel, killing off of endangered animals for food), there is the damage done by unrestrained governments (like the almost unimaginable pollution in the eastern bloc before the fall of the Soviet Union). And of course the alarmists conflate soot pollution with carbon dioxide and ignore the whole new array of pollutants emanating fro,m “renewable” energy sources.
This sort of contrariness is consistent with the socialist/collective vision under which everyone except a tiny kleptocratic elite is poor – and there is irony here: the maldistribution of wealth is greatest in socialist systems. Some 9,000 individuals, or .003 percent of the country’s populaton, constituting the nomenklatura class in the Soviet Union controlled well over 90 percent of the wealth of the country. Oh, but you have to have that wealthy elite, to know what’s good for the masses.
These contrarian attitudes pervade the AGW cult – Bloody Mess is filthy rich while his followers, apropos sufficient indoctrination, accept that “sustainability” relegates them to poverty.
I also noted the comments leaning negative and votes leaning positive, but I was confident that this would be a net benefit– if weighted more towards disproval of CAGW. If the purpose is to counter overwhelming media bias, it will naturally be directed in large part towards laymen. As a proud, card-carrying member of that society, I recognize the value of a generally Socratic outlook that highlights how little CAGW proponents know.
…although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. –Socrates
That’s certainly not to say that I don’t value the incredible scientific work put forth on this blog. I’m completely engrossed (on a daily basis!) by the new research and ongoing theoretical work. I do see a problem in incorporating all this into any sort of policy statement.
what would be the purpose of such an organisation? i can only think supporters naively believe it would enhance the prospects of getting noticed by the MSM. however, just as lobbyists have bought the US Congress, in the media it is the advertisers who pay the piper and play the tune.
no CAGW sceptic org can possibly compete with the solar & wind interests in this regard. think for a moment how many solar/wind ads u’ve been bombarded with on TV, online and in newspapers over the years. ignore the dinosaur media – the only honest media is online:
VIDEO 24.35: ;25 April: Bill Moyers: Putting the Freeze on Global Warming
This week, Bill talks with two leaders who helped inspire the new fossil fuel divestment movement that Tutu is encouraging. Ellen Dorsey is executive director of the Wallace Global Fund and a catalyst in the coalition of 17 foundations known as Divest-Invest Philanthropy. Thomas Van Dyck is Senior Vice President – Financial Advisor at RBC Wealth Management, and founder of As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy foundation.
They are urging foundations, faith groups, pension funds, municipalities and universities to sell their shares in polluting industries and reinvest in companies committed to climate change solutions…
“The climate crisis is so urgent that if you own fossil fuels, you own climate change,” Dorsey tells Moyers. Van Dyck adds that reinvestment is needed to create “a sustainable economy that’s based on the energy of the future, not on the energy of the past.”
http://billmoyers.com/episode/putting-the-freeze-on-global-warming/
THERE IS ONE COMMENT ONLY by Matt Boys:
Question (and I didn’t have time to view the video so maybe it’s in there, but): I don’t see any mention of Bill McKibben, 350.org, or Fossil Free; am I incorrect that they were the groups that started the divestment movement?
If not, then kudos to these groups, but if 350.org and Bill McKibben spear-headed this movement, all credit should be given to them. Apologies for my skepticism, but social media and the internet has taken it’s toll on proper citation of sources. Simply looking for some clarity.
let them have their foundations & organisations. the strength of WUWT lies in its refusal to conform to the MSM’s left/right framing of the CAGW debate. this is precisely what scares the Stakeholders the most.
Jonathan Abbott says:
April 25, 2014 at 2:07 pm
It just seems Jonathan that there is plenty of liberal skeptic blame (self-hatred) out there that has trouble squaring their honest technical view or honest judgement of their peer extremism yet can’t come clean on the very basic nature driving the core AGW ideology at academic or government levels. Without the media filter of uniformity we would only be exposed to this through letters and blog posts.
This of course is a spineless position that sets back the inevitable refutation of the entire contrived AGW agenda. Millions dead and left needlessly impoverished by forced rations over a an unproven claim regarding co2 and the collective agenda that the talking point masks. Instead of endless focusing on the fraud and hyperbole of alarmism and their “science” step back and consider why the efforts have been made in the first place? This isn’t the “bone wars” between egos or a serious “science” schism. The core parties break down along political lines regardless how obfuscated such reports remain.
If an organization can’t step up to this basic truth it has a pointless purpose as do many skeptics in fact.
David Longinotti says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:12 pm
1+, exactly.
Speaking of organizations that have failed on the topic, the GOP is on the top of the list;
http://spectator.org/articles/58755/greens-are-reds
The national security carbon ration advocates (McCain, Graham etc.) and pro-nuclear exploiters simply should be eliminated. The solution is pro-freedom and market, deregulate carbon and growth both domestically and globally. The Greenshirt fringe should be rejected completely.
It goes far beyond energy production itself. It has to do with the ever growing political indoctrination in academia and public education, media complicity in the advocacy and the decline of professional standards across many fields including “science” in the broadest sense of the word.
“Thus the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again.” — Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 3rd edition, pp. 262-63.
Steven Mosher says: April 25, 2014 at 8:29 am
The biggest danger to setting out a skeptical “position” on the science is that you actually have to
do science. – and then you have to police folks who say crazy stuff.
———————————————————————-
There are some who would say that your example here, shows that when WUWT skeptics question the AGW crazy stuff appearing in papers, you mostly come to their defence. Iow, your objectivity is in question concerning the AGW-Skeptic debate.
WUWT and a few others is where I learned all of my climate science. Blogs have been very effective and are the new technology that bypasses the gatekeepers of the past. I am not ready to personally participate in an organization, I have a few years of extensive daily study I will be doing first to build my credentials.
I will contribute with the worlds best software suite for climate science researchers, amateurs and professionals alike. My climate science curiosity is now turning into work, or a battle that requires tactical as well as strategic plans. Keep in mind that it is the truth that we seek and it will reveal itself in time. But just a couple of days ago, the CBC showed the top climate scientist of Environment Canada declaring that 100 year storms are now taking place 3 times a year, and he used the climate denier derogatory term. I have decided that I had better do what is necessary to combat the junk science sooner than later.
I think it would be helpful to have a separate post somewhat soon that is all about how one goes about organizing and other details rather than the question of if we should or not.
What would it matter if a new organization became a target. It should build a reputation of a solid science background.
BenD,
Objectivity – the quality of being objective.
Objective – (Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So if your personal feelings and opinions incline you in a certain direction, who helps you maintain objectivity? The guy who supports your personal feelings and opinions or the guy who challenges them?
Here are my experiences and I would be interested to know if any group can change things.
My city has a newspaper called the Sun which does not believe in global warming and many columnists say things against global warming. However the Journal, on the other hand, seemed to be fair years ago but it seems to have taken a stance that opposes publishing letters against global warming but publishes many letters that agree with global warming or climate change. Over the last 4.5 years, I have written about 20 letters to our Journal against global warming. Of the first 12, about 6 were published. But none of the last 8 made it. I guess my question is this: Can any group force a closed minded Journal to publish more letters against global warming or climate change? And if not, what would be the point of it?
On the other hand, as I mentioned in the first post, if a magazine of say the 10 best articles from WUWT each month were published in a magazine with Lord Monckton’s graph of the 17.67 year pause on the cover, that could be effective. And readers of this blog could buy copies of the magazine and leave them surreptitiously in the staff room or a dentists office, etc, that may have some affect. Perhaps copies could be sent to newspapers as well.
Would you have a chapter of your organization for Lukewarmers?
I am going to mark April 26, 2014 as the date when WUWT decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And sorry, but I will have to wait and see what you do before wishing you luck. Odds are this new hierarchy you plan will will slowly become indistinguishable from the current orthodoxy. I give it 2 years, tops, maybe 3 and you will come to a consensus with the alarmists. You will decide that it is a necessary step toward peace in our time. A formula, if you will, as to just how much poo is acceptable in our ice-cream. Famous last words: “It’s just wafer thin.”
richardscourtney says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm
“The posts making this assertion are calling for a political organisation to be formed as a tool for right-wingers to attack left-wing AGW-sceptics.”
Tsk. It is obvious to anyone who cares to look at it that the historically atheist left places no faith in religion but replaces this with blind faith in government labcoats, and is therefore generally utterly gullible whenever a scientist opens his pie hole. Starting with Ur Leftist, self proclaimed economic scientist Karl. nWho was an asshole:
The Truth About Karl Marx
Mark Bofill says: April 25, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Objectivity – the quality of being objective.
Objective – (Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So if your personal feelings and opinions incline you in a certain direction, who helps you maintain objectivity? The guy who supports your personal feelings and opinions or the guy who challenges them?
————————-
Neither…and both…it’s the facts that count, but to the degree one may lack full understanding of something, one may benefit from both supporters and challengers in learning one’s shortfalls in present understanding.
To those who doubt the value of an organisation, let me give some of the not so obvious reasons for forming an association:
1. Politicians can’t negotiate with a crowd of individuals. Therefore unless the crowd elects representatives, politicians have no one to talk to.
1a To put it bluntly:
… unless there’s a skeptic Association, who are the climate alarmists to surrender to?
2. The press are “institutional” news channels. They publish material from institutions. Therefore, unless you are an institution, they will not (or it is very difficult) to get them to publish a press release.
3. As I understand libel law, individuals, even though they act as a group, can’t sue if the group as a whole is libelled. However, if that group is represented by an association, that association will find it much easier to take those who libel its members to court.
4. A group not only includes people, it also acts to exclude. As such the group sets standards and in itself that tends to raise the respect of the group being represented.
Finally, I own the domains: “SkepticScience.Com” and “TheCitizenScientist.com”. Either of these could make a suitable name for the organisation and I will donate them if appropriate.
BenD,
Well answered, I agree without reservation. My point was poorly expressed. What I really meant to say is, I don’t know that Steven’s objectivity is in question. Rather, I’d think people might question his belief or disbelief in AGW.
Which raises a good point. If lukewarmers are out, a number of people are probably wasting their time here.
I’ve been a follow of this blog for many years. This is my first go at a comment.
This blog is a very good resource to opening up the ways of the world. Not just about climate change but the whole gambit of politics, religion, science, power, etc. and how it relates to my opinion forming and day to day existence.
I believe forming a group will dilute the content as all the traits I’ve mentioned will via for position and I know when that happens I’ll loose interest and a valuable resource.
My twopennyworth.
Press on – what have you got to lose?
cwon14, good point. The GOP has a long history of surrendering after the
first shot is fired. All a progressive has to do is accuse a conservative of
wanting to starve the children or the elderly or that they are for dirty air
or water or call them racists, and the conservatives are predictable in
their response.
They bend over and grab their ankles, swearing to high heaven that they
are not racists, do not hate the children or the elderly and are every bit as
much for clean air and clean water as the most rabid progressive. The moment
this happens, the conservative has lost the argument. It is like asking a man
if he still beats his wife: Whatever the answer, it is wrong. And pity the man
who answers the charge of being a racist by saying “I have lots of black
friends.”
The GOP will never dig themselves out of the hole. And this is also why
the new Institute for Atmospheric Research (or whatever it will be called)
cannot and must not be political. The other side politicized science. If we
do the same, we are no better than they are.
Science is about the dispassionate pursuit of the truth. It is about trial and
error. It is about independent confirmation of ones findings. It is about the
relentless pursuit of discovery. It is about advancing the boundaries of
human knowledge, It is about a bunch of egg-heads with slide rules who
managed to put men on the Moon with on board computers with less
computing power than my first pocket calculator.
Solomon Green 6:18am
Sorry, but politicians pay attention to two things, money and voters, probably in that order.
A small organization composed of “professionals” will have little impact. Take the democrats for example — the leftist loonies have a major impact on democrat politicians because there are enough leftist loonies out there to swing an election.
Eugene WR Gallun
Isn’t a “skeptics” organization antithetical to the skeptic’s position that the science should dictate the conclusions? There’s a lot of science left to do. Right now all the evidence points to the alarmist view being a crock, but if we want to take the position that the science should dictate the conclusions, I wouldn’t want to see an organization dedicated to one particular conclusion.
Somehow it seems to me that people are misunderstanding what this organization is to be about.
As I understand it, this is an organization whose purpose would be to increase, in the the main stream media, the exposure given to the skeptic position. It is not about creating a new blog, or internet newspaper, etc.
The entire focus of the organization would be getting media coverage of what skeptics are saying. For example, it would issue press releases about published papers that refute global warming or published papers that point out the dire economic consequences of instituting alarmist laws and taxes.
The organization would be about gaining an increasing amount of media access.
That is what my understanding of what this organization would be about.
Eugene WR Gallun
REPLY: Eugene gets it, Steve O should read this. Visibility and a voice is what it is all about. – Anthony
Steve O says:
Isn’t a “skeptics” organization antithetical to the skeptic’s position that the science should dictate the conclusions?
I don’t think so. What you do is limit debate to what has been shown to be scientific facts and credible hypotheses. For too long the alarmists have framed the argument. Time for us to frame the debate for a change.
===================
Werner Brozek says:
…if a magazine of say the 10 best articles from WUWT each month were published in a magazine with Lord Monckton’s graph of the 17.67 year pause on the cover, that could be effective. And readers of this blog could buy copies of the magazine and leave them surreptitiously in the staff room or a dentists office…
Not a bad idea. And:
Over the last 4.5 years, I have written about 20 letters to our Journal against global warming. Of the first 12, about 6 were published. But none of the last 8 made it….
You are not alone, Werner, which points to a very good reason there should be a place to be heard [aside from many skeptics’ sites, which will still be here].
In the mean time, I suggest making your comments where they will be read by different sectors of the public. We are not limited to writing the editor of one newspaper. Pick those with the greatest readership, and write to them. [Word is getting out. For example, when the Yahoo! blog publishes a climate scare article, the skeptical responses have lately been inundating their threads. Alarmist comments are getting clobbered.]
I have had most of my comments to the ScAm blog remain unpublished, and recently I was completely banned there. That seems to be the new tactic that propaganda blogs like ScAm have started using. They cannot refute what skeptics are saying, so they censor those comments that they clearly do not want their readers to see.
But it would be much more difficult to censor a press release issued by an umbrella organization, run by professional and retired scientists, which interviewed Prof. Richard Lindzen, for example. The only thing the alarmist media hates more than skeptics of the carbon scare is losing more readers to outlets that print different points of view.
I believe the organization already exists. It’s called WUWT. It has been expanding in it’s influence on it’s own, but the MSM doesn’t go to it for information. I believe that’s what is needed here, some “legitimacy” in the MSM. The idea that press releases would be picked up by the MSM is a good idea, the trick is how to accomplish that. Anthony has the right idea, and how to do that is the conundrum. Maybe some press conferences would help, if some MSM reporters would show up, and actually report some facts of the climate science etc. How do you get them to show up???
myrightpenguin
I see the success of scepticism being due to a many headed hydra, and indeed the number of “heads” continues to grow. Take out Anthony, and there is still Jo Nova, Judith Curry, Dr. Spencer, Bishop Hill, GWPF, HI, James Delingpole, Chris Booker, Nir Shaviv, Lubos Motl, etc., etc. The more “targets” there are the more frustrated alarmists are as marginalisation is more difficult.
Indeed – why fix it when it isn’t broken? We’re winning – there is no need to copy the losing tactics of our opponents.
To man the political barricades as a means to establish an ideologically subservient science has been a behavior of CAGW activism for decades. A crusading media has supported it.
I will not support a political action group (PAG) to counter it. So I will be one of the first splintering individuals in the face of a PAG.
I will very strongly support forming an Academe focused on critical applied reasoning to evaluate the Earth-Atmosphere System, but only if it has a broad mission / foundation in the philosophy of science.
John
350.org didn’t convince Obama to stall the Keystone Pipeline. $100.000.000 in campaign donations from crony socialist Tom Steyer did.
All the green organizations in the world are not foisting progressive decarbonization on the west, the Democrat Party in the US and the progressive parties in the rest of the western democracies. are.
If you want to help stop the CAGW leviathan, starting a new anti-IPCC is the least effective way to do it. Short term, the only way to fight the political parties driving the government/climate industries is to act politically. Current putatively conservative political parties have to be dragged back to conservatism. Long term, the only way to win the debate finally is to break the progressive strangle hold on western universities, and education in general.
The right has plenty of think tanks like CATO and AEI. There are also already skeptic voices analogous to the IPCC, like Heartland.
CAGW is a political movement. Any organization designed to fight it will have to be political. It would be a mistake to follow the path of the IPCC and form a putative skeptical IPCC, that presented its political arguments as some form of authoritative representation of “skeptical” science.
Heartland Institute’s conferences get the cold shoulder from the media. If covered at all, they’re dismissed as conventions of kooks in the pay of Big Oil. The irony, it burns.
Retired earth & atmospheric scientists are IMO the key, since the young & tenured have been totally corrupted & suborned, regardless of their real feelings, which must be kept hidden if skeptical.
A reputable, international professional organization without taint of “Big Oil” money could do a lot of good in countering anti-“carbon” advocacy disguised as journalism. If hundreds (or better yet, thousands) of scientists in relevant disciplines sign on, then the bogus “97%” scam can be exposed.
The Oregon Petition was a start, but included non-specialists.
Ultimately, however, Mother Nature will rule. Each passing year without “global warming” or even “weirding” is another nail in the coffin of CAGW. There still needs to be someone pointing out that the imperial hypothesis isn’t wearing any clothes. Given enough time, those could be the scientists themselves.
so, in the end, the answeres is
‘naa’.
but never read that much clear names signed.
appearantly a ‘stand that case’.
open questions?
brg, Hans
I’m afraid I disagree with you that you can achieve nothing sitting at home fulminating on the net.
I showed the world that you can overthrow a war leader through nothing more than writing an ascorbic football song, which is rather more humane than bombing the shit out of 1 million people and spending a couple trillion dollars giving a few Washington pols a hard on, isn’t it?? I founded no organisation, I represent no-one but my own views and if my views have any influence, it is because they are also tuning in to more widespread opinion and sentiment.
I have achieved many other things too, mainly through allowing others to take credit for things.
The one thing I haven’t done is got rich.
If you want to get rich, found a skeptic organisation.
If you want to change the world, maybe you found one, maybe you don’t. You decide which method most effectively achieves your goals.
But you won’t make money as an armchair skeptic, that’s for sure………
rtj1211 says:
April 25, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Which war leader did you overthrow with your song?
Sorry, but sounds a little delusional to me, without further explication.
Do you really want to be part of an organization if that organization can be tarred with the actions of one of its members? Here is an example.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/04/25/justice-department-expected-to-indict-star-of-tonights-years-of-living-dangerously-episode-3/
I have no idea about this guy. Indicted doesn’t mean convicted, but it sure makes it easy for others to take potshots.
Who thinks our current government isn’t capable of bringing some type of bogus charges against some leader of the organization and dragging it out over several years so the press can have a field day taking potshots?
Why would you think the press would provide any positive coverage when it’s when they have a “if it bleeds, it leads” attitude? Personally I think it is the height of folly to attempt to consolidate and create one big target out of a multitude of smaller ones. The worm is slowly turning, just keep doing things the same way.
Bob Ross, very good point. We’ve already seen an Obama administration prepared to describe anyone who stands up to them as “domestic terrorists”. In Europe, leaders of political movements which challenge the mainstream too effectively have a bad habit of suffering unfortunate fatal car accidents. Better to remain diffuse, difficult to strike.
No thanks. This is a scientific issue. Turning it into a political one will just prolong the current status quo by forming one camp against another. However I take issue with all scientific theories and hypotheses, especially those having to do with drivers of weather and climate trends. Which means I would not fit well into “a” camp that sits in opposition to the other camp.
Anthony, sorry for the delayed response. It has been a frightfully long day ( I know you’ve had those, as well). Thank you for making an effort to include those of us who disagree that Co2 has any effect in our atmosphere. Rather than parse the science in your statement, I will explain my interpretation of the proposed “group”.
I understood the question as being “whether an organization would be effective in bringing the science to bear against the warmists.”
I respond; no it would not. I belong to a number of groups that have done incredible work, but have failed to convince the ardent “believer”. The general public’s view is changing to the skeptic view only because the alarmists have enabled policy that is hitting joe public in the pocketbook. No other reason.
Would I join? Let me use the words of someone whose posts I read faithfully, but do not always agree with, DavidMHoffer; “That said, I would absolutely join anyway and work to make it successful in the fervent hope that my opinion above turns out to be wrong!”
Would I be welcome? Let me use the words of another poster markstoval: “no, your kind would not be welcome and you know it.”
It does not bother me if I am welcome or not. I enjoyed being challenged on the science, and I hope I challenge others here to look very directly at what is actually understood about the science regarding the greenhouse effect. In my view, alarmists should be ignored completely, as they are not even in the ballpark regarding the workings of our atmosphere. The modellers especially have no understanding of the accumulated literature in the discipline. If they had, the models may have had a fighting chance at accurate prediction.
The real scientific discourse is here, amongst the skeptics. Only when we can get an hour long special on prime time television (an hour may still be too short a time to cover pertinent material). Until then, the public will remain unaware that there is another side to the story.
I have had WUWT at the top of my favorites list since 2006. I am not a scientist or engineer but I am some-what educated. I am sure that humans are not responsible for the warming that took place from 1970’s thru late 1990’s. I also know from my extensive readings on here and many other sites that no one knows why it happened, or why it stopped, or what temperatures will do in the future !! There are hundreds of “theories” and “opinions” out there and all will have to be checked at the gate if this is gonna work…PERIOD !! ONLY the science that proves humans are not responsible for “global warming” or “climate change” ect. ect. can be used in this fight. The science is there that proves humans are not at fault and that CO2 is not a pollutant and that is all that can be used. Thank you Anthony!! It’s been a hell of a ride and I look forward to what the future will bring(new discoveries!) and I wish you the best !
dbstealey says:
April 25, 2014 at 7:53 pm
We are not limited to writing the editor of one newspaper.
True. However I only get one paper delivered every day. But even if I did go to the library and found a New York paper, any article that I may read would be old by the time I read it and any reply by me would be out of date. As well, I know things about my own province that would make a reply more relevant here than in another country.
I have looked at the odd blog from elsewhere. Sometimes there are so many responses that mine would just get lost and would not even add much to the clobbering.
J. Philip Peterson says:
April 25, 2014 at 8:02 pm
It’s called WUWT. It has been expanding in it’s influence on it’s own, but the MSM doesn’t go to it for information. …Maybe some press conferences would help, if some MSM reporters would show up
I think the less we expect of any one, the better our chances of getting something published. I have another idea and I would certainly be willing to contribute to this. Namely have a number of topics that may come up and have a potential response to each topic. For example, our Journal asks that responses be a maximum of 150 words. So we could have something similar to Dr. Spencer’s post today with responses of about the same length. Then depending on what comes up, either in a letter to the editor or a separate article, some one could take our canned response as is or modify as they see fit and send it to their paper. Naturally, those contributing canned comments would not expect to be acknowledged in some one else’s letter to their editor.
We could write canned responses from 100 to 150 words for hundreds of topics such as ocean acidification, carbon capture, the pause, accuracy of climate models, etc.
my suggestion is more wide ranging…
a University devoted to critical independent thought
“The International Free Independent University ”
— for free critical thought
with a constitution that sets up a set of rules that embodies the core principles we value most highly
and designed to maintain that value set over time
1 Data availiability for other researchers who wish to criticise us, our methods, our conclusions etc
2 Funding from crowd source, individuals, advertising, business … whoever… no source to contribute more than 1%, to guarantee independence
3 Professors with no or minimal salary with ‘tenure’ and others with short term contracts, guest professors
4 A democratic organisation that is run with the aim of uncovering truth
5 Ability to fund independent research
6 Ability to publish results in an internet non-paywalled, or advertising funded on-line journal
Please suggest core values if you think this is do-able.
cheers
C
A while back someone quoted Patrick Moore and his book: “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout”. I have read the book. I enjoyed it and although I disagree with a lot of what Patrick Moore says, I respect his opinion. I was in BC when Greenpeace was started, I was at the Amchitka protests, and like Patrick Moore, I watched as Greenpeace became diverted/perverted/transformed into something I could no longer identify with … the same as many other organizations and even altruistic politicians that get captured by the bureaucrats and the politicians desire to get re-elected. I have worked in professional, charitable and political organizations. What happened to Greenpeace, happens to most of them.
I like WUWT for all the ideas that are expressed here as divergent as they may be – with huge entertaining discussions such as how a siphon works.
I do fear what an “organization” might morph into.
Someone used the example of 350.org and their power. They make great displays but what have they achieved. Oil but train instead of by pipe? A delay of KXL until the next US Presidential election and perhaps for ever. But the oil will come anyway so what have they really achieved?
I do not fear that the climate will be an issue for my grand children. I do fear for their economic well being, but only some as economics and survival will trump trumped up alarm over a trace gas.
Organizations tend to be captured by a few ideological members and become non-representative of many of their members in fairly short order. I recently resigned from a professional organization because they have drunk too much Kool-Aid for my taste.
I voted no, but I would probably support an organization initially, though not enthusiastically. I think I must be too old and cynical but I wish everyone all the best regardless of the result.
But please keep WUWT as close to what it is now as you can. Perhaps link to whatever may come out of this discussion but be careful not to destroy the best blog site on the web in the process.
Thanks.
whilst i say no to an organisation, that does not mean i believe CAGW sceptics should be passive observers.
best tips i know:
if your electricity bill includes levies for “renewables” with feed-in tariffs, phone your utility & complain & demand a discount. u will most likely get one. i did.
if you have retirement/pension funds or any funds in the hands of institutional investment companies, phone & write to them & demand your funds not be invested in any non-performing CAGW-related stocks.
if we all did those two things, we’d achieve more than any organisation could under the current MSM conditions.
Steve O says: “Isn’t a “skeptics” organization antithetical to the skeptic’s position that the science should dictate the conclusions? … I wouldn’t want to see an organization dedicated to one particular conclusion.
By “science” as a skeptic you will undoubtedly mean “the scientific method”. That is conclusions drawn from the data. (This I call “skeptic science)
By “science” most of society and most of academia, now mean the peer reviewed work of a group of people who join this group by having their work peer reviewed. The scientific (or as I now call it skeptic method) is not necessary. To distinguish this from “skeptic science” in now refer to this “science” as “consensus” or “peer reviewed” science.
Quite rightly, we skeptics are against people who call themselves scientists and write opinion pieces about the climate calling it “science”. Unfortunately, we don’t control that definition, and whilst we might wish “science” to mean “skeptic science”, it is now clear in for example the BBC report on on reporting “science”, that it now means the output from this group.
So, let me rephrase your original statement into two questions:
1. Do you agree that “consensus science” – the peer reviewed views and opinions of a group who have obtained that position by having their work peer reviewed … should now dictate the conclusions.
or
2. Do you agree that “skeptic science” – science based on the data and application of the scientific method …. should now dictate the conclusions.
{no need to answer}
So, an organisation could have as its aim “to promote the use of sceptic science within [climate] science”
And I suppose in addition to the data-based, hypothesis-testing-based nature of skeptic science we also all mean “free and fair discussion based on the data and skeptic science principles”
Friends:
At April 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm I wrote
Subsequently, a series of responses to my post demonstrate the points made in my post are completely right.
The subsequent ignorant, untrue, bigoted and (possibly deliberately) disruptive posts include
cwon14 says at April 25, 2014 at 1:59 pm and several additional posts.
Chad Wozniak says at April 25, 2014 at 2:30 pm
DirkH says at April 25, 2014 at 5:15 pm and subsequent posts.
QED
Richard
Haven’t time this morning to read through the comments – but want to say – if there are any professional ecologists out there in the scepticosphere – I am currently casting around for such to form a small focused response group on issues of biodiversity loss (and gain) and climate change.
contact me: peter.taylor(at)ethos-uk.com.
There is one scientific and one political ‘wing’, and an understandable wariness about trying to fix what isn’t broken.
Maybe unless the political wing would make a point of being a newer also-left-wing version – or of just trying outright angry lobbyism anyway and see if it cuts through somehow.
A scientific wing could make a point of being professional-system-independent, independent of what was just termed the consensus or peer-review system, doing methodology and being a real media resource – and of being more inclusive of those proxy sciences – basically saying to media and politics: get your creature off our scientist backs.
I didn’t sign the Oregon petition only because of its over-reaching second half, the moreover-bit about benefits from CO2.
What sort of organisation? A global skeptic society poses very large organisational and practical problems, not least in funding. I would go in for local / regional / national organisations, that can respond more directly to the challenges in their localities.
In Norway, the org. “Klimarealistene” (“Climate realists”) was established about 8 years ago, and has today ca. 500 members all over the country. They write press releases, comments in the MSM (although rarely allowed in the Norwegian media, which suffers from a bad case of “Gleickshaltung” and CAGW-friendly censorship), as well as arranging lectures (for instance with prof. Salby) and more informal “climate pizzas”.
Last year, they made a Norwegian translation of “The Delinquent Teenager”, with a lecture by Donna, and are currently working on similar book projects.
A society like this, on a regional scale, can work more directly with the current issues in their country than a global organisation.Climate questions and policies vary a lot from one country to another, and I would prefer a network of smaller skeptical societies to a vast central global one.
http://www.klimarealistene.com/
(sorry, only in Norwegian)
>the consensus or peer-review system
Or maybe it should be termed the ‘guild’ system, the guild groping for any means of distinction while the independent just use those independently, using what’s best, focusing on method instead.
@richardscourtney, I won’t fully endorse your assertion as I haven’t seen enough of comment histories of those who you have pointed to but your theory is quite possible as a highly sophisticated stealth troll has been elucidated on James Delingpole’s articles over the last few weeks, an individual who had mixed in with the crowd over a very long period, and it was determined that their highly divisive nature was not natural but intentional, trying to divide and damage morale from within.
I have worked as an engineer for over 30 years, and I am a member of one single organization: the IEEE.
I would gladly join (and subscribe) to an Institute of Climate XXXXX to assert my interest and commitment to an honest scientific standpoint, but I just checked Institute of Climate Studies (USA) and found it exists, and appears rampantly cAGW.
This further compounds my belief in a “yes” vote to Anthony’s question, but I’m at a loss – the GWPF seems close to the ideal model but does it miss the mark somehow? Too UK-centric? Not “scientific” enough to dispel the warmist bias in MSM?
Hmm. I always thought that if you don’t want that wind farm monstrosity blighting your life you just live near a Kennedy. That can have unfortunate ramifications for the women in your life, though.
Know your enemy. MSM. MSM provides statist central power socialists billions of $$ of free promotion. Without that steadfast support the US Democrat Party (the force behind the Warmunists) would not hold the power they do. Some decline in the credibility of the MSM is palpable. We need to strike there. Insinuate that all who believe the MSM are ignorant pawns… an easy position to support because they are.
richardscourtney, I am just coming to this thread and have not (can’t) read the posts. I understand your concern, and agree with it a lot. But one thing that you may not have considered is that while it’s likely true that only in America is AGW a left/right issue it is, like it or not. And as such, some effort in the fight might natural be focused there. And I don’t think you’re giving full credence, either, to Tue fact that the AGW machine is is a beast that is being largely fed by America and if you want to starve the beast then you have to shut down the American supply line. That supply line is run and maintained by the American left in both politics and media (both news and entertainment). While with you I would wish this argument can be had on purely scientific grounds, it can’t and to be blind to that is to play with one arm tied behind your back, or possibly both.
Many posts here are hoping to get some sort of fairminded treatment in the MSM. That will not happen. The will ridicule (i.e. use “go-along-with-the-crowd” peer pressure) and defame any organization that stands against them. SOMEHOW we need to turn the tide… generate peer pressure that says “if you believe what you hear from MSM, you are an idiot”.
In order to avert the bureaucratic tendencies of organizations, would two friendly but non-sycophantic skeptic groups be good ?
Eugene WR Gallun says:
April 25, 2014 at 7:19 pm
Somehow it seems to me that people are misunderstanding what this organization is to be about.
…
==========
The first search I did yesterday was to see if this name was available: Union of Concerned Journalists. Sure enough, it exists. Its an organization in Dhaka Bangladesh.
http://orgs.tigweb.org/union-of-concerned-journalist
There are numerous issues related to News coverage. Here are a few to consider:
– The first question the News Director will ask, what Ax does the individual or group have to grind related to the information we’ve received?
– Is there any evidence the information received is accurate?
– What will it cost for follow-up research?
– How does this issue relate to our audience either local or network?
– Is any broadcast quality video, audio, or art available?
Credibility, Trust, Accuracy and making it cheap and easy for news agencies to deliver a story are keys to placement in US local news. 2nd day leads are very effective if targeted properly.
So who will be available 24/7 to field questions?
If you just want to do a Wired magazine approach for climate news, create a blog which posts top articles from members of the new organization. You’ll need an independent Editor in Chief to maintain integrity?
Try some PSAs to test the waters?
If I’m elected president of this new organization, I promise:
1. To keep membership fees low (as defined by me).
2. Transparent accounting (done by myself; you can trust me).
3. To listen to the little people, regardless of how stupid they are.
4. To keep Mosher on a leash
Eugene WR Gallun says:
Then I’m in.
I’d join any that sued a high profile British climate scientist for fraudulently claiming the science was settled without producing evidence of them making a 100% accurate prediction as of the first date the claim was made. Pretty easy to do now that even the most facile rolling five year average filter on the data shows a flattening not a rising slope and the work to be tenth rate at the most charitable estimate..
Another thought occurs to me.
The Weather Channel (TWC) has been refining their model lately — added a storm severity index, regional pollen count index, etc. These indexes appear to be climate related?
They would be a logical avenue for national news placement and a way to introduce the new group effort?
David L. says:
April 25, 2014 at 5:07 am
After reading this I realized I will post to WUWT but when amoungst my liberal cohorts, I fear to say anything. My conservative friends and I have always remarked how they have the upper hand in public debate because they will freely spout their rhetoric and the rest of us keep quiet lest we are marginalized. Enough is enough.
You’ve convinced me. We need to “unionize”. What are the next steps and where do I sign up?
==========================================================================
Still not decided, but David’s post leads to a conclusion that has been brewing in my mind. To some degree I have noticed a steady increase in skeptical comments in the pro CAGW articles, yet many of us mainly comment here, of at other skeptical sites.
I suggest it would be hard to organize such a diverse group of skeptics, simply because we are so diverse. However, there are many skeptical sources of information mentioned. If those organizations, WUWT, Jo Nova, Heartland, NIPCC, etc, etc, were to all ask us to comment more at all the MAJOR news outlet MSM sources, and major pro CAGW web sites, I think that ALONE would further move public support in a skeptical direction, perhaps to a tipping point.
However I think there should be some simple suggested guidelines in the debate. Perhaps the major skeptical sites could organize a common resource for the main issues, with concise linked post of recommended responses to typical pro CAGW alarmism. And if those sites regularly encourage us to post more and often at major media sites and major pro CAGW web sites, then I think we can firmly defeat the CAGW alarmist in the real of the public opinion.
“Change Climate Policy”
Do not focus on attacking the science of climate change as it will expose too many internal disagreements. Instead focus on changing the wasteful energy policies that are being pursued by the West in the name of climate change. Criticise the ideologies and financial interests forcing through these policies by leveraging off and perpetuating bias in IPCC reports on climate science. Confront those scientists who exaggerate the impacts and become bedfellows and cheerleaders for these same ideologies. Highlight just how unlikely the dangerous scenarios left in AR5 just to appease the ideologues really are. Propose realistic achievable energy policies over the long term and energy research which can eventually replace fossil fuels by 2100. Always use science and engineering to back up arguments. Try to keep politics out of it to avoid being dismissed as a right wing pressure group or whatever.
I know it’s already used by a blog but I think Climate Sanity would be a good name. Mosher’s questions last weekend are good to think about but I see no reason for a lower bound for a member’s idea of climate sensitivity! The insanity of current climate policies has got the most unifying factor. Another could be the openness required of a science that is considered to be so policy-relevant.
Werner Brozek says:
…I only get one paper delivered every day. But even if I did go to the library and found a New York paper, any article that I may read would be old by the time I read it and any reply by me would be out of date.
Werner, everyone does it their own way, and I’m not telling you what to do. But I like to check out blogs like the Drudge Report and similar news aggregators for any global warming articles. Drudge just links to the newspaper or site, but that way you can make your comment in a timely manner.
The more that our side gets the facts out, the better. I can see it is working, because as David A says, lately most comments and letters are heavily opposed to the runaway global warming scam, and where voting is allowed, the skeptical comments are getting many more ‘thumbs up’ votes than the believers in the carbon scare. After years of riding high, the carbon scaremeisters are clearly running out of steam.
Also, I like your idea of multiple responses to our side’s articles. Some media outlets will still censor us, even if the responses are 10:1 against CAGW. But over time, coordinated responses will have a beneficial effect.
I haven’t read all of the 300+ comments, so this is probably redundant, but: Please let’s stop using the shorthand phrase “climate skeptic.” On its face, it means “one who is skeptical that there is a climate.” Instead, just claim the proper label for what you are doing, such as: Association for the Scientific Study of Climate. Claim the high ground, don’t start with a defensive label.
I am on record saying I cannot support a climate science PAG***; see one comment in the original poll post and 2 previous comments in this post.
Will I hinder it?
The lead post is a call to action to man the political barricades, but not individually as has been spontaneously done by each of us in our own circumstances for many years. It promotes collective action; to form a class for political action. The lead post looks to me like a prep talk to go on a crusade; the crusade being an anti-crusade against the CAGW crusade. I am sorry to say that it looks like a veiled version of rousing agitprop. It makes me look back at the sixties campus agitprop when I was at university in the USA.
I think there will continue to be important success from professional and citizen collaboration on critical evaluation of the climate science subject. I think an immense amount has already been done in such collaborations. I support forming an Academe focused on critical applied reasoning to evaluate the Earth-Atmosphere System, but only if it has a broad mission / foundation in the philosophy of science.
Will I hinder the proposed PAG? Yes, in a nonaggressive indirect way. I will intellectually splinter away and intellectually collaborate with others who do so.
*** PAG => Political Action Group
John
I agree with those calling for a name contest. Leave final choice up to this blog’s owner, but an advisory vote from a list of say, ten suggestions would IMO be appropriate. More than that have been offered here, even counting just serious suggestions.
Scottish Sceptic
“4. A group not only includes people, it also acts to exclude. As such the group sets standards and in itself that tends to raise the respect of the group being represented.”
This is, I think, the most important point. There are many who post on this site who make good points but whose scientific or professional background would lay them open to having their expertise rubbished, a tactic that GAGW activists do not hesitate to use even against those better qualified than themselves.
If the association is to carry weight it should be restricted to those professionals whose credentials as regards one or more aspects of climate science are beyond dispute.
It is quality rather than quantity that might impress the politicians and the media.
Solomon Green says:
April 26, 2014 at 10:13 am
Agree, as per my comment on April 25 @ 9:14 PM.
Wayne Delbeke says:
April 25, 2014 at 11:08 pm
“Organizations tend to be captured by a few ideological members and become non-representative of many of their members in fairly short order. I recently resigned from a professional organization because they have drunk too much Kool-Aid for my taste.”
Wayne having been at the Amchitcka protest at the beginning of Greenpeace makes a point better than I did on an organization’s “half-life”. I, too, was in BC at the time, busy making a living in the mining exploration industry, but fascinated by the boldness and integrity of this new Greenpeace. However, since the Iron Curtain came down, a lot of well-schooled-in-the-tactics, never say die ideologues were turned loose who understood that infiltrating prominent organizations that had the right kind of reputation and clout, including universities, other research agencies, the UN, and other social/political agencies, was a first step in gradually turning them to their good use. Yeah, if your organization becomes effective, it becomes infested eventually. Like Wayne, perhaps being an old guy makes one too cynical, although one has to ask how one gets that way.
richardscourtney says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm
“The series of posts assert that AGW is a left vs right issue. It is not (except perhaps in the USA).”
Richard, I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and integrity and have enjoyed your many cogen analytical posts on CAGW topics. I fear, however, that you are unaware of colorings when you look at left and right. Would it surprise you to know that the Democrats in the US are in fact considerably to the right of Europe’s “right wing” parties that have been stewed in a leftish soup since the 19th Century. If they weren’t they would have disappeared long before now from the US political landscape. When your opponents, here, in the political side of the debate define the left, it certainly includes pretty much the whole spectrum in Europe. I believe this factor continues to puzzle European CAGW proponents when they try to understand why the US Democrats haven’t simply caved in to the climate wave to which Europe has surrendered. I think they thought perhaps they could simply buy Obama’s signature at Copenhagen with a Nobel Prize – it would likely have worked if it was needed to buy a European head of state. Obama knew he would only enjoy one term if he had weakened. Yes my friend, the right is a long way away from where you think it is here. With respect, Gary
Oops,
..cogent…
dbstealey says:
April 26, 2014 at 8:23 am
Also, I like your idea of multiple responses to our side’s articles.
Thank you! There are a huge number of ideas here in both posts. I guess we will have to wait and see the direction this takes and how we can contribute.
sturgishooper says: “I agree with those calling for a name contest.”
I would not recommend that for the following reason:
When we started the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, we had a meeting and a number of people I did not know attended. At the meeting, we agreed on the name “Scottish Climate & Energy Group“. One person then promptly registered the name on their phone saying they did web sites and would run it for us.
That was the last I saw of him that if he wasn’t a paid wind stooge paid to wreck the organisation, he was that way.
As such I do not recommend having a name contest, unless it is a contest between names for which an appropriate domain name has already been secured.
Scottish Sceptic says:
April 26, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Good point. Final list of names on which to be voted should all be registered before posted here.
Or just let A.W. choose it from suggestions or his own ideas.
How about two organizations, one for the general public & scientists, & another for credentialed scientists? The first could be a climate realist version of the Sierra Club, for instance, with a more political action bent. The second could communicate with the public, press & government officials to offset the AGW mafia’s death grip on academia.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Gary Pearse,
I tend to concur with parts of your analysis. Thank you for articulating it.
The collectivist context of Europe (both the continent and British Isles) developed with the past 100 years seems implicit within the spectrum of political discourse there. It does not often appear to be a fundamental that is explicitly / significantly contested in the mainstream political sphere. There are some limited exceptions.
In the USA the collectivist ideological import from Europe has not displaced the core individualist foundation . . . . . yet. The USA is now where Europe was shortly after the start of its descent into collectivism about 100 years ago.
This, the most fundamental intellectual discourse within the USA, rages on. Actually this is a raging dialog that goes all the way back through time to Rome and further backward in time to Ancient Greece.
I am optimistic that the collectivist intellectual import from Europe stays marginalized within the USA.
Disclaimer/Disclosure: I am a Yankee. : )
John
@richardscourtney, 12:22 a.m.:
I categorically reject that my pointing out the fundamental connection between skepticism and conservatism, and the resulting cognitive dissonance for left-leaning opponents of AGW, is in any way divisive. I’m prepared to live with people I don’t fully agree with, in the skeptic camp. I can only take your comments as indicative that you are not. You are no Harold Ambler, and frankly, your comments make me question the sincerity of your opposition to AGW.
The fact remains that AGW, with its focus on wealth redistribution, central control, and suppression of dissent, conforms quite exactly to leftist orthodoxy. It is only natural that leftists would support such a meme so profoundly consistent with their overall ideology. And regrettably, both the left historically and the AGW crowd today have demonstrated utter disregard for the value of human lives – individual human lives. 250 million lives destroyed in the name of Marx and his offshoots, the Nazis – and already today, millions dead from carbon taxes, the ethanol program and other “green” schemes.
It is you, richardscourtney, who is setting up for conflict between left and conservative in the skeptic camp, not me, not cwon14, not DirkH. When you use this forum repeatedly to justify leftist ideology, you leave us no choice but to draw the connections between leftist ideology and AGW.
What the dickens? “A war leader”? Who? “Ascorbic”? ‘Acerbic’ maybe?
/Mr Lynn
If that’s all you want, why don’t you join CFACT? I have. How much they’re getting into the MSM I can’t say, but they have at least become a focus for the Realist position at Climatist events. CFACT is as close to a ‘skeptic organization’ as you’ll find, and it already exists. I expect CFACT could do a great deal more with thousands of new members and donations (as of now I think they rely entirely on donations, not membership dues—I’d recommend the latter).
http://www.cfact.org
CFACT is overtly political. Any public action contra the Climatists who dominate the academic, media, and political elites has to be.
As I see it, the other options are:
(1) a bona fide scientific academy (society, association), dedicated to Earth Sciences and stripped of any ideological bent, open only to professional scientists, which would certainly be welcome, but have no overt political purpose, aside from being a home for scientists disgusted with the CAGW stance taken by the establishment societies; and
(2) a public organization dedicated to promoting and promulgating the the goal of enhancing human Progress and Civilization by the rational exploitation of resources and the humane stewardship of the Earth, based on principles of freedom and property rights, and eschewing statism, like the Terra Home idea I resurrected above from discussions on this board five years ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comment-1621368
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comment-1621397
The ‘skeptic’ position on climate dynamics (starting from the null hypothesis) would be a natural corollary of the basic principles of this organization, but ‘climate’ would not be an exclusive focus.
/Mr Lynn
Anthony, I think you have some people expressing support, and some people (like me) not so much.
Why don’t you invite people who support the idea to join your new climate organisation, while the rest of us continue as we have?
I have no problem with interacting with and helping organisations whose goals I support, for example I regularly receive and respond to Heartland posts. Its just I don’t think your new organisation is the most effective strategy. Having said that, I’m happy to be proven wrong ;-).
@Mr. Lynn 4-25 @12:49 pm –
I believe that “AGW is false in all its essentials” is no more sweeping than saying “the Earth isn’t flat.” Claims that the Earth is warming are sufficiently obviously untrue that it is quite safe to say this. None of the calamities posited by alarmists has come to pass, the historical and geological records alone disprove any relationship between temps and CO2, we know that CO2 does not possess the properties ascribed to it by alarmists, the scope of the “science” practiced by the alarmists focuses on a single insignificant, conjectural causative factor while ignoring all other likely (and now known) factors, the modeling procedures and statistical methods used by alarmists have repeatedly been shown to be faulty, and the alarmists have been utterly unable to respond with anything but lies, threats, invective and ad hominem and ad verecundiam arguments to the evidence against their position. That seems to me to be more than enough to justify taking a firm position that AGW is wrong in all its essentials – which I have just enumerated.
Chad Wozniak says:
April 26, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Chad Wozniak, I would like to thank you for your post. I would like to further support what you have said by observing that progressive scientists who claim to be skeptics are not an asset at all to any skeptic organization. I say this because in my experience, progressive scientists who claim to be skeptics are still highly likely to be in total support of all the rest of the political, economic, and societal activism required by the UN and the “sustainability” agenda.
So a progressive who has a small nit about AGW in general is still moving in the same circles and applauds the same goals as the “sustainability” advocates. For example, he still seeks to destroy the fossil fuel energy sector and the agricultural advances in the US, and supports extreme central control of water resources, and is very likely a Malthusian. In general, pandering to their hurt feelings is not worth the trouble because a progressive scientist who is a skeptic about AGW but still endorses the global “sustainability” agenda is the world’s biggest distinction without a difference.
%100 YES.
The secret to success is a unified front where a clear set of rational objectives are spelled out in a non inflammatory and uncontroversial way.
As I pointed out above to DirkH,
If you challenge the Climatists to produce any evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has actually affected the global climate since the Little Ice Age in any measurable way, and they cannot, then you have demonstrated that “AGW is false in all its essentials.” I think a broad-based organization aimed at rational solutions to promote human progress has to work from principles, not conclusions. The rigorous application of the scientific method has to one of the principles, and that alone will give the lie to the cult-like pseudo-science promulgated by the Climatists.
If you want a more narrowly focused organization, that restricts itself to the question of ‘global warming’ and the government policies it drives, then you want something more like CFACT, as I mentioned a couple of comments above. In which case, go there: they are doing a pretty good job, and could use the help.
/Mr Lynn
I’ve been around enough organizations to know how internal politics can cripple them. This one would be no doubt among the worst. Your only hope would be to come up with a plan and stick to it right away. Some people would bitch about it and leave. Good. Several fewer headaches. My reasons for voting no remain valid, and I don’t care to reproduce them save one. You will lend credence to the notion of consensus science. Pamela Gray is so right on target [April 25, 2014 at 10:26 pm].
Chad Wozniak says:
April 26, 2014 at 2:45 pm
I’m a conservative, but I don’t doubt the sincerity of the Courtneys’ (père et fils) commitment to combating the lies of CACA adherents.
Perhaps you’re not aware of their association with British coal miners. To put it in American terms, think of our Appalachian coal miners whose union goon bosses are Democrat stooges towing the Party line to the detriment of the rank & file, ie the men who put their lives on the line underground, & who would support a pro-energy Republican if he came out strongly in favor of continued mining, even if the coal produced wasn’t burned in the US but exported to China, to displace more costly & polluting, lower BTU indigenous coal.
One reason Romney lost was because in VA & OH miners who might have supported him stayed home because they couldn’t chose between their Democrat shop stewards & a guy who inadequately spoke their lingo, that of hard but honest men who hew an honest living at hazard in the earth’s crust.
Meant toeing. Sorry.
– – – – – – – –
milodonharlani,
Your comment has something in it wrt richardscourtney, AGW and British coal.
I do not understand.
John
John Whitman says:
April 26, 2014 at 6:44 pm
I guess you’d have to have followed the thread about political ideology & adherence to CACA.
The Courtneys object to the frequent excursions, usually off topic, on WUWT threads into the association between conservative politics & opposition to CACA. They consider themselves socialists (or at least one of them, but IMO both father & son) who never the less oppose CACA.
Their view is that in countries other than the US, elements in both the Left & the Right support climate science over climate religion. Reading Richard’s prior comments might help you appreciate the issues.
There are commenters here who share my political beliefs, ie that libertarianism & socialism are opposites, who believe that socialists perforce cannot be their allies in the fight against CACA, but must be their enemies, which is practically the case in the US, except possibly for the union coal miners whom I mentioned. The Courtneys however argue that in Europe, there is not such a bright line between Left & Right on the issue of man-made climate change. Supposedly “Conservative”, ie Tory, governments in Britain are practically as pro-CACA as their Labour opponents.
I hope this helps. If still in a quandary, please read prior exchanges between my conservative comrades & Richard Courtney.
Zeke
Chad Wozniak, I would like to thank you for your post. I would like to further support what you have said by observing that progressive scientists who claim to be skeptics are not an asset at all to any skeptic organization. I say this because in my experience, progressive scientists who claim to be skeptics are still highly likely to be in total support of all the rest of the political, economic, and societal activism required by the UN and the “sustainability” agenda.
Zeke, that is total nonsense. If you want to exclude people with left wing views, then you would have to tell Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit that he isn’t welcome – McIntyre is a socialist.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055793/steve-mcintyre-total-bloody-hero/
It is not total nonsense. I have simply pointed out that the “sustainability” goals of the UN are going to cause a division with the majority of progressive skeptics.
This is a practical point, and a generalization. It does not include every single case. And I did not say that any one should be excluded. It is just that no one should be expected to bend themselves into pretzels trying to avoid dealing with political issues, just to include people who will push for global “sustainability” politics and economics anyway.
Man up, and find a big progressive anti-AGW group, if a platform is not to your taste. I have to avoid forums I would otherwise have joined, because of their stated ideologies. I don’t complain and expect them to change. You just go down the street to the society to which you can hopefully positively contribute.
It is a good discussion, and I realize I have taken CFACT for granted and should support it as soon as possible. Sustainability includes all of the monstrous AGW solutions (and then some), and they are really great researchers and communicators.
– – – – – – – – – – –
milodonharlani,
Thank you for your response.
For >5 years I have followed fairly closely the discourse on the political discussion here at WUWT wrt CAGW.
Of course richardscourtney featured prominently in it in behalf of his very vocal and explicit socialist politics. That is legend.
I am a simple Yankee farm boy, so excuse my impoliteness, but what the hell does coal unions in Britain have to do with the ongoing specific discourse wrt to richardscourtney? I understand Oreskes’ and Mann’s bullshit crap wrt climate critics being coal mercenaries of doubt, but why do you associate such things?
John
John Whitman says:
April 26, 2014 at 7:27 pm
==========================================
Single Issue
No matter who is using the lever or to what ends, lets keep the “hockey stick” straight and honest.
Yes, but….and a big but…sort of the “Elephant but” in the room. Or should that be the “Elephant in the room” but?
Yes, but…”the big ole elephant sized butt in the room” but, is the political system you are trying to influence. A political system that does not and has not represented what it’s “constituents” / countless voters -that is to say, “voters whose votes don’t count”- want. And many of the “constituents” want what they say they want out of imaginary fears – because propaganda tells them what they want.
So, when the “constituents” get what they are told to want, they get it…good and hard.
Thanx, Mencken.
Many of the people we see on TV are employees of Street Theater NGOs who just want to get paid…for pretending to want something so bad, and so badly. All based on an imaginary consensus of conclusions which induce a mental / emotional retardation and an ego unwilling to admit they were duped…or bought.
You know…the pseudo-liberals that call the pseudo-conservatives stupid…all working for the same entity when viewed from the top…making themselves not just their own worst enemy but a willing employee and target of their real enemy…the one they share with the pseudo-conservatives. Go figure.
Yet, none of that matters. Bread for some, circus for others. As long as the “Grand Wurlitzer” keeps pumping out the poop, the people will consume it through a tube we call Television…
Look, it’s no secret that the only WMD’s that were found in Iraq -if any-were purchased from the same government that came to destroy them…ultimately sell them more weapons… keep Iraqi oil off the market to maintain high oil prices,..and reassert Petro-Dollar hegemony.
Oh…and find a place to dump thousands of tons of nuke waste – for fun and profit.
You know…the war whose booty of oil would pay for it’s self?
Well, Santa Claus turned out to be the Booty Bandido, and again our asses got tapped.
No dinner. No kiss. No oil. Drilled hard – put away wet with a kick to the curb. Treated like a two bit whore in a ten cent rest room stall.
Where was I going? Oh, right. No Iraqi WMD’s…the discovery thereof… the admission by default and continuation of agenda – that WMD’s were not the reason we murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people….topped off with the illusion of a change in administrative agenda. Complete with Nobel Peace Prize winning President, re-elected despite serious electoral disappointment, with the help of the erectile disappointment presemted as opposition from the pseudo-conservatives pretending to play defense this inning.
You know… Mitt Romney. Who went limp and went home as soon as the Media announced the outcome – with less than 1% of the ballots counted.
Wait… What did I just say? Election results announced with less than 1% of the ballots counted.
Come on! Bal-lots! Those things that represent your input on important issues…like limits on how deep the Booty Bandidos can go while they drill in all the wrong places!
We know about the Princeton voting machine test. And the Diebold programmer testimoney. Whatever. This is much worse.
We are offered terrible choices and then psyched into believing our votes count – as if it would matter whether they were counted or not… With all the bread and circus two billion dollars of campign funds can buy.
What passes as our government is really just an illusion created and supported by our media. Special interest groups and lobbyists write the bills that Congress never read but are told to sign. Our so called government is a hoax and exists to give us the illusion of choice while they sell us out to multinational corporations and banks. The reality is that the government we see is literally just a bunch of actors and the New World Disorder took control long ago.
Bottom line – I know you have the best of intentions…and truth on your side. But, life is not a game show. There are no prizes for being right. By the time they admit that AGW is not real, it will be another ten years before they admit that AGW was not the real reason for Carbon Taxes. Beyond that…even temporary taxes are not temporary. I gave up expecting any of the temporary, emergency sales tax raises in Californian and Los Angelean history to end.
Now, they want to “modify” Prop 13… to take away the Property tax relief we vioted on years ago. Did I say Property tax? Sorry, I meant to say rent…because if you don’t pay they kick you out – like any landlord would. Rent goes to the owners, which they call taxes to make the slaves believe they are free men with property rights…and the illusion of governmental choice. The manufacured consent of the poorly governed.
Total servitude under a pathocracy of kleptocrats, insane war criminals, Satan worshipping death cultists, and “alchemical” banksters that know how to convert your gold into paper.
You know…the 0.00001%.
With no way to vote the bums out, the bums will see your hand of truth, and leave the table with everyone’s chips…without even showing their hand of lies.
Hey…they kept their campaign promises. All the ones they made to everyone but you.
What’s in your wallet? Not enough for them to care.
@Zeke –
You will recall that in my first post on this thread I said that I am prepared to participate in an organization with others with whom I might not agree on other matters. That includes people who call themselves socialists, who by their actions do not support alarmism or engage in some of the other sins of the left. John Whitman (see above) indicates that Steve McIntyre is a socialist, but I see no evidence of Steve McIntyre doing anything but fighting the good fight against AGW. If he is a socialist, he plainly isn’t buying into the standard leftist mendacity – he’s actively and resolutely fighting it. From what I’ve seen of richardscourtney’s posts, I can’t draw the same conclusion about him. The difference is, perhaps, that Steve McIntyre hasn’t been vocal about his political views in his work on climate, whereas richardscourtney is, as everyone here can see.
How about you make a Law of the Medes and the Persians that:
Resolved: No Baby Boomer Ubermensch Hippy Glory Hound who want to arrange everyone’s diets, medical treatment, transportation, power, and education, can join the board or do anything but send money.
Resolved: And be sure to have fun and learn from each other.
Zeke says:
It is not total nonsense…
I agree, Zeke is making some very good arguments regarding the UN’s goals. They are certainly not the goals of the average taxpayer, but rather, they are entirely self-serving goals.
@dbstealey
High five day for commenter Zeke. Thank you! (:
I think there is one point missing from this thread. While skeptics are, in our mind, right with the science and pure in our motives, the battle will have to be joined (is currently being fought) on the opponents turf. There are tendrils of gang green everywhere. Our kids are infected in the schools, our government is fully committed, hell, even NASCAR is going green. When you try to talk fuel economy and Sprint cup cars in the same sentence, crazyness has ensued.
But, in the political context, I think talking about the science is tertiary. That train left the station, and the good guys lost. I think most here think that the warmers will collapse of there own folly, but take our power grids and us down with them. If they were small groups trying to prove a point by living off grid they would be amusing and tolerable, but they are performing their experiments on the only infrastructure and economy they’ve got.
A group in ascendency gets a lot of goodies and distributes them to the membership; it provides psychic goodies to the masses sufficient to allow the collection of goodies from the unwilling through taxation. To stop/counter/remove this group they have to exit power and someone of your view has to take power.
In the world where the bad guys are winning, legislators, described by mark twain as our only native criminal class, face two kinds of issues: lobbyable and electoral. lobbyable issues are narrow, and benefit usually by buying votes on specific legislation in return for campaign contributions or other benefits. Elelctoral issues are those perceived to move voters, especially the possibly unicorn=like swing voters.
I don’t sense the stomach or resources to lobby. Its immoral, sort of illegal, definitely distasteful and way to expensive. Those who think good science can compete for the mind and heart of a congressperson have my admiration but I hear “the impossible dream” playing in the background.
So we resolve to : persuading the voters. PACS, and/or popular media. A promotable John Galt of climate science reality might be a way. PACS can advertise, again the expense is daunting.
The additional political reality of the opposition is an alliance with a number of other focused political groups — with the tacit understanding among them that it’s about power, & to hell with the argument. The cult like quest for power is what allows an organization that suffers from high energy cost to nonetheless ally with the greens.
Conventional energy producers will fight in this arena. Others with conflicting political views will as well.
I frankly don’t the population here doing so as a group. We are who we are – and do what we do.
An umbrella for information exchange — to make sure info and good stories are available to those doing the heavy lifting, might be the ticket here. Turning surface stations into something in popular media can be done without working on the dark side. I do think there .is an opportunity.
I don’t see much of a sense of humor on the other side. I do in the electorate. Organize to provide the antidote to the scare from the dark side. The average voter would rather laugh than be scared. Organize to collect and disseminate – science on the back side, fun on the front.
But don’t look fight on the other guy’s turf.
my four cents
Eric Worrall
“Anthony, I think you have some people expressing support, and some people (like me) not so much.
Why don’t you invite people who support the idea to join your new climate organisation, while the rest of us continue as we have?
I have no problem with interacting with and helping organisations whose goals I support, for example I regularly receive and respond to Heartland posts. Its just I don’t think your new organisation is the most effective strategy. Having said that, I’m happy to be proven wrong ;-).”
…. I would also suggest that there is some animosity I have picked up now and again bubbling underneath the surface in terms of certain individuals not wanting Anthony/WUWT to have a monopoly on the voice for “scepticism” (I prefer the term realism nowadays, both in terms of climate and energy policy). To every action there is a reaction, and one has to consider the “sky dragon slayers” because they are always keen to make a point of Anthony not speaking for them as we all know. This is tied in with many comments already talking about rivalries and herding of cats.
Also, if there was to be a new organisation to me there has to be a credible unimpeachable figurehead and that person requires a strong resume that is as near bullet proof for the alarmists as possible. There is only one person suitable for me, and that is Prof. Judith Curry.
However, as mentioned earlier, the strength of scepticism/realism is that it is a many headed hydra. If one head is chopped there are plenty of heads remaining. Centralisation has pros and cons, one of the biggest cons as I see it is that a clear “bullseye” is painted on that one central organisation.
I don’t read WUWT as regularly as I wish, but one idea I could perhaps suggest is that a weekly, monthly, or quarterly bulletin is circulated if that is not happening already. This is basically just a tweak as opposed to something radically new. As also mentioned earlier we already have GWPF and ClimateDepot/EnergyDepot (CFACT) in existence.
Francois GM says:
April 26, 2014 at 6:04 am
“If I’m elected president of this new organization, I promise: . . . ”
In contrast, the first three of my campaign promises are a blast from the past. And the fourth is an original.
1. I do not seek the nomination.
2. If nominated, I will not run.
3. If elected, I will not serve.
4. If impeached, I will not stand down.
How’s that for insurance against being elected? 🙂
Chad Wozniak:
I write to object to your untrue assertions at April 26, 2014 at 2:45 pm saying to me
That is two lies.
First, I do NOT use this forum to justify leftish ideology: I have not, and I do not.
Second, there is connection between the AGW-scare and RIGHTIST ideology; e.g. the scare was created by Margaret Thatcher as a method to promote her personal political objectives.
And those lies are amid the hate-speech of your post which is here.
I have only objected to the promotion of your far-right ideas by your pushing the ‘Big Lie’ that the AGW-scare is a left vs. right issue.
The ridiculous nature of these far-right assertions is clearly displayed by Gary Pearse when he writes to me at April 26, 2014 at 11:05 am saying
.
So, he says, according to the US-right, in Europe and the Americas only the US Republican Party is not left wing!
Therefore, Chad Wozniak, an apology for your trolling this thread would be appreciated.
Richard
A suggestion… rather than a Skeptic organization, I think a Pro-Energy organization would do better overall. Promote cheap energy and its ability to improve the lives of the people world. Along the way you’ll have plenty of opportunity to discredit crap science.
Positives: Show that you care about people, not companies. Short-circuit the arguement that you’re in the pay of “big oil”
That’s an essential concomitant of the broad-based organization whose philosophy would be Progress versus ‘Sustainability’, which I proposed under the rubric of ‘Terra Home’ in my comments earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much interest.
CFACT does encompass energy in addition to climate, so in the interim, I think they may be the best option. They need a better name, though. . .
/Mr Lynn
i voted yes but then thought about it. What is needed is an ‘Honest Broker’ – not another activist group. The only reason we are ‘winning’ the debate and Keystone is held up is because everyone (except a 30% core constituency driven by belief and ideology) can see the facts as we present them, the continued ‘own goals’ (Gore) and a compliant President with an extremist as a Science Advisor. Even Hillary has distanced herself from these guys in her latest call for policy based upon facts. Unfortunately – she was replaced by ANOTHER elitist nincompoop (Kerry) who has also slowed things down.
Folks like you, Judith Curry, McIntyre, McKittrick, Mosh, GWPF, CFACT act as portals of real information that reveal the insanity of their position. The tide is turning – and you will see the politics of it change over the next 4-6 years…..
Thanks so much for all you do, man. You are my hero.
In the science vs politics debate I would like to point out that this war is best fought using science and logic not ideology. If you want to play the politics game you are playing into the divide and conquer strategy that keeps those running this scam in control.
Nobody likes to be lied to and when believers see the facts that contradict what they have been told they will join the side of truth. Environmental zealots are a lost cause but the bulk of the population only has pervasive propaganda to form opinions around. The science denier meme prevents them from knowing there are empirical facts supporting a skeptical questioning of what the media is presenting. Most of these people think CO2 levels and temperatures are the highest they have ever been and that the science is “settled”. All of which can be debunked with facts.
Because of how ideology becomes entwined in peoples personal identity an attack on their ideology becomes a personal attack. This creates enemy identification and prevents any real communication from taking place. It becomes about survival of the ego’s world view and winning rather than a search for truth. Polarity is the enemy not the left or right. Truth is what can bring us together.
Richard, we get it. You think you’re a socialist. Most people in North America and some elsewhere place socialism on the political left. Get over it.
Skeptics only need to post more often at major MSM internet sites, and at the (sorry Richard) left wing internet sites that are well read. (PREACH LESS TO THE CHOIR, AND MORE TO THOSE WHO ARE SKEPTICAL OF THE SKEPTICS)
Recommended rules
Keep it civil.
Bullet point your main facts, with links.
Anthony and other skeptical folk could have a link to the MSM, and updates on where the major pro CAGW articles are current, with perhaps a brief synopsis with links on effective counter -points.
This alone would be far more effictive, with far less hazard, then a complicated organization.
Chad Wozniak,
FOR THE RECORD: The person on this thread who made a statement about Steve McIntyre’s politics was Eric Worrall. See Eric Worrall’s comment in blockquotes below where he makes a statement about Steve McIntyre’s politics.
I did not make any statement on this thread about Steve McIntyre’s politics. In your below comment in blockquotes you mistakenly attributed to me a statement about Steve McIntyre’s politics. I made no statement about Steve McIntyre’s politics; Eric Worrall did.
– – – – – – – –
Here is Eric Worrall’s comment where he makes a statement about Steve McIntyre’s politics:
– – – – – – – – – – –
Here is Chad Wozniak’s comment where he incorrectly states that I made a statement about Steve McIntyre’s politics: (I made no such statement about Steve McIntyre of this thread. Eric Worrall did make such a statement about Steve McIntyre on this thread – see his comment above where he does it)
John
Chad Wozniak says:
April 26, 2014 at 2:45 pm
1+
People might as well take the “it’s all about science” drivel to the text book review boards across the U.S.. The statement in regard to climate science is devoid of logic. It is the most selectively cherry picked, non-empirical and unsupported by classical hypothesis burdens of proof in history. The glue that hold the movement together is the “consensus” of central planning authoritative “policy” and the core advocacy community is linked in largely Marxist redistribution and control ideology.
Richard Courtney appears clueless as are many of head-in-sand skeptics who want to struggle along in this status quo of abstract spaghetti charts in stalemate and pretend it is something it is not. So declined has the society become it requires a proof to nullify a hypothesis, the very nature of superstition and political corruption in this case. The burden of science is “proof” which none exists.
What we are really dealing with is collective embarrassment among the left at the street level, that might have reasoned the AGW “science” corrupt, unsupported etc. but they can’t accept the motivations of what corrupted it and who those people represent in their peer community. That makes them highly likely to be useful idiots which in fact many left leaning skeptics such as Dr. Curry often are. You can list 500 dots in a row that spell “political motivation of AGW advocates to leftist policy leadership” and they refuse to draw a simple line to connect them. It’s a horrible demand in their minds that they be asked to acknowledge the overwhelming force and coordination of their peers (media, government, academia). Hence a whole language of obfuscation is created about “advocacy and advocates”, “activists”, “true believers” and hundreds of other carefully measured euphemisms that distract from the usual authoritative ideology trying to rule humanity from cradle to grave. It’s complete oblivion to protect their inner “id” and deny political associations that are humiliating to consider. Once again the word “science” is a stage prop even if they are arguing on the correct science side of an issue. The technical conclusion is only a small part of the overall weight involved in the AGW movement and why this brand of clueless skepticism is in the wilderness.
Of some note regarding the above ideas and comments.
It is not just climate science that has been wounded by these tax and spend power mongers.
Take the National Science Labs, Sandia, Los Alamos, Livermore, ect. they too have been compromised by this use of “the cause” to bend the truth of science to provide the power/money cult with more of our production/lives for the cult to spend on its political needs.
Just might be the new org. could find others from other fields to join in and thus enlarge our side together with some of those might have the funds to help matters more along faster.
Notice: Troll Name Calling Alert
Up until the ~380th comment, surprisingly. no commenter on this thread had personally called another individual commenter on this thread a troll. (there was up to that point one or two generalized discussions of troll sources from blogs, but no one had yet specifically called another commenter on this thread a troll).
Not surprising though is that the first person on this thread to call another person commenting on this thread a troll was richardscourtney ( April 27, 2014 at 12:37 am ) calling Chad Wozniak a troll in ~380th comment of the thread.
John
move along faster
Anthony:
I share your frustration. So much has been submitted to the pages of the WUWT that clearly have shown that the predictions about excessive climate change are very uncertain with little real data to corroborate the impact of green house gases on the temperature of the globe. Judging from the contributor comments about the poll, many feel the same way as you and would like to see some push back against the AGW cult. The frustration expressed above by many contributors is that any of the most articulate skeptic’s messages are not being heard because they speak as individuals rather than as a cohesive group. They feel ignored and disparaged. While there are groups such as NIPCC, they have been discredited. Moreover, the skeptics have spoken more about the science of climate, its uncertainties, the erroneous conclusions reached in peer reviewed papers, conspiracies to control the science publications with no immediate reasoned feedback or willingness to debate the science.
The issues of climate science boil down to anthem themes from two unequally sized choirs, the very large eco-socio-political rhetoric choir and the small quest for truth in climate science choir. The rhetoric is trumpeted by the main stream media sources and their “journalists” who hold global warming as a religious tenet that was published and is now controlled by a central religious authority called the IPCC and its religious book of knowledge, AR5. If the proposed skeptic organization aims to take on this organization along with its aligned religious sects such as AAAS, Nature Magazine, EPA, NOAA, NASA, they will feel an even greater sense of utter frustration. Their IPCC beliefs about global warming are not determined by science but are based on faith in its priesthood and their dogma. Moreover these groups will use their political clout to continue to silence doubters and to pump up the media rhetoric to higher levels of fear in order to scare everyone into believing their religious hokum. In short they will add more government sponsored tenors to the choir. Based on what has been spent already in the name of global warming, the financial resources needed to counter this pseudo-religious organization is far greater than even the wealth of both Koch brothers. Competing here is a costly mistake.
The choir of scientific voices has a few off-key members singing who best designated as religious zealots. These few are loosing the war for truth in climate science by being exposed more and more as being liars and who frequently change the science to meet political goals. This loss has been happening because of a cadre of mixed voiced, scientists with sufficient integrity to admit that they are not sure of the magnitude of the extent to which global warming is due to the influx of trace amounts of carbon dioxide as well as from other possible mechanisms for heating the planet. In addition, these climate scientists have pointed out the major scientific errors of these pronouncements of the religious science zealots with the real risk of attack by the media and selected religious government agencies. You and the many WUWT authors who have felt their wrath are major contributors that provide an open forum to discredit the faulty climate science. There are numerous others that are listed on your WUWT supporter list that are additional sources of scientific comment and criticism on climate scientific issues. While we listen to these voices, the religious fanatics are deaf to reason impeded by religious fever and blind faith that they have the only truth. Buying them hearing aids would not help. The off-key singers are being drowned out.
This is a roundabout way of saying I don’t think we need another organization to counter the voices of eco- socio-politico-religious choir. They will ultimately be disregarded as the predictions that the “end of the world in near” fail to materialize along with the many other predictions such as droughts, rising oceans, melting ice caps, dwindling sea ice, disappearing coral reefs. Eventually, the media will stop listening to their off-key voices when no one wants to hear or believe what they are singing. Of course, during their dirge-like concert about the death of the planet, many innocent people will die from lack of resources that will be spent to feed the congregation of the church of climate change in the form of tax dollars in order to fund more expensive forms of energy, increased regulations on fossil fuels, wasted research efforts, larger government oversight agencies and higher food costs to name a few. I vote to keep the discussion on a science plane and stay away from commenting on the IPCC religious cult.
My suggestion is keep WUWT as a forum for scientific debate that WUWT is today. This is probably good enough to keep the truth from being suppressed, but not as satisfying as accelerating the drum beat for truth. Despite the trolls, the pages for WUWT contain honest debate including those who are not very skeptical. The skeptics through WUWT and other skeptical sites have slowed the climate juggernaut. Many countries have already come to the conclusion that taxing people to save the planet from global warming, “climate change”, is a waste of resources. A few countries are not as enlightened, especially, the USA.
It would be good if there was a higher skeptic authority which could keep the general public aware of what the skeptics think are major points that refute the concepts that carbon dioxide is the sole cause of climate changes and the concomitant predictions of catastrophes attributed to climate changes. What should this super-forum’s charter be and how it would be organized? The answer is not clear? It needs more discussion!
Voice # 396
The above rancor shows why my simple suggestion may be most effective.
Skeptics only need to post more often at major MSM internet sites, and at the (sorry Richard) left wing internet sites that are well read. (PREACH LESS TO THE CHOIR, AND MORE TO THOSE WHO ARE SKEPTICAL OF THE SKEPTICS)
Recommended rules
Keep it civil.
Bullet point your main facts, with links.
Anthony and other skeptical folk could have a link to the MSM, and updates on where the major pro CAGW articles are current, with perhaps a brief synopsis with links on effective counter -points.
This alone would be far more effictive, with far less hazard, then a complicated organization.
John Whitman:
re your post at April 27, 2014 at 12:28 pm.
It is incontrovertible fact that Chad Wozniak has been trolling this thread and so has e.g. cwon14 at April 27, 2014 at 11:46 am.
This thread is about a proposal for an anti-AGW-alarmist organisation.
This thread is NOT about a proposal for a far-right- organisation to attack left-wing opponents of AGW-alarmism.
The clear attempt by the trolls to usurp this thread has the sole effect of attempting to induce ‘civil war’ among AGW-sceptics.
Personally, I desire the broadest possible opposition to AGW-alarmism. My desire is shared by genuine opponents of the alarmism from across the political spectrum so, for example, I have shared platforms with the right-wing Lords Monckton and Lawson.
I strongly suspect the motivations of the trolls who have demonstrated in this thread that they desire to reduce opposition to AGW-alarmism.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
To me you are wasting energy trying to rationalize your calling other people names and especially in calling other people trolls.
I saw an important discussion to identify political barriers to people being able to cooperate in a skeptic PAG (political action group). And I saw a good discussion how to overcome them. Yes there was disagreement, of course. I saw you try to stop the discussion. You failed to shut it down then initiated troll name calling.
Although I cannot support a PAG, I encourage discussing it at length. Especially dialog on how to make political differences work in a PAG.
John
John Whitman:
At April 27, 2014 at 4:21 pm you make a silly and untrue accusation concerning me when you write
Your comment would be useful if it were true, rational and honest but it is none of those.
The name-calling was entirely by the trolls and I objected to it. Their trolling successfully attempted to deflect the thread from its subject.
Your post is another in your series of posts applauding trolling which you have posted in WUWT threads.
The significant facts in this case are:
1.
Opponents and proponents of AGW exist across the political spectrum. And left-wingers who have made notable contributions to AGW-scepticism include Steve McIntyre, Jo Nova, and me (e.g. my assistance to the Chinese preparations for the Copenhagen CoP which resulted in prevention of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol).
2.
The right-wing trolls in this thread campaigned for AGW-sceptics to attack left-winger AGW-sceptics and for the proposed new AGW-sceptic organisation to adopt such attack as policy.
My objections to the trolls’ activities in this thread are NOT “rationalizing” anything and are NOT “name calling”: my objections are outrage at falsehoods and unprovoked attacks by the trolls!
Richard
– – – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
You won’t succeed in shutting down a conversation on how to resolve barriers to political collaboration in a PAG (political action group) after first vigorously contesting and identifying such barriers.
Again, although I cannot support a PAG (for broader fundamental philosophical reasons) I encourage rigorous debate on it.
richardscourtney, just as one private human being to another private human being, I ask you to please stop the troll name calling. And stop your name calling in general. In that regard, I ask that all of us remember the exemplary behavior of the wonderful late Robert Phelan who was a mentor to us all here on WUWT.
John
This would not be a good idea. The purpose of this large organisation is to demonstrate unity. It can also demonstrate group think.
Remember, consensus is not Science.
I did not vote and would have voted NO for a couple of reasons.
First we have already seen examples of the skeptic infighting. Herding cats comes to mind.
Second if there is a “Group” it is very easily marginalized by using Psuedo-scientific polls and studies. For example the Looney Lew Papers. Or the much better designed Blair-Rockefeller poll – University of Arkansas that “found” the Tea Party was “Racist” by manipulating the questions. Asking a group opposed to a large Federal government questions starting with “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that….?” guarantees what the answer will be no matter what you tack onto the end of the question.
Third a “Group” especially a large group is easily infiltrated and moved in a direction none of the members expected. I have had it happen in two groups I was a founding member of. Heck all we have to do is look at the Royal Society and the other scientific groups for examples of what can easily be done.
I rather throw my support behind the already existing groups like C-Fact, GWPF, Heartland, NIPCC.
One big group just makes it that much easier to marginalize all of us by giving them ONE target.
More RC delusions;
“The right-wing trolls in this thread campaigned for AGW-sceptics to attack left-winger AGW-sceptics and for the proposed new AGW-sceptic organisation to adopt such attack as policy.”
It’s about the reality of the broad AGW movement being dominated by leftist agenda and inability of certain skeptics both left and right wing to accept this basic reality in the debate. Without “policy” implication AGW would be an obscure academic discussion with perhaps some abstract political culture attached to it like the “Big Bang” or “Evolution” theories. Since the underlying policy is total state regulation of carbon under they claim it impacts “climate” to a serious and “tipping point” degree the war is on and among millions of potential combatants on a global scale appears in many forms. Regardless of the variety the main philosophical field is between pro-government centralized planners and those who stand for individual rights.
Many left of center skeptics have contributed, perhaps their moderation motivated them in part to denounce outright political fraud creeping into their “science” value system. Perhaps, as similar to the executive power abuses of the moment in the U.S. which implies dictatorship and social decline they realize what a threat to reason and freedom the AGW rationalization agenda would mean in a future world in general. Perhaps many motivations and they deny the overwhelming nature of the left-wing political forces supporting AGW ideology of the core “consensus”. For all the contribution of left-wing skeptics Morano, Inholfe, Delingpole have a better grasp of the totality debate right from the start. Aside from Lindzen who is a prototypical democrat repentant-in-later life it remains difficult to find any honest and complete account of AGW culture coming from a typically left-wing academic enclave, a sub-set of “environmental studies”. You would have better luck finding conservative/libertarian views in “women’s studies” department, Washington Press core or the NY Times editorial board (slim to none). We are a completely polarized society at root professional levels and AGW is a stark example of that feature. The burden of this to liberal doubters of AGW may seem somewhat unfair to them but it’s time they consider the whole truth not just the segments which they can culturally absorb. Dr. Curry being the perfect example of someone who spends years of energy doing the “it’s about science” moon dance while listing a thousand example of how it’s not about science and the peer driven fanaticism of AGW advocates. Politics was always primary to AGW advocacy and it remains counterproductive to deny this basic fact. In many ways liberal skeptics are counter productive regardless of their technical support or even their marginal concessions regarding political extremism among the AGW advocate community. This is no different than any spectrum split among politically conscientious parties but it is fruit of the same poisoned tree. I refuse to accept the partisan “green” ideology over a non-empirical and politically motivated belief system that AGW certainly represents. It’s time the debate move on as if this is a debate among fellow greens who wish to maintain control of the narrative talking points.
Liberal skeptics need to suck it up, acknowledge the basic core AGW drivers publicly or be in the end marginalized in history. The same idiotic reasoning is applied by generations of liberals who might concede “Stalin or Hitler were bad guys” but greater communist/collectivist philosophy has merits and can be rationalized as a forward policy. Moderate “it’s about science” rhetoric enables fanatical AGW to survive and advance. Any organization that can’t accept this is counterproductive to science reform and delaying the eventual defeat of totalitarianism supported by the current academic community. “Consensus” as applied today is right out of Nazi or Soviet rationalizations for favored ideological policy solutions at any cost. You know who they are and you speak out or be damned. True of any person or would-be organization.
Redoubtable Doubt Academe
John
Gail Combs says:
April 28, 2014 at 5:11 am
Without the struggle between skeptics and the logical unification that it (AGW warming meme) really was, always, about politics we will remain in the black-hole of vague and inconclusive cherry picked observations and narratives. So far has the civilization sunk but a substantial population demands that an unproven claim be falsified before they will renounce it. In this unscientific culture AGW will likely survive decades longer and if the coincidence of unfortunate weather (higher then normal storms or a high population hit of a hurricane or any classic “warming” anomaly) then the culture of superstition will likely be increased. It’s a statistical inevitability based on where many skeptics accept the ridiculous talking point boundaries of the current debate.
If we have a high sea ice melt over a few years do you want go through every junk science extrapolation that is fully predicted from this again, for the thousandth (millionth actually) time?
Without unification on a very an obvious leftist agenda of the core AGW advocacy community success can’t be achieved. We currently live in a graveyard of a leftist academic split between AGW radicals and useful idiot moderates (it’s only/mostly about “science”). With the tools at hand it could go on for decades longer and the last 30 years in particular are a travesty. Realistically skepticism is benefiting from predictive non-correlation of weather to the AGW meme and natural variability works both ways. So rather then be forced into another speculative meme about cooler weather trends there is no obvious solution to eliminating AGW advocacy then convincing people of the certain truth of the political motivations that always drove the meme.
Why do “it’s about science” people insist on this falsehood? That’s the real question Gail, it’s wholly untrue on the face of it. I know why leftist academics in the field all pursue this falsehood (to reinforce authority as they dominate the “science” group, they control that ballot box for the foreseeable future in the field.) but why do skeptics parrot a reciprocal talking point to this degree? This is all similar to watching one party debates in NYC or California when liberals painstakingly obfuscate conservative arguments they might make for fear of being associated or validating central values they are culturally opposed to in general. So we are left with a general debate as if this is a schism between left-of-center parties if we follow the convention of “it’s about science” falsehood.
Many skeptics are comfortable in this endless science babble stalemate of their own complicit design, I find it repugnant and dishonest.
Gail Combs says:
April 28, 2014 at 5:11 am ” there is no obvious solution to eliminating AGW advocacy then convincing people of the certain truth of the political motivations that always drove the meme.
Why do “it’s about science” people insist on this falsehood?”
The falsehood is believing you can change someone’s mind by attacking their ideology. You will NEVER get anywhere by doing that.
The vast majority of the population are moderates and cannot possibly understand how misleading the media propaganda is on this subject without being showed scientific truths. Once they understand they have been lied to you then have a chance to help them “follow the money” to see who benefits from the scam.
There are lots of organizations and websites exposing what’s behind Agenda 21. Those are a better vehicle to attack the control paradigm than a science blog. There are many other outlets for political jousting where the fight can be taken if you want to waste time in an ideological stalemate. Make no mistake, when you engage in polarity politics you are playing the game of divide and conquer that has kept those you are opposing in power. Only by identifying specific issues that can be proven to be wrong can you change anyone’s beliefs. As soon as you identify someone a a leftist you have eliminated any chance of communicating with them. By reasoning with compassion, facts and logic rather than ideology you can connect intellectually with those who are being used as tools and help them see better solutions. Doing otherwise is like banging your head against a wall and expecting results.
John Whitman:
I write to demand retraction of your falsehoods in your post attacking me at April 28, 2014 at 12:35
am.
I take especial umbrage at your lie that I have tried to shut down debate “on how to resolve barriers to political collaboration in a PAG”. NO! On the contrary, I objected to trolling which has curtailed such debate in this thread.
The trolls have asserted – and continue to assert -n that such collaboration (which I have a record of providing) must be prevented because the trolls claim the PAG should promote right-wing falsehoods and attack those on the political left who oppose the AGW-scare.
I await your complete retraction and apology.
Richard
cwon14:
You make one – and only one – accurate statement in your diatribe at April 28, 2014 at 9:22 am.
Your accurate statement says
Yes. The AGW-scare was created and developed by Margaret Thatcher as a political ploy in furtherance of her personal right-wing political objectives.
Unfortunately for you, the one thing you got right refutes the remainder of your diatribe which is inflamatory and divisive nonsense.
Richard
– – – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Seriously? My retraction and apology?
By implication you are saying that I shut up until I do that?
So, you are still trying to shutdown the conversation focused now on me. Old news.
Your hostile taunting of people, by your name calling, who do not agree with your political-cum-CAGW position is a classic example of intimidation to shutdown the conversation.
Note: I see that cwon14 persists in circumscribing the issues nicely. Thanks cwon14. Yet, philosophically the usage of ‘left or center or right’ are silly non-starters that will deadend. We need to move the conversation to more logical and consistent terminology. N’est ce pas?
John
richardscourtney says:
April 28, 2014 at 9:43 am
Over decades rc there were many related machination from the 70’s oil embargo and resulting politics of those moments that we traveled. Including Thatchers pro-nuclear and in fact anti-union (what horrible cultures these really were by coincidence) complicity in the meme at the time. The GOP produced its own ahat versions in John McCain and Lindsey Graham parroting similar offshoots on “national security” deal making.
On a whole, of course, your views are absurd and selectively simplified in the usual pointless framing. At this point we are talking about less that 5-10% of conservative deal makers, panderers and compromise-rs as overall political weight that might be associated to the overall socialist agenda of the current time frame and historical overview. It’s about government taxing, redistributing and “regulating” on a global basis along usual socialist lines of agenda. That there are failures in GOP or Tory history do nothing to validate your assertion. The basket case that is England politically or in the EU doesn’t make your claims any less bootless.
Thatcher latter recanted as the perversion of alliances to green fanatics and their ultimate control of the AGW meme became evident.
Do you ever think things out at all? If you do then you know you are merely being dishonest.
– – – – – – – – – –
cwon14,
Is the non-scientific false ‘a priori’ premise*** (that is the necessary and sufficient basis of the IPCC assessment process) solely sourced from a political philosophy?
Can we sufficiently prove that a political philosophy is the sole basis of the premise? Yes, I think we can. I think it should be understood, though, that it will always be contested strongly by those who have the political philosophy that the premise is based on.
*** premise – Man’s nature, if allowed to have freedom of action, must cause climate catastrophe.
John
John Whitman says:
April 28, 2014 at 10:17 am
When people confront an issue, decades at a time, there is this inclination to believe it more complicated then what they might have thought 30 or more years earlier. The eco-green Earth day culture is the same as it was in 1970 in fact. The culture decline that it was even then has simply mainstreamed much to societal detriment. The point is, it’s generally the same and redundant regardless of visual form.
He’s not the best skeptical advocate but here is the simple truth AGW in the broadest sense;
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/27/george-will-calls-global-warming-a-religion-socialism-by-the-back-door/
That liberal skeptics (among others) are offended and need like a crutch a thousand AGW subplots and motivations for all the suffering of the past 50 years in particular I can’t help.
Some people like spaghetti charts to the point of vice. I get that part of it but it in the entirety it isn’t “science”. There are no longer term trends out side historic variability. There are too many factors that can’t be isolated as changing the climate in itself, it’s a chaotic system. There is no physical or empirical evidence that GHG systems react to higher human contributions or follow any such assumed rules in the open set Earth. It’s not a fish tank or an enclosed arboretum. CO2 is a trace gas and less than 5% of any implied GHG effect from the start. The sink isn’t defined or understood, there are clouds and ocean cycles with undefined measurements and impacts. It goes on and on in uncertainty in the actual “science” area. The only thing that is constant is the political mantra that there is crisis and government and its academic toad class are here to save us along the usual centrally planned lines of argument.
Had the focused on SO2 and coal lead they might have racked up hundreds of local victories over the past 40 years but when the goal is global socialism and expert domination such results and improvements wouldn’t bring the desired power to the desired class aspiring for control and political power. In the broadest sense it is of course a left-right issue and the little nuanced outliers who can’t accept this are part of the problem in the skeptical gene pool. It’s part of the reason skeptics lose and the menace is at the gates.
Point of order: Richard S. Courtney has raised the Margaret Thatcher shibboleth before, to suggest that Climatist alarmism began on the conservative side. Back in 2012 I attempted to correct this bit of blinkered history:
The comment is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/why-we-need-debate-not-consensus-on-climate-change/#comment-1057657
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn:
You falsely write at April 28, 2014 at 12:07 pm saying
Your assertions are untrue on at least two counts.
Firstly, if you wish to make a “point of order” then your complaint needs to be at an action I made and not an action I did not make.
I did NOT “suggest that Climatist alarmism began on the conservative side”. At April 27, 2014 at 12:37 am I wrote
It is a fact that “the scare was created by Margaret Thatcher”. And the additional fact that others had attempted to create such a scare previously does not alter the truth of my statement in any way.
I state the facts of that matter here.
Please note that the introduction to that item explains it saying
Secondly, the only “blinkered history” is yours. The truth of these matters is clearly stated in the link with updates made in the 1990s. And that you attempted to promote your distortion of history in 2012 does not make the truth a “shibboleth”. You and your right-wing chums can assert whatever historical revisionism you want, but your false assertions do not indicate that “We have always been at war with Eurasia”.
You may be able to fool American ‘red-necks’, but there are many Brits who remember that the AGW-scare did not exist prior to Thatcher starting it.
Richard
John Whitman:
Your post addressed to me at April 28, 2014 at 10:17 am fails to retract and apologise for your egregious lie that I tried to a stop a discussion that I would have welcomed.
I still await your retraction and apology. I have not name-called and you should apologise for that falsehood, too.
Richard
cwon14:
At April 28, 2014 at 10:32 am you ask me
Yes. I often think.
Importantly, I think that your question coming from an anonymous, disruptive and divisive troll is strong evidence that the truth of my thoughts has hurt your attempts in this thread to harm opposition to the AGW-scare.
Richard
– – – – – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Apology? Retraction? Well that does start one thinking . . . . .
Shall we start listing the many commenters here on this wonderful venue who you have taunted and attempted to intimidate into silence with your namecalling behavior?
Will there be simple civil closure for the insult they received . . . . from you?
John
Thank you for responding. You say,
“. . . I did NOT ‘suggest that Climatist alarmism began on the conservative side’. At April 27, 2014 at 12:37 am I wrote
”
which to me looks at first rather like a distinction without a difference. However, I read your article linked from Tallbloke’s blog, which I had not seen, about the history of the AGW scare in the UK. It was very interesting, and a quite convincing account of the “coincidence of interests” that propelled the ‘global warming’ speculation into a full-fledged movement in the UK in the 1980s. Certainly in your original report you were prescient in predicting the explosion of this woeful end-of-millenium tomfoolery.
You say that early on Lady Thatcher saw the opportunity to make political hay by raising the alarm about global warming. By your account, it was Sir Crispin Tickell, the UK’s UN Ambassador who whispered in her ear and suggested she could also enhance her international standing by taking the lead in raising a ‘worldwide’ problem. That leaves me wondering, though, where Ambassador Tickell got the idea. Could it have been at the UN itself? And could not it have been from the ‘globalists’ whom the UN attracts and breeds?
The article I linked to essentially claims that the fuel for the ‘global warming’ scare was laid down by the Mead-Kellogg conference in North Carolina in 1974. Margaret Mead had previously attended a UN conference on population and was President of the AAAS, so probably thick with the UN science and globalist elites. Lady Thatcher may have sparked the global warming fire in the UK, but it sounds like the embers were already glowing on the US side of the Atlantic, and probably in Europe as well.
These globalists were if anything more aligned with the Club of Rome than with any national parties, including UK’s Conservatives. Your tale suggests that Lady Thatcher was looking at the global warming ploy for short-term advantage, and had no inkling of the monster conflagration that would start, nor that it would be adopted wholesale by ‘watermelons’ and other ideologues of the far left on both sides of the Atlantic.
So I’m not sure how you can say that “There is connection between the AGW-scare and RIGHTIST ideology. . .” when Mrs. Thatcher’s motives were more pragmatic than ideological. It still seems to me, in any case, that the origins of the AGW scare in the West lay with the international globalist neo-Malthusian community in the ’70s. And while it was the Thatcher government that gave it official status in the UK, it does not appear to have been ‘conservative’ as such. But I will grant that you know the subtleties of UK politics far better than I.
In any case, this is a complete diversion from the original topic of this thread, for which I ask the indulgence of our host and moderators.
/Mr Lynn
conscious1 says:
April 28, 2014 at 2:45 pm
In the largest context possible AGW is ideology. Many skeptics remain clueless on this point.
Mr Lynn says:
April 28, 2014 at 5:57 pm
The actual Crimean War was famous for mismanagement on all sides, soldiers sent the wrong caliber of bullet or no ammunition at all on the eve of battles etc. I think of this when I consider Richard Courtney and his incoherent histories of Thatchers blundering and co-op attempts to use greenshirt ideology to triangulate what were near Marxist unions that had nearly destroyed the British economy before her arrival.
Richard Courtney views are incompetent.
Speaking of “in fighting” in would-be, commonly based organizations;
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/28/Green-campaigners-demand-the-arrest-of-George-Monbiot-for-crimes-against-the-environment-and-humanity
The pro-nuclear tactics of Thatcher and others had some deep reasoning involved although it was a net negative as it validated an overall fraudulent claim about co2 etc. Again, think if everything had been focused on SO2 emotionally over these decades. The AGW movement insured more dirty water and air, starvation of the poor, greater income inequality etc. etc. AGW was full stupid on so many levels.
In the end greenshirt fanaticism might have had a more reasoned image (focus SO2 and lead) but they wouldn’t have contained themselves regardless of better political results. They want the whole prize of world domination and little twerp like Monboit isn’t even safe in his own cult. Irony, like Hitler shooting his generals.
Worried about skeptical groups dividing on politics?
I’d certainly be prepared to contribute to a moderate, rational, science-based, sceptics organisation. It would be harder to dismiss as ‘deniers’.
It is well past the time when honest sceptics should have taken the debate into the public arena. It’s not so much the debate, it’s their education that is remiss. Great sites llike this one do not reach the general public; we need a wider strategy. We have the tools available, with the internet and youtube to start with.
Wind opponents tried this and it just painted a giant target on the opponents of wind. There were articles on “the DC Group” and how they were organizing and the myths spun out from there. As with wind, what makes the opposition strong is their “grassroots” status.
Reality check, there’s nothing new about being targeted. It has been happening on this issue for a long time. Both sides are targeted. That’s been normal since time immemorial, whenever serious a disagreement arises. I support Rational Mal’s approach. But we have to go beyond these blog sites, because their audiences are restricted to the trench warriors, and the general public never gets to learn much about the climate. Many don’t even know that there’s a real argument going on. They just hear the orthodox views repeated by the media. We need to get information to them. That’s why I’m suggesting an internet campaign, with witty, clever, factual and engaging snippets on youtube.