I have some important work to do today, and so I’m going to put my interaction with WUWT on hold for a bit. However, I see here an opportunity to ask a question I have been pondering for quite some time. Please help me out by answering the question and discussing it. Of course other things within site policy are fair game too.
As of late, we have seen climate skepticism portrayed in many derogatory ways. The juvenile sliming by Stephan Lewandowsky, Mike Marriott, and John Cook is a good example: they tried to use science as a bully pulpit to paint climate skeptics as crazy people, much like what happened with politcal dissent in Soviet Russia. In the Soviet Union, a systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place and was based on the interpretation of political dissent as a psychiatric problem.
Except, Lew and company were caught out, and called out by Frontiers.
Why did this happen? Well, I think part of it has to do with the loose-knit nature of climate skepticism. While the climate debate is often along political lines, climate skepticism is something that crosses those lines. I find that skepticism can be just as strong with some people on the left side of the political spectrum once they allow themselves to be open to the facts, rather than just accepting agitprop fed to them.
There’s no official position or representative body for climate skepticism. While players like Dr. Mann and the criminal actor Peter Glieck would like to argue that the Heartland Institute, “Big Oil, Big Coal”, and the #Kochmachine are the unifying forces behind climate skepticsm, nothing could be further from the truth. Mostly, climate skepticism is about a personal journey, not one that came from an organization.
I’m a good example. I used to be fully engaged with the idea that we had to do something about CO2, and Dr. James Hansen in 1988 was the impetus for that. I remember vividly watching his testimony on the sat feed at the TV station and thinking to myself that this really is serious. It wasn’t until later that I realized his science was so weak he and his sponsor had to resort to stagecraft by turning off the air conditioner and opening windows to make people sweat. It was the original sin of noble cause corruption. Now with my own work on the surfacestations project and what I’ve learned about climate sensitivity via the WUWT experience, and witnessing the IPPC and its foibles and how Climategate showed dissension behind the scenes, I no longer see climate change as the threat I once did back in 1988.
But, that’s my journey, others may differ.
People like Lewandowsky were able to make their claims stick because with climate skepticsm, it is all about that personal journey, there’s no organization, no policy statement, no cohesiveness of opinion that anyone can point to and say “this is what climate skeptics endorse”. While there’s strength in that heterogeneity, there’s also a weakness in that it allows people like Lewandowsky to brand climate skeptics as he sees fit.
So after some years of thinking about this, I’d like to ask this simple question:
Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?
In the UK, The Global Warming Policy Foundation provides much of that, and they have been successful in those areas, but it is UK centric.
So please answer the poll and let me know.
These climate change people are insane and have made this lie into a religion. They as a whole, need to shut up and vanish. The public doesn’t want to hear the lies anymore. And Al Gore can pass out his millions of dollars he has made to the poor. Lies for money.
I voted “yes”, but I don’t think that “climate skeptics” is the proper name for it.
I think “climate skeptic” is nonsensical and doesn’t actually say what we stand for or why we object to the alarmism that is CAGW.
One big problem is that there is no “official” skeptic position. We range from those who believe that CO2 has no impact on temperature to those who believe CO2 is a big problem but that mitigation and adaptation are the only rational approach.
Another problem is who’s going to run this organization? Who has the time and resources to take this on as a full time job?
I feel that what Anthony and others are doing with their blogs will probably be the closest we ever come to an “official” organization.
A climate change story that will likely spread like wildfire:
Climate change increasing massive wildfires in West
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/04/19/western-wildfires-climate-change/7874841/
Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984-2011†
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059576/abstract
Hmmm, I wonder ‘how’ they factored in the changes of amo and pdo?
Someone will have to approach the oil companies for funding though. Don’t ya think? (/sarc)
Maybe a virtual ‘Museum of Climate’ could become a reference point for The Masses, and when confronted with facts, they would banish / exile the alarmists
I think it is best that there is no Organization behind or embracing or promoting Climate Skepticism, just like there should not be an Organization behind any sub-field of Science itself. Scientists and skeptics must be allowed [and required] to follow their own path. That various scientific groups [e.g. AGU, AMS, and the Royal Society) issue Position Statements on any topic is in principle wrong. So I woted NO.
I voted “yes” but I thought there already was one: the NIPCC?
Definitely not, at least until the IRS, DOJ etc. become non-political again. Joining an official “enemies” organization just invites heavy-handed official retaliation. If there is no official “enemies” organization, then it’s less than obvious who to harass — because there is no easy way to “send a message” to climate critics by going after an official spokesman or organizational head.
Climate skeptics already have a large number of formal organizations where they belong; Universities, research institutes, government laboratories, etc.
REPLY: But they have no voice there – A
Skepticism is about science, not policy. Activism is the blood brother of policy and its politics.
I’m not sure, but if there is one, Christopher Monckton should be its head.
Alec aka Daffy Duck says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:11 am
_____________________________________________________________________________
How about a simpler explanation: The Feds have mismanaged the forests they control. This sets up conditions that allow for larger and more intensive burns.
If there is a “skeptical organization,” then within the organization there will be political problems about what exactly the message is, and about the precise wording of “official” statements. Also, there is more strength in less organization — cf. the many military examples where “the people” can resist a monolithic army.
Furthermore, some of us are not “joiners.” If some of us wish to form an organization, go ahead, but others of us will remain independent.
I can think of some downsides right away. Organizations can be targeted and discredited. Disorganized movements are harder to deal with.
What’s the upside? Different people find different things persuasive or questionable, how could an official policy be had that doesn’t alienate some of them?
I haven’t thought this through, but off the top of my head I’m dubious.
I think Anthony recognized something powerful here:
Maybe there could be an official skeptics organization, but I’d be darn careful to keep it purely and simply on point.
Well, I think part of it has to do with the loose-knit nature of climate skepticism….
That and the fact their science is so weak (you have a typo BTW) and loopy…the MSM…
lsvalgaard says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:15 am
I think it is best that there is no Organization behind or embracing or promoting Climate Skepticism
hogwash…what’s the difference?
basically that is saying the science institutions are failing or are failed in not doing their job of peer review?
create an organisation and people can sabotage it and then everyone spends their time on internal politics rather than the focus. Then you have to find money and staff etc
Enough people who matter probably read blogs like this. The mass media are under orders not to give any platform to anything or anyone who might boat rock so it won’t help there whatever you publish. The work is exposing the bad science and documenting it.
We don’t need a climate skeptics organization.
What is needed is a “Climate Reality” organization that pressures, NOAA, NASA, and CU and other organizations to provide honest, untampered data, or/and provides this data so that the climate discussion is reality based instead of debating various forms of fiction.
Another useful function would be crowd review Climate studies and grade them for measures such as methodology and,valid application of statistics.
Latitude says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:23 am
hogwash…what’s the difference?
Between what?
lsvalgaard says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:15 am
I think it is best that there is no Organization behind or embracing or promoting Climate Skepticism, just like there should not be an Organization behind any sub-field of Science itself.
====
This is total hogwash…..it’s already done that way…..if I publish a paper that disagrees with yours
In the UK we have occasional informal pub nights of like-minded souls, usually arranged via the Bishop Hill website.
They’re great fun, but I suspect any suggestion of adding an organisation or structure would meet with some disdain. The characters and interests of the participants are far too diverse for such an idea to take root. It would be like herding cats. A lot of scratching and spitting, but no useful end result.
And for the avoidance of any doubt, such gatherings have all been entirely self-funded…both for attendance and for expenses/refreshments. If there really is a Big Oil sugar daddy he hasn’t put in an appearance in UK as yet.
It would help if it could be accredited by some recognized and respected scientific organization.
[i]Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?[/i]
I would answer [b] No. [/b]
The CAGW belief is just that – a belief. It should not be met with another belief which climate scepticism has a potential to become or has already become so.
The unscientific attitude of a belief should t m o be countered with a scientific attitude, which is sceptic.
An official climate sceptic organization might be like fighting the Devil with Belsebub.
No. Because such an organisation would very easily be infiltrated and corrupted and turned into something it was not meant to be.
My personal background is at the left side of the political centre, and I was a strong believer of the Club of Rome, until none of their dire predictions did materialize… For global “warming”, it was earlier, as I read a book about the influence of the sun on our climate, some 35 years ago. When the CO2 scare started, I was immediately sceptical but didn’t know of others, until the late John Daly started with his “Still waiting for Greenhouse” website. Later, Climate Audit and WUWT and many others followed… While I hope that some – political neutral – organisation will emerge, I think that it will be difficult to find a common ground with so many different opinions, which is the strength and the weekness of the sceptics…