Open thread – with an important question


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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 19, 2014 10:05 am

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.

April 19, 2014 10:08 am

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.

April 19, 2014 10:10 am

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.

Alec aka Daffy Duck
April 19, 2014 10:11 am

A climate change story that will likely spread like wildfire:
Climate change increasing massive wildfires in West
Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984-2011†
Hmmm, I wonder ‘how’ they factored in the changes of amo and pdo?

April 19, 2014 10:12 am

Someone will have to approach the oil companies for funding though. Don’t ya think? (/sarc)

Ed, Mr. Jones
April 19, 2014 10:14 am

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

April 19, 2014 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. 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.

David, UK
April 19, 2014 10:18 am

I voted “yes” but I thought there already was one: the NIPCC?

D. Cohen
April 19, 2014 10:18 am

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.

Rob Dawg
April 19, 2014 10:18 am

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

JM VanWinkle
April 19, 2014 10:19 am

Skepticism is about science, not policy. Activism is the blood brother of policy and its politics.

April 19, 2014 10:19 am

I’m not sure, but if there is one, Christopher Monckton should be its head.

April 19, 2014 10:20 am

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.

April 19, 2014 10:22 am

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.

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 10:23 am

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:

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

Maybe there could be an official skeptics organization, but I’d be darn careful to keep it purely and simply on point.

April 19, 2014 10:23 am

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?

April 19, 2014 10:23 am

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.

April 19, 2014 10:25 am

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.

April 19, 2014 10:25 am

Latitude says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:23 am
hogwash…what’s the difference?
Between what?

April 19, 2014 10:26 am

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…’s already done that way…..if I publish a paper that disagrees with yours

Latimer Alder
April 19, 2014 10:27 am

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.

April 19, 2014 10:27 am

It would help if it could be accredited by some recognized and respected scientific organization.

Philip T. Downman
April 19, 2014 10:28 am

[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.

April 19, 2014 10:30 am

No. Because such an organisation would very easily be infiltrated and corrupted and turned into something it was not meant to be.

April 19, 2014 10:32 am

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…

Cyrus P Stell
April 19, 2014 10:32 am

Seems the only thing we “skeptics” agree on is the alarmists holding our economy hostage must be stopped. But I find myself more and more opposed to Big Anything directing research by picking and choosing what they fund. This is conflict of interest, the researcher can only find answers supporting the funder’s intended policy. And thus, if we are trying to organize into a unified front to direct… well, you get the idea.

April 19, 2014 10:32 am

no- because the right answer is not more collectivism and completely unproductive labor (and at whose expense?) to treat symptoms- holy dialectic, batman. fighting is so NOT the same as winning.
instead, stop feeding the beast, eh? that’s 100% guaranteed.
unfortunately, it’s completely foreign to the nature of the eloi to disobey.

Gerry Parker
April 19, 2014 10:33 am

Well understand that the other side uses many channels to push their agenda. Certainly this could be one approach by a dissenting opinion, but if the management and editorial control were not secure, you could easily see it subverted.
That’s not to say it has to be overtly biased, because a strictly neutral position would be all that is required. So control would be about maintaining the neutrality, i.e. show us your science, not what “might be” etc.
What I see as a requirement is that it be neutral- so no juvenile postings or rants.
Like you, I came to this position through looking for the data, not someone’s idea or interpretation, so that is the way I would approach this.
How would it be different than WUWT? Would need to not be so partisan, but strictly hard science oriented.
My opinion,

Latimer Alder
April 19, 2014 10:33 am

Just to add that most (but not all) of the UK sceptical folk are science-trained, but do not work as professional academics. And few have very much time for the baubles of office or honours. Such individualists do not, in general, take easily to formal structures and institutions. Which perhaps explains why the standard alarmist ‘appeal to authority’ falls on deaf ears.

April 19, 2014 10:33 am

What I think we need, more than an “official” skeptics organization, is some kind of ongoing, print magazine of eco-skepticism, one not merely about “climate change” but which continually calls out every “green” person and group for every outrageous statement they make, not just predictions of harm but also policy goals such as those exposed on
Ronald Bailey’s column in Reason somewhat fills this need now, but if we could get regular columns by people like that Greenpeace founder who quit, or Lomborg, or Steyn, or Lord Monckton, or all of them it might draw some positive attention, especially when our side continues to make predictions that come to pass and their side doesn’t.
Perhaps it could be titled “WUWT – The Magazine”, and the organization could be given a title like “Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of Environmental Emergency.”

April 19, 2014 10:35 am

The problem with a sceptical body is that it herds everyone into the same corrale, too much like the warmists whip their following into following a party line. Scepticism by its nature is an individual questioning of the propaganda. I think your blog is a particularly good place to gather as you publish diverse pieces for discussion without pushing any “correct” approach except that of honesty and looking for the bulletproof facts rather than opinion.
The problem for the uninquisitive reader is that the MSM pushes the alarmist stories with bold headlines and barely, if ever, the retractions, corrections or historical context, thus establishing CAGW as a general knowledge meme rather than a once interesting, but failing hypothesis. The shrinkage of the dead tree press and the rise of advocacy journalism means that very seldom is that old saw of old hacks exercised: “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?” Here a case can be made for a resource which provides a side by side rebuttal of poor CAGW papers. Journalists are overwhelmingly innumerate arts graduates and would welcome predigested cut and paste bits if imaginatively presented and tied to the cause of small government and more personal freedom.
(Just the meditations of a disappointed someone who once lived in a cold climate and thought a touch of global warming would be a good thing for purely selfish reasons)

April 19, 2014 10:37 am

Latitude says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:26 am
This is total hogwash…’s already done that way…..if I publish a paper that disagrees with yours
You are not an Organization, and you don’t make sense.

April 19, 2014 10:37 am

such an organization already exists- -it’s called the NIPCC- -it has been meeting regularly for nearly a decade and recently replied to the IPCC nonsense with a well-reasoned response- –
REPLY: It’s not an organization per se, its a project of the Heartland Institute. – Anthony

April 19, 2014 10:37 am

“Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
I dunno. Leadership qualifications for such an organization must include, “Demonstrated record of success herding cats; Minimum 15 years experience,” and that should be at the top of the list.
I’m afraid regular commenter, jauntycyclist, would be left out because the leadership may decide, “No cyclists need apply.”
That said, I think the leading skeptical blogs (see list at right) should, at minimum, consider coordinating posts on topics that would benefit and perhaps require large number of participants for greater effect. Might as well start doing what ya’ll have been accused of doing for years anyways.
But I’m skeptical of my own doubts. If someone fleshed out the idea a little further, I’d certainly be willing to listen.

Oregon Jon
April 19, 2014 10:39 am

I am always skeptical whenever more government intrusion is the answer. Too boot, I am always skeptical about simple answers to problems with great complexity. Finally, I am always skeptical about problems seen when projecting the future using compter models when small changes to inputs result in large results.

April 19, 2014 10:39 am

It would seem that this website is the closest thing to “organized” that we’d get without internal frictions diluting the message. On the other hand, it would be useful to have an organizational structure that was dedicated to responding “in kind”. By which I mean that the majority of posters on WUWT argue the data, which is all well and good, but history shows us time and time again that it’s the message (aka “marketing”) that trumps the data. If we don’t find a way to market the data in a way that the non-technical can hear, it doesn’t matter how right we are, we’ll always be the minority. The alarmists know this, which is why their message is heard above the facts.

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 10:40 am


But I’m skeptical of my own doubts. If someone fleshed out the idea a little further, I’d certainly be willing to listen.

Me too.

Jim Davidson
April 19, 2014 10:41 am

We have one in alberta. Its called Friends of Science ( It has educational papers, issues press statements etc

April 19, 2014 10:44 am

Like, Anthony I started as a ‘true believer’, however unlike him I was not trained in the geo-sciences field. I believed not through understanding but through immersion. I was bombarded at every turn from all media that it was true and it was dangerous. It was not until 2006, when I believe Gavin Schmidt, “prematurely” ran to the media to claim October was warmest ever. At that time I was working a job that gave me plenty of time to research on the internet and I had followed the stories out of the Western US, China, and Russia that October was unusually cold and snowy. Well loe and behold, not a couple weeks into November it was discovered that a mistake had been made with the Russian data. When Schmidt (if I remember correctly) did not really apologize but actually accuse the Russians of the mistake was when I opened my eyes and searched, “anti-global warming” or something to that effect. I was bombarded with many articles but I really caught on to some videos I watched featuring Profs Christy and Ball.
For the initial 12 – 18 months, because there was no clear authority representing skepticism I began to not believe much the same way I always believed. Not through understanding but through need to not want to believe. In 2008, I began to actually do my own research and became a fan of WUWT, thanks Anthony! Now my understanding is developed by solid science, it was through a central information source such as WUWT that I was able to filter through the noise, like a good Electrical Engineer, and develop my own understanding.
I think it is extremely important for people to have sources from both sides of the argument. Certainly, no one can deny, humans have caused some warming. We most definitely need to continue research into what continued use of fossil fuels, to changes in land use, and many other factors that humans play on our climate, to determine how much affect we actually have. That said, if nothing else, stasis temperatures for the past 17 years clearly demonstrate natural variance is still alive and well. To truly understand what will happen 100 years from now, we have to know how much affect the sun, ocean oscillations, and the many other natural factors that contribute to the climate system.

Bloke down the pub
April 19, 2014 10:45 am

I voted yes, but I could be open to persuasion. It should be remembered what GWPF stands for. They don’t dispute global warming in theory, it’s the policy created to ‘solve’ it that they argue with.

April 19, 2014 10:45 am

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. 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 on the condition that it does not receive any fossil fuel funding. The reason is it will be shot down and ignored on that basis alone.
Lief, the promotion of scientific scepticism is good? No? I thought it was an essential part of science.
The fact that the “AGU, AMS, and the Royal Society) issue Position Statements” means we have been left with no option but to fight fire with fire.
Finally without and organisation we allow the view of the Dragon Slayers to ruin our perfectly reasonable position. Warmists simply use their claims to tar the whole lot of us.
Just my 2 cents worth.

Jim Cripwell
April 19, 2014 10:46 am

Values of climate sensitivity are quoted with upper and lower limits. I can understand how upper limits are established. One can have a period when both CO2 and temperature are rising, and assume all the rise is due to the CO2. But now does on establish a lower limit to climate sensitivity? And, in logic, ought not this to be 0? After all, if it were less than zero, then CAGW is just as much a hoax as if it were zero.

April 19, 2014 10:47 am

I have been lobbying for the development of the Union of Concerned Citizens, Scientists, and Businesses (or some facsimile there of) for a couple years now to no avail. Formal organization has tremendous benefits.
I am all in!

April 19, 2014 10:48 am

A firm “no” vote here. First it feels antithetical to the free thinking ethos embraced by most skeptics. When you talk about an starting an organization, you’re implying the need for some some sort of platform on which to base it. What are its goals? What are its core beliefs? Inevitably, we’d be trying to reach some sort of a consensus of our own. I don’t see it working.

April 19, 2014 10:48 am

If there is an organization, it shouldn’t have the words ‘climate’ or ‘skeptic’ in its name.

george e. conant
April 19, 2014 10:48 am

Yes! Anthony I have been wondering myself for a long time how to best expose and expel the evil vile demons of lies and liars of what is now called climate change science. I was just thinking about the meme oft used to shut me down when engaged in discussion of observed temperatures and the dire predictions of GW etc. which is this statement : “97% of climate scientists agree CAGW climate change is real and is happening and is bad for the earth and humans etc. etc. … ” I get snippets of information counter to that which is some 30,000 scientists who are vocal that they either cannot get behind said settled climate science because the science is week, or flat out reject said climate science because it is fraud. I scan MSM news for inklings which way the purveyors of media drivel will come clean or not. So far it has been mostly “or not”. Because of WUWT I have been able to access so much information (information is power) to get a feeling for the language of science as well as broad stroke understanding of science in the realm of climate sensitivities and various forcing’s be it natural or man made. This has been indispensable for my personal psychological well being after feeling hopelessness that the hydra headed UN fronted control paradigm is using CAGW fraudulent pseudo science to scare whole populations into agreeing to non-sense that will cause untold hardship and loss of personal and collective liberty for generations to come. I do not want my children living in that kind of reality.
I have my own very personal reasons to absolutely reject the asinine posit that CO2 is doing everything bad to our planet, including but not limited to : super catastrophic storms, the increase in occurrence of such storms, the endless expansion of deserts , the melting of the polar ice caps, the extinction of polar bears, the end of winters, the turning of our planets atmosphere into a run away GHG crossed the tipping point Venus like acid raining hell world, the oceans rising up to swallow vast coastal regions, Did I forget anything? Yikes! So I am not a scientist, and I live off grid and work in town where I make money, buy food and gasoline for my car and chainsaws. I lived on Indian Reservations for 20 plus years and learned a great deal about industrial pollution and waterways and subsequent impacts on wildlife and humans. I am the farthest thing from a oil corporation funded shill you can get. I had to remind my daughter recently that petroleum oil is not all bad, in fact thanks to Petroleum oil whales have not been hunted to extinction! There are good things as well as bad in our current state of technology and political machinations. So long as we are free to share TRUTH and think creatively , we humans can not only solve the energy issues we face but prosper as well. That possibility requires the allocation of money and resources to that end which funds both tried and true old tech as well as innovation of new tech. What kind of skeptic platform can include all this? What ever it is , it is time to launch one!

David in Cal
April 19, 2014 10:48 am

It won’t do any good IMHO. The Heartland Institute plays this role, but the media ignore it. Another commenter pointed to the NIPCC. The media ignore them, too. Skeptics need to find a way to get fair media coverage, but that’s easier said than done.

April 19, 2014 10:49 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:37 am
You are not an Organization, and you don’t make sense.
Don’t tell me people don’t “organize” behind a paper they have used or developed into their science?
….of course they do
and they will organize and defend that bad science…that their science has built on….until the day they die
That is exactly what has happened to climate science….
If I publish something that disagrees with something you have published….people use my paper and build their science on it….they will “organize” to defend my paper and trash yours
Just putting a name on some “organization” does not change it or change the process.

April 19, 2014 10:49 am

Warmists already claim that we are organised and well funded. Lets prove them right.
As to naming, it should not be named skeptic or anti warming or climate. It should be a positive word(s) looking to the future of humanity.
Victorian attitudes got us to where we are now. It was their drive to progress humanity forward that allows us to live in a modern society. They made sacrifices but they knew it was worth it in the end.

April 19, 2014 10:51 am

Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?

We should be careful about the name. I suggest a ‘Dangerous Global Warming Skeptics Organisation’. That is what the IPCC says MIGHT happen. The sub-heading could read ‘man-made global warming is real, but how much & how dangerous?’

April 19, 2014 10:52 am

Jimbo says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:45 am
Lief, the promotion of scientific scepticism is good? No? I thought it was an essential part of science.
Organized promotion is bad. Just my three cents…

April 19, 2014 10:52 am

I’ll go with NO – simply because there are a wide range of possible correct answers and one organization can not possibly represent them all:
1) There is no actual data supporting any global “greenhouse” effect at all from the CO2 atmospheric fraction separable from that of water vapor local, and other effects. Conclusions otherwise all appears to be smoke and mirrors to me.
2) The uncertainty cloud around any global long term actual temperature trend being discernable from current datasets different from random walk effects is very large – the data is crap.
3) We (humans) simply do not know enough about the underlying processes controlling / directing long term chaotic outputs of Earth’s atmospheric heat engine. Anybody who claims we do (“the science is settled”) is simply a con artist.
4) Science is not about politics / advocacy and vice versa. Science is about probability or fact.

April 19, 2014 10:53 am

The need is for a grass roots political organization that lobbies for creation of a logical and scientific basis for policy making on CO2 emissions replacing the illogical and pseudo-scientific basis that now exists..

Dennis Krupski
April 19, 2014 10:54 am

A number of things dictate my skepticism; first, my field is instrumentation and control with experience in thermodynamics, second, a knowledge of Cook’s Law from my University Days, third, an interest in politics left wing causes,which are interested in controlling money, fourth, a distrust of the media to present a true picture of the facts and finally, the small amount of dedicated proponents of climate change while mainstream scientists are bullied into being quiet.

jolly farmer
April 19, 2014 10:55 am

I voted no.
I agree with Latimer Alder.
As lsvalgaard says, “Position Statements” are a bad idea.
I see that a majority are currently voting yes. I urge people to think again.

April 19, 2014 10:56 am

I voted’ yes’ as sceptics are a very disorganised bunch with a wide variety of disparate views. However, that in itself is the core of the problem.
Who organises us and what coherent, intelligible and credible message, with main stream scientific appeal, would we try to put over to represent the disparate beliefs sceptics hold?
Would we stop treating climate scientists with disdain and cut down on the ridicule of highly intelligent scientists which only destroys our credibility? I would consider myself a moderate but wince at some of the views put over here, either because of their scientific or political content or both. In that respect who would be our spokespeople?
I suspect trying to organise sceptics would be like herding cats. I suspect organising sceptics into a credible, consistent and long lasting organisation would make the herding of cats child’s play.
So a ‘yes’ with lots of reservations, but certainly we would be more effective if we were a large credible body, rather than merely individuals sniping at the establishment with limited effect.

April 19, 2014 10:58 am

Latitude says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:49 am
If I publish something that disagrees with something you have published….people use my paper and build their science on it….they will “organize” to defend my paper and trash yours
good you put quotes around “organize: to show that it is not really the case. Hopefully there will not be a formal Organization formed for the sole purpose of trashing your paper. If there be such, it would clearly be a bad thing, wouldn’t you think? Or would you welcome such an Organization with open arms and bow to its authority?

Nicholas Harding
April 19, 2014 11:00 am

The Confeferation of Skeptical Scientists? Maybe someone with a Masters in Public Policy could be the Executive Director.

April 19, 2014 11:00 am

Some people have made the argument that there is no place for this in proper scientific debate.
This would normally be true – but the point is, that there is no debate, and never will be, because the “debate” is
-not allowed
-lied about
-ignored & covered up by the media
etc. This is a complete perversion of the scientific process, and so this may be the only way. We have to force the issue into the media and politics, because they will keep ignoring it otherwise.
I would like to see this “organisation” or “association” be led and managed by recognised people, and for the likes of Singer, Lindzen, Pilmer, Spencer etc, to be involved .

April 19, 2014 11:01 am

Perhaps not so o much an organization as a Journal that freely publishes skeptical papers (subject to full peer review standards) to get around the blackout imposed by so many of the establishment publications…

Clovis Marcus
April 19, 2014 11:01 am

I have to admit I voted unsure. I’m not sure it would to bring any more weight to the argument and it is not going to get the media attention from the likes of the Guardian and the BBC in the UK. In fact the membership list would be a perfect ignore/block list for them. I’m prepared to be persuaded that having an organisation might bring greater weight to the argument but I’m pretty sure that any pronouncements would be either ignored or derided, much as the GWPF are now.
The stealthy chipping away at the edifice might be more effective if they can’t see you coming from a hundred yards away with a sledgehammer.
It’s asymmetric warfare and for that you need guerilla tactics engaging in a head on charge is folly.
What really would make a difference is if it would attract academics prepared to put their heads above the parapet but we know that is potentially a career ending move.
(I think I might have tortured enough metaphors for now 😉
There was a thread recently about people believe or don’t believe and I think that is a fair start for a non-alarmist manifesto but as MarkW pointed out our range of views is pretty wide and it would be easy to fall into groupthink for fear of not being accepted into the club. Pretty well as the majority of academia has currently.
I guess most of us here could probably sign up to something like:
“We believe that decisions that will affect the lives of future generations are being made based on a level of confidence in the science that is not supported by impartial analysis of the known facts. Our aim is to provide scientific and mathematical arguments to challenge the premise that enough is known for the basis of informed policy making. We do not dispute the wisdom of conserving finite resources but policies disadvantaging the people who can afford it least so on the basis of the currently available evidence is unfair and unnecessary.”

April 19, 2014 11:02 am

I’d rather have a movement against the misuse of science.
Climate, psychology, …

April 19, 2014 11:02 am

I think a “position” is impossible unless it is posted as a spectrum, e.g. some “skeptics”, believe the greenhouse effect is real, but the degree is arguable and the data certainly does not justify precipitous action, others doubt the greenhouse effect in its entirety, and others would be spread between these two.
I’d be interested in seeing a controlled poll of the same, taken from reasonably well informed people who are not afraid of being counted so that the poll could not be bombed by people on either side.

April 19, 2014 11:03 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:58 am
oh for God’s sake…no one is that dense

April 19, 2014 11:05 am

Latitude says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:03 am
oh for God’s sake…no one is that dense
You make a good impersonation of one…

April 19, 2014 11:05 am

I voted no.
We are everywhere. We are the Leviathan. We kill the media. We laugh at the last few remaining warmists in real life. They have no argument.
The empire is hollow and will fall. Not only with regard to warmism. There is now not a chance anymore that the empire can re-assert its dominance; it is in terminal decline.
We don’t have to found a committee. We must prepare against the empire lashing out in its death throes. That’s what I do. The crazy people and their crazy ideology has overtaken the empire and defeated itself. Make sure the tentacles don’t hit you and wait it out.

April 19, 2014 11:10 am

Alec aka Daffy Duck says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:11 am
A climate change story that will likely spread like wildfire:
Climate change increasing massive wildfires in West

The period covered by the paper and you not is just too short – 1984-2011 can be affected by natural climate changes. 2013 had the fewest forest fires since 1984 according to the data. Still too short to conclude anything.

M.D. Flannigan et. al. – 1998
Future wildfire in circumboreal forests in relation to global warming
Despite increasing temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1850), wildfire frequency has decreased as shown in many field studies from North America and Europe. We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency….
Yves Bergeron et. al. – The Holocene – September 1993
Decreasing frequency of forest fires in the southern boreal zone of Québec and its relation to global warming since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age
We present here evidence from fire and tree-ring chronologies that the post-‘Little Ice Age’ climate change has profoundly decreased the frequency of fires in the northwestern Québec boreal forest.
doi: 10.1177/095968369300300307
Henri D. Grissino Mayer et. al. – The Holocene – February 2000
….Century scale climate forcing of fire regimes in the American Southwest
Following a centuries-long dry period with high fire frequency (c. AD 1400-1790), annual precipitation increased, fire frequency decreased, and the season of fire shifted from predominantly midsummer to late spring….

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:10 am

I voted no simply because those of us who remain unconvinced Co2 plays a warming role in our atmosphere will be marginalized by yet another “group”.

April 19, 2014 11:11 am

I’m not sure, but if there is one, Christopher Monckton should be its head.
More than sufficiently articulate, but perhaps too polemic. If anyone, it’s gotta be the rev.
OTOH, I like the milieu of the indie partisan, which is how I see ourselves. We are winning, too, as it is. I’m an old wargamer. And if there is one lesson I learned, it’s that if you are winning a battle of attrition, for heaven’s sake keep it going just that way for as long as you can, particularly if the enemy is deluding himself otherwise.
So I am unsure.

April 19, 2014 11:12 am

Some of the comments above get to the nub of the problem. Heartland doesn’t speak for me. The GWPF doesn’t speak for me. Lord Monckton doesn’t speak for me. Can anybody speak for me but me?
I voted ‘yes’ but can see lots of difficulties. Perhaps we need a strategy as much as we need a representative organisation that would actually only be representative of a small part of the sceptical movement.
Also I am disturbed at the notion of ‘sides.’ A sceptic should be prepared to adjust their position if the facts were to demonstrate we were ‘wrong’ There are too many people who have taken ‘sides’ already and have closed their minds to further discussion.

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:12 am

Stop smearing Dr. Svalgaard. It is childish in the extreme.

April 19, 2014 11:14 am

David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:12 am
Stop smearing Dr. Svalgaard. It is childish in the extreme.
Did you forget a comma somewhere? 🙂

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:14 am

Re:post. Missed a comma. Should be more careful as the meaning changes dramatically. Meant to write; “Stop smearing, Dr, Svalgaard. It is childish in the extreme.”

April 19, 2014 11:16 am

David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:14 am
Re:post. Missed a comma. Should be more careful as the meaning changes dramatically. Meant to write; “Stop smearing, Dr, Svalgaard
Now you may have one comma too much…

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:17 am

And you’ve never made an error? Get over yourself.

mike fowle
April 19, 2014 11:19 am

The GWPF in the UK is – as it name implies – concerned with policy and especially the economic effects of climate alarmism. Perhaps there is a place for an organisation to restore integrity and honour to science – because they sure as hell have gone missing now.

April 19, 2014 11:20 am

David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:17 am
And you’ve never made an error? Get over yourself.
I make errors every day, but am very careful and precise with insults.

Steve Lohr
April 19, 2014 11:21 am

I voted no. Organizations require controls; I doubt there would be a satisfactory happy meeting of all stakeholders. I would rather see unconstrained input from all. We don’t need controls, we need continued free thought from all who care to contribute. I think the NIPCC is sufficient, as was stated above. WUWT and the other blogs are here, for all who desire knowledge, to find if they care to look.

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:22 am

“I make errors every day, but am very careful and precise with insults.”
Well, this clarifies what is important to you.

April 19, 2014 11:22 am

Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization?

Would it be an organization that claims to represent the “consensus”? Then no. In science, it only takes one scientist with accurate data to overturn the consensus. That’s the way it should be. While I like forums, such as WUWT, where skeptics and non-skeptics alike are allowed to debate, I’m skeptical about having one “official” organization that claims to speak for all skeptics. It gives the opposition one target to attack. What happens when a spokesman makes a mistake and ends up looking like a fool? It makes it easier for warmists to brand all skeptics as fools. With just one organization to target, the media will use the Alinsky method to level all kinds of accusations against it, and it won’t matter if the accusations are true or not as long as they are widely repeated.
But another potential problem is who controls the message. Skeptics don’t agree on all issues, so will all sides be allowed to participate? Or will the message be tightly controlled to prevent the “kooks” from making the organization look foolish? Either way is problematic. An open organization invites more attacks. A closed one ends up banning everyone except a close-knit few who think alike. It’s very difficult to walk a tight-rope between those two extremes. I have no problem with the idea of skeptic organizations making their voices heard. I just don’t like the idea of an “official” organization that claims a monopoly on climate skepticism. It seems like an oxymoron to me. That’s why I voted no.

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 11:23 am

/ jest
Look at us. Latitude vrs Svalgaard. Multitudes vrs. Mosher. All we need now is for Richard Courtney to comment and yet another battle will erupt. We’re like a Monty Python skit, the only thing that unites us is the appearance of the Peoples Front of Judea.
I mean P.S.I.
Herding cats doesn’t quite capture the difficulties inherent in the idea of organizing us, I think.

April 19, 2014 11:23 am

It is all about money, power and control. For Al Gore, AGW is about his getting rich and having power and control in a way he could only have dreamed of if he had won in 2000.
By providing a unified message, we realists will have a better chance to overcome his disinformation campaign.

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:26 am

Mark Bofill says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:23 am
“the only thing that unites us is the appearance of the Peoples Front of Judea.
I mean P.S.I.”
And Mr. Bofill confirms my “no” vote.

April 19, 2014 11:26 am

I voted, “No.” Any such organization is subject to the same corruption as the global warmists.

April 19, 2014 11:27 am

David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:22 am
“very careful and precise…”
Well, this clarifies what is important to you.

Care and Precision in all matters, but you should apply that double when your comment is insulting. And apparently you think that ‘hogwash’ was appropriate [at a level that you would subscribe to]…

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 11:27 am

Beg pardon Dr. Ball. 🙂

April 19, 2014 11:29 am

No hesitation in voting NO, there is no unified view, there would be too much in-fighting, and it would provide an easy target for the alarmist attack dogs.

Tom Stone
April 19, 2014 11:31 am

I voted no because it represents the kind of group think, conformity and collectivism I see coming from the alarmist policy-wonk side of the debate. The facts are what they are, and an organization runs the risk of being pigeon-holed. Official statements and positions are always subject to change, and the alarmist side has painted themselves into a corner. They have invested everything in their position and their rationalization is becoming more difficult to support. Now they must turn up the volume on the propaganda and keep repeating the lies louder and more often. We constantly hear from their side that it is a communication problem, but their problem is their contempt for the general public and their underestimation of the intelligence of individuals. Ultimately it is up to every individual to decide what is true and what isn’t, and no policy statement will or should make much of a difference. Organizations are fine and I fully support the freedom to associate with whomever one wishes, I just don’t usually buy what their selling because at heart I am and always will be an individualist.

April 19, 2014 11:33 am

When I first heard that the Earth was going warm I shouted
yippee! Just think, when the Tundra thaws, all that fallow ground,
400 bushel per acre Triticale!!!!

April 19, 2014 11:33 am

Why not do it with mathematics? Here is what I came across a long time ago when I was looking for proof that CO2 was a GHG. I’ll put it here now so other people, that’s you – can check it out –
“The “greenhouse effect” is simply the temperature difference between the actual surface temperature and theoretical value of what the temperature would be without the insulation effect from the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect can easily be calculated from geophysical data that has been provided by weather satellites since their launch in late 1978.
“Climate change” is entirely based on the assumption that the rapid increase in global CO2 emissions is enhancing the greenhouse effect resulting in catastrophic global warming; but somehow no one ever bothered to verify this conjecture by actually calculating the greenhouse effect!
The 1980 value for the greenhouse effect is 35.56°C and the value for 2010 is 0.14°C lower at 35.42°C. This demonstrates that the 70.9% increase in global CO2 emissions since 1980 did not in any way enhance the greenhouse effect as has been falsely claimed since 1988 when this global warming debacle first began.
Since 1980 there has only been 0.4°C of global temperature increase, all of which occurred prior to 1997 when global warming officially ended.
The global temperature standstill reverted to a global cooling trend in 2002 and the Earth has been cooling ever since, in spite of the continued increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
A similar occurrence of decreasing global temperatures with rapidly increasing CO2 emissions took place during the 33 years from 1942 to 1975 (the 70’s global cooling scare) so the stated correlation of increased CO2 emissions with global warming never actually existed.
In short, since 1997 there has been neither any global warming nor any enhancement of the greenhouse effect to cause it in the first place, and with no possible correlation between increased CO2 emissions and global warming; there is simply no scientific basis for the for the ludicrous concept that fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions are or could even cause catastrophic global warming!
The Science
This proper scientific definition of the greenhouse effect was known to Hansen who stated it as “Ts – Te is the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds” and defined Te according to the formula Te = [So(1-A)/4σ]1/4
(Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.)
So is total solar irradiance (TSI) and we have continuous measurement of TSI from weather satellites since late 1978 as shown on this graph from the World Radiation Centre in Davos.
This graph shows TSI to be 1366.6W/m2 in 1980 and 1365.8W/m2 in 2010.
“A” is albedo which is the percentage of energy from the sun reflected back into space by the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.
Albedo can be determined by subtracting outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from TSI. This graph of OLR (from ) compiled from data available from NOAA at shows OLR to have increased from 231W/m2 in 1980 to 233W/m2 in 2010.
Subtracting OLR from TSI/4 (division of TSI by 4 necessary for units to match) gives reflected energy values of:
1980 the reflected energy was 341.65W/m2 – 231W/m2 = 110.65W/m2
2010 the reflected energy was 341.45W/m2 – 233W/m2 = 108.45W/m2
And albedo values of:
A = 110.65/341.65 = 0.323869 for 1980
A = 108.45/341.45 = 0.317616 for 2010
From these values and using the formula Te = [So(1-A)/4σ]1/4 we can calculate Te to be:
1980 Te = [1366.6(1-0.323869)/4σ]1/4 = 252.64 K
2010 Te = [1365.8(1-0.317616)/4σ]1/4 = 253.18 K
This graph of Global Temperature Anomaly from NCDC shows the global temperature anomaly to be 0.20°C in 1980 and 0.60°C in 2010. ( )
For simplicity if we equate 288 K to the zero reference on this NCDC temperature anomaly data, we get absolute temperature values for Ts of 288.2 K for 1980 and 288.6 K for 2010.
From here it is just a simple subtraction of Ts – Te to determine the greenhouse effect:
1980 Ts = 288.2 K Te = 252.64 K
2010 Ts = 288.6 K Te = 253.18 K
1980 greenhouse effect = 288.2-252.64=35.56°C
2010 greenhouse effect = 288.6-253.18=35.42°C
So, if this is correct then a fat lot of good 40 odd percent increase, since the industrial revolution, in atmospheric CO2 content is doing for the enhancement of the GHEffect. Oh yeah σ is the Stef/ Boltzmann constant

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:33 am

lsvalgaard says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:27 am
Smear without substance in usually against site policy.
“Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.”

Tom Stone
April 19, 2014 11:34 am

Correction: “…buy what they’re selling…” Thought I was a better proofreader than that.

April 19, 2014 11:34 am

Oh and I have voted by the way

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:34 am

Mark Bofill says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:27 am
“Beg pardon Dr. Ball. :)”
I am not a Dr.

April 19, 2014 11:36 am

I am a climatologist and meteorologist (for those who think there is a difference) and I have never trusted the models to give a fair description of what happens 30, 40, 50 years hence. Besides that i have a reasonable experience of climate and its variability, which makes me think we are just seeing natural variability.

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 11:37 am

Starting to feel like Bilbo Baggins here, allow me beg your pardon again. I confused you with Dr. Tim Ball.

April 19, 2014 11:37 am

Is it noble cause corruption that has caused the contemperaneous brainwashing of schoolchildren in Australia and Europe? or is it a well planned social engineering project?
The social stereotyping they’ve been forcing into curricula is not limited to environmentalism and the fact that all this agit prop has the same smell leads me to believe that noble cause corruption has a fairly minor role in the problem we have.

April 19, 2014 11:38 am

This in an open thread comment.
I’ve noticed that the number of major earthquakes on the Pacific Rim has been exceptional over the last 19 days. I did a quick query on how many major (7.0-7.9) earthquakes normally occur in a year and the answer is 18. But since the first of April, there have been 6 Mag 7+ and one Mag 8+ earthquakes on the Pacific Rim.
Is this an unusually high cluster for earthquakes of this magnitude even if some of these large quakes are aftershocks?
75km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
2014-04-19 13:27:59 UTC30.9 km deep
59km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
2014-04-19 01:04:03 UTC24.4 km deep
36km NNW of Tecpan de Galeana, Mexico
2014-04-18 14:27:26 UTC24.0 km deep
Bouvet Island region
2014-04-15 03:57:02 UTC11.7 km deep
75km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
2014-04-13 13:25:03 UTC35.0 km deep
111km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
2014-04-13 12:36:18 UTC35.0 km deep
100km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
2014-04-12 20:14:39 UTC29.3 km deep
18km S of Nandaime, Nicaragua
2014-04-11 20:29:13 UTC135.0 km deep
78km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
2014-04-11 08:16:48 UTC39.4 km deep
57km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
2014-04-11 07:07:21 UTC50.0 km deep
49km SW of Iquique, Chile
2014-04-03 02:43:14 UTC31.1 km deep
43km W of Iquique, Chile
2014-04-03 01:58:31 UTC22.8 km deep
89km WNW of Iquique, Chile
2014-04-01 23:57:57 UTC20.2 km deep
95km NW of Iquique, Chile
2014-04-01 23:46:46 UTC20.1 km deep

Village Idiot
April 19, 2014 11:40 am

Dear Fellow Villagers,
“Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
This is the most ridiculous and impossible idea I have ever heard. Scepticism’s strength is in nebulous, self-contradictory argumentation. A moving target must continue to be the most effective form of evasion. A policy statement that goes any further than “it’s natural variation” will be a dead canard. Sceptics should do what they are best at – sniping with well aimed ad hom shots, muck raking and publicizing game-changing research.
Oh! And give Sir Christopher of Belchly plenty more rope.

April 19, 2014 11:42 am

Re:post. Missed a comma. Should be more careful as the meaning changes dramatically.
There’s an old story that one of Catherine the (to be) Great’s “army friends” had been discovered and was condemned to exile. Catherine intervened, and received the following letter from Peter:
“Pardon impossible, to be sent to Siberia.”
Catherine did a little photoshopping and produced the following:
“Pardon, impossible to be sent to Siberia.”

April 19, 2014 11:43 am

If we cannot be accurate, we can at least be precise. In any case, I voted NO.

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:44 am

Village Idiot says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:40 am
I doubt you would be able to differentiate a 0.76C change in the temperature of your bathwater.
What was that you were saying again?

April 19, 2014 11:45 am

A policy statement that goes any further than “it’s natural variation” will be a dead canard.
I don’t think he knows us very well.
the only thing that unites us is the appearance of the Peoples Front of Judea.

April 19, 2014 11:46 am

It’s long past time to have rigorous science done on the Earth’s weather, past present and, if enough understanding is achieved, perhaps future. This means discovering the factors that make up weather, measuring them, determining patterns and their causes and recording METICULOUSLY the variables over the entire globe.
These record sites must be sited carefully and documented. Perhaps this would be something that could be done by volunteers as the amount of time and money would otherwise be prohibitive.
Studies must be instituted to determine exactly what causes various weather. We know quite a bit but there are still variables that elude us.
Computer models must be formulated that are repeatedly compared to actual weather to provide feedback on the weighting of events and measurements.
And primarily this must be done in a transparent and publicly monitored fashion so that any disputes of data or result can be resolved and that resolution seen by all as correct.
Any governing body must be free from political and economic influences and seen to be so.
Until at least some of these steps are taken, we’re all just spitting into the wind.

Mario Lento
April 19, 2014 11:48 am

For me, it is a quest for truth, and my opinion(s) will or may change as I discover more information. I voted unsure, though, my hunch is that science should not be political and or based on a predetermined outcome.

April 19, 2014 11:52 am

NO… consolidating your forces is never a winning strategy. It simply allows the enemy to focus their fire. Having a diverse and dispersed opposition to this Redistribution Scheme is the best way to fight.

george e. smith
April 19, 2014 11:54 am

I voted no. I think the present situation, where a whole range of persons with different educational backgrounds, including different levels of “science” background, is a good situation. A formal organization with eventually an official position, in some sense creates another religion.
The formal gatherings, such as Heartland promotes / sponsors / organizes / whatever, are a sufficient melding situation.
Just as the warmistas have a hard core nucleus of agenda (maybe sinister) driven zealots, the “skeptic community” also has some who take unsupportable positions. For example it is just plain silly to argue that the physics of CO2 and other GHGs, including H2O, is a fiction, or that 400 ppm of anything couldn’t possibly have an effect.
We are all hashing these things out in a silicon universe, where an abundance (concentration) of 400 ppm of impurity (dopant) would be a “huge” amount, and our circuits function because of much lower impurity levels. Raw semiconductor materials have purity levels of six nines or seven nines (maybe more); as in 99.99999% pure materials, so that controlled doping to a part in 10,000 or so is not corrupted by junk in the “cake mix”.
So there are plenty of self described skeptics, who need to broaden their knowledge level, so they don’t take fatally flawed positions that tarnish their credibility.
WUWT, is a central meeting place in that educational process.
Ultimately the MSM must take responsibility, for the fact that they are failing in THEIR duty to address THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO KNOW.

April 19, 2014 11:56 am

I voted No. “We” have been remarkably successful for various reasons waging our guerilla war. I say “we” meaning the skeptical bloggers managing to cover a lot of territory by just following areas that need attention. In many ways we’ve done better than the existing organizations and parts of them, e.g. Heartland, Cato, CFACT, etc.
I think one reason the warmists blather on about being funded by Big Oil reflects in part on our success – how can we, as a bunch of volunteers, be responsible for the low ranking that AGW has on national polls. The answer has a lot to do with the warmist oversell of the dangers, the great recession, and the 17 year pause – it’s hard to keep the hype alive when reality doesn’t play along.
If we were better organized, then we’d have to actively work to resolve conflicts between ourselves instead of just rolling our eyes when Vukcevic and Svallgard go at each other again. So while our lack of structure leads to some inefficiencies, if we had more structure, that would lead to a different set of inefficiencies.
I’m happy in the niche we’ve made.

Paul Coppin
April 19, 2014 11:56 am

A complete waste of time. It would be completely demonized by the left 10 minutes after it became public. If there are doubts, go back and read this thread. Its purpose, presumably,would be to collect and disseminate factual scientific information on the state of climate and its research to audience which has no use for, or interest in any of it.

David Ball
April 19, 2014 11:56 am

george e. smith says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:54 am
“For example it is just plain silly to argue that the physics of CO2 and other GHGs, including H2O, is a fiction, or that 400 ppm of anything couldn’t possibly have an effect.”
With all due respect, George, this is a misrepresentation of the position.

April 19, 2014 11:58 am

Thanks, Anthony, it is a question worth asking. I’m affiliated with a major US research university, and the party-line rules supreme. Therefore, I have to bite my tongue until it bleeds.
We do have some leading authorities who lead the charge, most notably Dr. Lindzen. However, we shouldn’t have to organize as a skeptics-organization if scientists were behaving in an ethical and honest manner.
By cooking the books, “hiding the decline” etc., the Hockey Team shows that they are not scientists, but policy advocates. However, you can’t fool all the people, all the time.
More important than having a formal “skeptics society” would be honest reporting of our concerns by the major media outlets. Many billions of dollars of public spending ride upon the policy pronouncements of a “chosen few,” and their voices are powerful. Science should always allow dissent, otherwise it becomes, as you point out, a Soviet exercise in policy-dictates-science. The blogosphere seems to be the most powerful tool we have to counter this trend.
Cheers, Charles the DrPH p.s. I still miss REP!

April 19, 2014 12:00 pm

I voted No, as it I don’t think we need another institution with a policy. In Norway, we have a loose organization called “Climate Realists”, as we do not like calling us sceptical to global warming and global change. We cannot be sceptical to climate change as it is happening all the time, and is part of Nature.
It is funny to think about the sceptic inside the Holy Bible – his name was Thomas, and one of the disciples. Even though his comrades bullied him for his scepticism to Jesus’ resurection, Jesus himself told him that he still loved him, even though he was sceptical…
I think that the work done by Anthony and his guest writers, here at WUWT are doing a fantastic job internationally. Keep it as informal as it is, we will be there and guide you. Time itself, and Nature in its working will prove us right,

April 19, 2014 12:02 pm

I voted ‘yes’ but I am concerned that decisions on overall policy would be open to much disagreement and that consensus (sorry – couldn’t think of an alternative) might be impossible.
What I think is more needed is a repository site for all the ACTUAL data and conclusions written for the man in the street, easily understandable (as far as possible, difficult I know) and accessible
to everyone,including (OK – I’m an optimist) the MSM.

April 19, 2014 12:02 pm

I voted not sure.
All of these “bodies” are based on some supposed appointed authority. Without such authority and what is perceived to be a credible authority then such a body has little bite and little impact. Remember, even if you create a board of members with first rate credentials it is STILL “the perception” of authority (legitimate or not) that holds the day. I don’t see it being possible that such an official organization can gain or achieve such credibility.
I am seeing signs that “some” governments “might” be backing down on this CAGW issue. But only to save the GREATER cause.
When you look at “how far” the rabbit hole is on this CAGW issue, it truly boggles the mind.
The most useful result of those whole climate scam?
5 years ago I could have NEVER EVER explained to anyone that a bunch of governments and international elites actually banded together to scheme against their people.
This issue here is that a “revolution” against people actually exists. This issue is FAR GREATER of a fallout then that of climate gate and the spiraling downward support of this CAGW scam.
In other words, this whole issue has opened the eyes of HUGE numbers of people to learn + understand of a socialist revolution that is being systematic run and promoted to inflict not only economic damage but that of simply eroding our rights and freedoms.
At the end of the day, the CAGW issue was NEVER about the science, and never about saving the planet. It was always about the “cause” as so many climate-gate emails refer to.
As a result an organization that becomes a counter revolution to the CAGW mess would in fact find itself fighting a MUCH larger cause and one that is essentially an ideological fight.
So many innocent people were fooled that this CAGW scam was about basic science. We now realize that this fight is not about science but that of exposing the socialist’s trogen horse that is hiding “under” the green banner.
So we cannot make the same mistake and think that some official organization here would only be about the science. As we all know the prompters of this CAGW scam are NOT about the science and MOST of this moment is based on pushing their ideological views and that of the socialists dream to redistribute wealth on a world scale.
I think it world be a mistake to think that any “official” organization would and could be limited to just science since we see the other side is LITTLE about the science and rarely limits themselves to just science.
This is about “their” cause and their revolution.
So this is like the great revolutions of Europe that pushed socialism and communism on their people.
At the end of the day the REAL fight is about this socialist revolution.
Therefore little if any possibility of some such organization being able to limit itself to simply science would not be effective since at the end of the day that is NOT what this fight is about.
We are fighting a socialist revolution hiding under the trogen horse of the green banner.
So as long as one realizes we are in an ideological fight then this will DEFINE and determine what kind of organization needs to be created here.

Samuel C Cogar
April 19, 2014 12:03 pm

First of all, I voted “yes”, and secondly, I am a “denier” of CAGW and I detest the use of the word “skeptic” in any way, shape or form primarily because it was coined by the proponents of CAGW to badmouth, berate, criticize and/or discredit anyone that disagrees with their “junk science” claims ….. and thus the general public interprets the word “skeptic” as being someone who doesn’t believe in climate change and/or is utterly ignorant and uneducated in/on matters of science.
Anyway, to reach the masses with a “denier message” about the junk science of CAGW an “association/agreement” should be established with Fox News for publication of science based commentary and then similar articles as those posted on WUWT but worded so that Fox readers could easily understand their contents/context could be submitted for publication.
There is already one (1) “denier” that is publishing commentary on Fox News and a dozen more wouldn’t hurt any, to wit:
‘Chicken Little ‘science’
The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, writes, “If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken? … Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there’s more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads.” Yet another reason not to trust climate change alarmists.

Bruce Foutch
April 19, 2014 12:04 pm

A no vote from me. Such a group would be far too polarizing in my opinion and it’s message could easily become just another bumper sticker meme. As others have said, there is a range of valid and useful ideas on the skeptic’s side and it would be way too easy to lump them all together into a group that really represents no one’s view. Another poster said we should focus on exposing all bad science and I would certainly agree with that, and think WUWT has done an exemplary job at doing just that very thing. Plus, the education that Anthony and other independent minded bloggers have provided us all certainly supports the value of the current independent and loosely knit paradigm that seems to best define the skeptic camp.

Gunga Din
April 19, 2014 12:04 pm

I voted “unsure”.
While it would be good to have a place where, say, a journalist could go to check the facts of a CAGW press release or at least get the other side. It would be good to have a place a teacher could go unbiased info.
But how would the policy statement read? I’m just a layman here but what would it say? “We are certain that they should be uncertain.”?
I suppose I’d have to see it before I’d vote other than “unsure”.
And how would it differ from SEPP?

george e. smith
April 19, 2014 12:06 pm

“””””……O H Dahlsveen says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:33 am
Why not do it with mathematics? Here is what I came across a long time ago when I was looking for proof that CO2 was a GHG. I’ll put it here now so other people, that’s you – can check it out –
“The “greenhouse effect” is simply the temperature difference between the actual surface temperature and theoretical value of what the temperature would be without the insulation effect from the atmosphere. …..”””””
Well that little word there; “theoretical”, sets off alarm bells.
It starts off with the assumption that there IS a “theoretical value”, and hence a “theory” that is correct.
So just where is this theory, and its derived theoretical value ??
There is NO thermal equilibrium; given that the earth rotates, so an earth sans atmosphere, would never have any theoretical Temperature, and we certainly haven’t the knowledge (data) to determine one.
How much do YOU know about the thermal conductivities of the earth or the specific radiant emissivities of its vast array of different surface materials ??
Earth has no credible theoretical Temperature either in its present condition or an atmosphere free condition.

April 19, 2014 12:08 pm

“The Road to skepticism” Could be a nice title for a book. subtitle ‘ The Many Paths followed”
Actually, instead of an organization with a negative in the title, I would prefer
the name to be “Climate honesty” or perhaps “climate diversity”—- throw the negative in the alarmist and very narrow court.
As I see it, skeptics are simply being honest with respect to what they have observed. Because the science is very complicated with many uncertainties, there will be varying viewpoints among those who might consider themselves to be skeptics. I would think the best conclusion, is that yes there may be some AGW, but mostly likely it is small compared to many other known and unknown natural forcings.
Yeah, I started out about five years ago with a vague idea of ice melting and those poor lovable polar bears.
My daughter, who has degrees in biology and environmentalism challenged me as to who said that, to which I replied ‘they said’. She looked at me with a winning and knowing grin and said ‘they’? After I had taught her just the opposite approach, we both knew she had me, so I started out to prove her wrong. Funny thing, the more I worked at it, the greater my conversion.
She reminded me that at one point I was very upset with President Bush for not signing the Kyoto Protocol.
One more related item, IMO is the Trenberth’s howling of the publication of the paper by Roy Spencer. Another book Title “Mann, Jones, Hansen, Trenberth et al”, the Founders of Totalitarian Science”.

April 19, 2014 12:11 pm

I voted No. To do this would be playing our enemies at their own game. Never a good idea.
Providing educational guidance is fine, and even the occasional well-put press release might do some good. But a “policy statement?” Tirez l’autre, mon ami.
What is the “policy” of climate skeptics? Unless it’s to be honest and to tell the truth? How could skeptics possibly have a climate “policy,” other than “wait and see?”

george e. smith
April 19, 2014 12:13 pm

“””””…..David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:56 am
george e. smith says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:54 am
“For example it is just plain silly to argue that the physics of CO2 and other GHGs, including H2O, is a fiction, or that 400 ppm of anything couldn’t possibly have an effect.”
With all due respect, George, this is a misrepresentation of the position……”””””
Well David; with all due respect; that is a completely accurate representation OF SOME SKEPTICS position.
So just where in my post did you find I assigned that position to ALL skeptics ?? I did not.
That’s YOUR error, not mine.

April 19, 2014 12:15 pm

I voted no because to me it seems that the possible drawback are more likely to occur than the possible benefits.
The drawback is that the head of an organization will always feel the need to make a statement even if he’s not sure the “membership” is in agreement. The American Physical Society comes to mind.
A possible benefit is that the press would have a go-to place to get the other side in response to the latest alarmist press release. But if the press were open to that kind of information, they would already be getting it; it wouldn’t be hard for an Associated Press reporter to find someone willing to give him the straight dope. Yet they don’t.

April 19, 2014 12:17 pm

Organizing is a bad idea.

David Ball
April 19, 2014 12:18 pm

george e. smith says:
April 19, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Thank you for your reply George. This once again shows why the vote should be “no”.

Political Junkie
April 19, 2014 12:18 pm

No, but:
There is a need for an organization or an individual who could put together a really tightly reasoned set of absolutely ‘bullet-proof’ questions on climate change that could be asked of candidates running for any political office. Circulating this to political party organizations and the press would not be costly.
The potential impact could be significant. For example: Imagine a candidate running for governor being asked in a public forum about a greenhouse gas reduction proposal he’s advocating: “You are telling us that your proposal will reduce emissions by x megatons. This means nothing to me. Do you know and can you tell us what the impact of your proposed project on global warming will be in DEGREES? If not, why not?”
Not my preferred vehicle, but one could imagine the Tea Party putting good talking points to use.

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 12:18 pm

Off topic, anybody know of a no B.S. reference on the accuracy and limitations of the various temperature proxies? If anyone would point me with some links I’d be grateful.

April 19, 2014 12:18 pm

“Is it time for an ‘official’ climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
Absolutely not. CAGW is a product of progressivism, not science. That is why its supporters have formed and joined centralized organizations and imbued them with ever increasing authority.
While skeptics may be found in all political persuasions, the political aspect is one of conservatism/libertarianism. It would be a mistake for those who value freedom to adopt the tactics of those who lust for centralization.
Plus trust me, if any such “official” skeptic organization were created (by government or otherwise), the positions of control in that organization would eventually attract those people who are drawn to power, ie. progressives.
Just look at the Republican Party.

April 19, 2014 12:19 pm

I voted yes but on thinking about it a little further ,that might not be a good idea .Any origination can be infiltrated and taken over . The loose but effective groups of skeptics are making a difference because when someone like myself approaches the subject ,you have to learn stuff .I once drank the kool-aid just out of being lazy about it but I found this site .Some stuff ,well a lot of stuff goes over my head but I some how come away each time with another small piece of the puzzle called climate change . Even learning how not to debate the issue is a big plus .They work on fallacies and plain fraud .If it aint broke then don’t fix it ….

Indur Goklany
April 19, 2014 12:20 pm

As one of the original skeptics, this strikes me as a lousy idea. So are we going to have “consensus” skeptical statements? Isn’t that virtually an oxymoron?
1. “Consensus” is a fancy word for groupthink. As a skeptic of things in general, which I believe every thinking person ought to be, that sticks in my craw.
2. The notion of “consensus”, while perfectly acceptable for politics and bureaucracies, is antithetical to the scientific method.
3. There are so many factors involved in AGW, some of which I’m more skeptical about than others, I am skeptical — that damned word again — that my, or for that matter, any single individual’s — view would be properly or adequately represented in a joint statement. And IMO not worth the effort. Consider my specific set of views: I was, believe it or not, a little concerned about CO2 in the late 1970s, but became more skeptical over time. First I became skeptical of one thing, then another, then another, and so on… but I still believe that CO2, all else being equal, might cause (some) warming. Although I’m skeptical about thermometer measurements, despite believing there is a relatively large “warming” bias, phenological records from non-urban areas suggest to me that there has been some warming (although they too are “contaminated” by an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations). Regardless, I’m not convinced that the warming we have seen so far is outside of the bounds of natural variability. I have always been skeptical that we knew enough to say the impacts would be catastrophic, or that we couldn’t/wouldn’t be able to adapt, or that mitigation would be cheap in the short run, or that spending money on mitigation is the best use of societies’ (always) scarce resources … and so on. I can see that some skeptics might agree with me on one but not another of these above cited facets. How would all this be captured in a joint statement?
4. About the only thing skeptics might be able to agree on is that “consensus” is not part of the scientific method.
5. To paraphrase Mark Twain — or was it Groucho — I would be skeptical of any group that would join me in a “joint statement”.

Gary Hladik
April 19, 2014 12:20 pm

Not likely we could form an OCS (“Organization of Climate Skeptics”). I think it would be possible and helpful to come up with a set of statements summarizing the current state of our knowledge, something like the WUWT article here:
or here
i.e. statements with solid scientific evidence behind them that (almost) all skeptics can support. Possible examples:
1. The incidence and power of severe weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc) has NOT increased over the past (30/40/50) years, with references.
2. The observed increase in the so-called “global average temperature” is mainly due to an observed rise in nighttime lows. (we might also want to call on the IPCC to actually DEFINE the so-called GAT)
3. The observed rate of increase of the so-called GAT in “the CO2 era” is indistinguishable from the rate of increase in pre-CO2 eras, with references.
Stuff like that. Being a heterogeneous lot, not all CAGW skeptics are likely to agree with all points, but having a central reference would help us narrow and define our differences and give us a set of “talking points” for discussions with CAGW inthusiasts (who are also somewhat heterogeneous in their exact beliefs and familiarity with the facts–some think CO2 is 40% of the atmosphere, for example). When somebody like Village Idiot (April 19, 2014 at 11:40 am) does a drive-by, we can point to our “manifesto” and ask exactly what he disputes, and why.
Just don’t ask me who comes up with the list and how we decide what’s included and what isn’t. I’m strictly a “big picture” kind of guy. 🙂

Schrodinger's Cat
April 19, 2014 12:21 pm

I voted yes because here in the UK the Government, BBC, press and almost every institution supports the warmist cause. The GWPF makes a modest but important contribution to the alternative view.
The GWPF tends to be a notice board for serious sceptical reports and articles and only occasionally publishes an opinion piece which tends to be an assessment or review with credibility and merit.
The creation of a cheerleading, rallying club that attracts supporters committed to rubbishing the warmists is probably the last thing we want.
My message is therefore is to define what you want and what you do not want very, very carefully.

April 19, 2014 12:22 pm

darrylb: “‘The Road to skepticism’ Could be a nice title for a book. subtitle ‘ ‘The Many Paths followed'”
In addition to describing how the scales fell from their eyes, it could, for the better-known folks like Crichton and Rutan, include the kinds of reaction they encountered when they attempted to disseminate what they had learned.

April 19, 2014 12:30 pm

I am going with a ‘no’ vote. Any organisation would of necessity be seen as being of a political nature. One of the many problems with the whole question of global warming is that the science has become politicised. We need to get back to the science being done by scientists and not the activists who have held sway for too many years.
The policy response is another matter. Crap policy based on crap science. We must continue to point out the futile nature of the policy response and the injustice this causes to the most vulnerable members of our fellow men.

Retired Engineer
April 19, 2014 12:30 pm

I voted “No” as I don’t think it would do any good. As many have observed, this is not really about science, but control. “Experts” telling us where to live, what to drive, how to live. They ignore anything that doesn’t agree, science or not. Sadly, I fear we are wasting our time as it is. The CAGW express is roaring along, running over anything in its path. Wind, solar, electric cars, you name it, all big time PR, (with small time benefit). An official organization? One more thing to trample and ridicule. Perhaps even “domestic terrorists” as one Senator likes to claim.
And, as many have said, we don’t agree on everything. Hard to build an organization with that flexibility.

David Case
April 19, 2014 12:31 pm

I have read this blog daily for years and have never commented, so this is my first time. I voted ‘No’ on this for the following reasons:
(1) any organization begun with the express purpose of being skeptical of some position will immediately be ignored or demonized by the other side as simply being an ‘anti’ organization.
(2) What we need to preserve for ourselves and our posterity is good science in all areas, not just climate. Of course skepticism plays a part in that but our fundamental goal is in the long run to discover how the climate actually does work and what can be reliably predicted (if anything) about its future.
(3) It seems to me that what we skeptics most universally oppose is the politicization of science and its use for what are in the end fundamentally political goals. This is an increasingly common use of ‘science’ across all kinds of public policy areas including climate, the environment, health, safety, etc. We need to base our decisions for the future on actual science and not on advocacy ‘science’ which is little more than a form of witch doctoring to which various activists appeal to bolster their political cases to the general public.

April 19, 2014 12:32 pm

I voted yes. I think there needs to be a common ground for support. But I maintain that any public release should be that of diversity of opinion and a look at all possibilities of which one and only one of many is alarmist. Another perception should be ‘Yeah, bring it on, the world is going to be a much better place’ —and really scientifically, we do no know, but we should prepare as efficiently as possible for all possibilities.
Within the possible perceptions, the alarmist position should be that of a very scientifically challenged, narrow, biased political, but acknowledged position, but one of many.
Lets have a look at everything and let the viewer/reader/listener decide for him/herself.
In deciding to vote yes or no, remember the warming establishment has voted yes hundreds of times; every time they use the 97% meme. Their mentality is kind of like the teenage argument,
‘see, its true, everybody says so’.

NZ Willy
April 19, 2014 12:34 pm

This is purely a funding question. Funding means you can hire the staff, because much of the work can only be done professionally.

April 19, 2014 12:35 pm

I don’t care much for any organization (I have seen them on the both sides of the old Iron curtain), they are loved by authoritarians and their followers.
I am more than content with what I am doing, despite all the obfuscation and occasional slander I encounter on these pages.
Good luck with it, I will not vote no, but would not join either.

A. from Hungary
April 19, 2014 12:35 pm

I voted no, because the best punishment for the alarmist would be that nobody would care about what they are saying. I think we should not argue with them, especially not on their level. Stick to the science.
Clever man don’t argue with climate fools.

April 19, 2014 12:37 pm

Besides the arguments it seems to have caused, I see two problems with this poll:
(1) It let me vote twice. Worse, it wouldn’t let me see the results a second time until I voted a second time!
(2) Why does the poll show an approximately 3:1 Yes vote, while the commenters go the other way, probably by more than 3:1?
Was our friend Prof. Lewandowsky by any chance involved in setting up this poll?
REPLY: The poll was set to exclude multiple voting by cookies and by IP address, and is run by The issues you point out aren’t what you think they are, yes you can vote a second time, but your vote was not recorded. – Anthony

Greg Woods
April 19, 2014 12:38 pm

I voted no.
Would such an organization merely make us feel better, or would it actually serve the purpose of making skeptics out of true believers? Given the nature of Belief in Global Warming and its resemblance to religion, I doubt (heh, heh) that we would be changing anyone’s minds.
For a long time I used to respond to Huff Post articles (posted as ‘Oso Politico’), but to what avail? I was merely ridiculed, verbally abused, and insulted. This was especially true if I should cite
Anthony’s site.
WUWT is organization enough for me. We cannot make others think as we do. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink – to coin a phrase.
Does CO2 warm things up? Maybe, at least in a greenhouse. But is the Earth’s atmosphere like a greenhouse? Well, I will let all of you bright fellows, and gals, too, decide that.
Where I see weather, Warmistas see climate. Where I see natural variation, they see CAGW.
I think where we can all help is in calling them out for their lack of skepticism, lack of science-based proofs, and tortured use of the language.
By being loyal readers of WUWT we already belong an organization, albeit ad hoc.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 12:38 pm

I voted “No.”
While good can come from such organizing, the risk of harm is greater.
And, it is not necessary for truth to win that we formally organize.

April 19, 2014 12:40 pm

This needs a lot of thought. Some concerns:
The first year, ten percent of the new members will be moles. Within three years, the board, if elective, may mostly be Warmists. Within five, the organization could announce that the members now endorse CAGW 97%. No actual vote would be taken, of course. How do you propose to prevent Alinskyfication?
Re WUWT Magazine: Print journalism is dead. Why devote effort to a printosaurus? Ok, it would be nice PR, just don’t expect it to ever break even.
Yes, the organization, if it’s any good, will draw the lightning. And may even draw the attention of He Who Must Not Be Named and his IRS / NSA bullies.
One thing to factor into your thinking: In certain emergencies, the Internet may be down for days. And when it comes back online, it may be…different. How to maintain continuity, security, and positive identification?
Look at how other organizations operate, particularly the NRA.
Identify your objectives. See how they can be accomplished by the organization. Ask whether there are alternatives to do the same thing.
Naming is very important. Mission statement, almost as much so. [is joke. almost.]
Still, I voted yes. Can we have a secret handshake? Pens? Baseball caps? Cups? Bodges…? Medals…?

Werner Brozek
April 19, 2014 12:41 pm

David in Cal says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
It won’t do any good IMHO. The Heartland Institute plays this role, but the media ignore it. Another commenter pointed to the NIPCC. The media ignore them, too. Skeptics need to find a way to get fair media coverage, but that’s easier said than done.
I agree. Perhaps someone with connections could get a monthly magazine going that contains, for example, the ten or so best articles in WUWT every month. And once an article is chosen, the author could tweak it, based on various comments, to make it “perfect” for publication in a magazine. The cover could be an eye catching graph such as Lord Monckton’s graph of RSS with no warming for 17 years and 8 months or whatever it may be at the time.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 12:41 pm

It is now (for some readers — for others, it is just another Sunday morning)
Easter Morning in Australia and New Zealand…

With love,

April 19, 2014 12:43 pm

brian says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:44 am
. . .Certainly, no one can deny, humans have caused some warming. . .
If I did deny that, what evidence would you produce to prove that I was wrong?

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 12:44 pm

Thanks Janice 🙂

Adam Gallon
April 19, 2014 12:45 pm

Mine’s a no.
Such a body would need funding. Where would this come from?
It would also lead to another hierachy to impose their views upon their “supporters”.

April 19, 2014 12:49 pm

I think that Steven Schneider accurately described the dilemma faced by any group of scientists or citizen scientists interested in climate change, be they skeptics or alarmists. WIth my modifications, he said
On the one hand, as [skeptical] scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just [skeptical] scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change [mitigation]. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary [mitigation] scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements [about the mistakes of the IPCC and others], and make little mention of any doubts we might have [that warming could be as bad as models project]. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
For any organization of climate skeptics, who will decide what mix of science and policy advocacy/propaganda is appropriate? The GWPF, for example, has both scientists and politicians. Perhaps there should be two umbrella groups, one for scientists (as Schneider describes them) and one for policy advocates.
I personally think that Schneider should have resolved his “ethical double-bind” by informing his audience when he was speaking as a scientist (and including all of the caveats doubts) and when he was speaking as a policy advocate (and wouldn’t include the caveats and doubts). Incidently, since the IPCC’s SPM’s contain few, if any, caveats about a field packed with uncertainties, we can automatically categorize their reports as policy advocacy (even though the claim to not be prescriptive).

John Vonderlin
April 19, 2014 12:49 pm

I voted no. I’d be very skeptical of any organization that would have me as a member.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 12:50 pm

You’re welcome, Mark. Thanks for saying so.

Schrodinger's Cat
April 19, 2014 12:51 pm

I add to my comment at 12:21. The GWPF does not have an official, or dominant or even well known position in the climate debate. It does not have much influence. It is known to, and appreciated by sceptics, but probably the man in the street has never heard of it.
I value it highly, because I agree with the messages it posts on its site. I doubt if the rest of the UK population has the site bookmarked.
So, maybe my second message is that if you wish to emulate the GWPF, then make sure you understand its level of influence and not see it as an opposition party to the alarmist movement, more an opposition newsletter.
I think that the newsletter status I have described almost gives it more credibility than if it were a fully fledged, highly funded, high profile sceptical party. In this respect, I agree with those above who would vote against your proposal.
The aim in my view is to provide a scientifically accurate assessment of climate news, regardless of its implications. This would involve drawing attention to uncertainties in a manner that cannot be faulted by either side of the argument. That would be a public service and a service to respect and celebrate.
Let’s face it, if our sceptical position is justified, then presenting the data without bias should support our cause.

Robert in Calgary
April 19, 2014 12:52 pm

I voted no.
If there is a specific project with a specific goal, don’t we already come together anyways when asked?
ie: recent support for Jo Nova.
The alternate question – should there be more projects with specific aims?
To give one example, what’s the cost for one month of one good location billboard in the top 10 US markets? And what would the message be?
I would kick in money for this.

April 19, 2014 12:54 pm

To have an organisation issue press releases etc. means having to adopt one line of thinking, which trends to be narrow or become narrow over time. The whole point of the sceptic movement is to be united by scepticism and nothing else.
If it also means you are the gatekeeper, then no thanks, as you have amply demonstrated that you have a narrow mind as much as many warmists.
The GWPF’s success is that it operates without the baggage of an organisation and just publishes the reports it chooses to, a course open to anyone.
Having an ‘official’ organisation will also allow warmists to focus their efforts. As it is, there is a wide spread of sceptics that can challenge them from many sides but without offering a central point of return attack.
The one organising that we do have is the group that goes under the moniker of NIPCC, but they should be left to publish scientific assessment reports and not become political.

April 19, 2014 12:54 pm

I’ve already said that you need a media organization for all science / tech news to counter the leftist media. Global warming is only one portion of the BS that goes down every day. And if you run a media organization, you will make money & political friends.
If you look at the BS climate & lefty papers placed in Nature, Science, PNAS… they are mixed in with some very nice research papers. I’m sure that’s why these journals sold for such a high price. They need the truth in which to dilute the lie.
Places like are right wing organizations that do news, not news places. You go there if you want right wing stuff. When I read slashdot or tech crunch, I’m not looking for politics, but I sure get it mixed in with the other stuff. Something popular and centrist would be nice.

April 19, 2014 12:54 pm

I have a better, more efficient way to alter the debate in a fundamental way. Hire a respected, neutral, national known polling firm to design a statistically valid survey of credentialed scientists to once and for all come up with what percentage actually buy the CAGW case. I have yet to read an alarmist screed which doesn’t appeal to the so-called “overwhelming consensus.” That the “science is settled,” the beating heart of the alarmist case.
Every time I bring this up I either get ignored or ridiculed. The only problem I see is the expense. But how many skeptics are there who’d be willing to donate to get something like this done? I don’t know, honestly. A million? Two million?
It would take some clever PR to put it over in a convincing, well publicized way. We’d have to get some coverage in the MSM. What might do it is a wager. If we could find a well known alarmist dumb enough to put his money where his mouth is. Bet’s always attract attention, and they make a good story which the media would have a hard time ignoring.

Todd (Northern Virginia)
April 19, 2014 12:56 pm

First if there were an organization, good luck getting a majority to agree on a set of positions.
But the real problem with an organization is, the main thing that the Progressive Project has succeeded in doing over the last 100 years is getting control of what it calls the Centers of Influence, the newspapers, the Universities, the “Arts” (mainly Hollywood, but also writers, poets, etc.) the BPOMs (Big Pots of Money, by which I mean the foundations).
If you set up an organization the only real question is how long it will take the Progressives/Socialists/Communists/Alenskyites to seize control of it. An amusing recent example is Greenpeace from which the founder was recently made a non-person in true 1030s Bolshevik style, by the progressive activists who have seized control. Then they would use the organization to demonize any “Skeptic” who didn’t toe their propaganda line.

April 19, 2014 12:57 pm

I voted ‘yes’ because I think that some organization supporting the contention that CAGW is highly improbable is better than no organization taking that stand. I would hope such an organization would restrict itself to refuting the arguments of those contending CAGW is real and established science. It could provide a forum for those who can make such refutations much like WUWT only a bit more formal and dedicated.

April 19, 2014 1:00 pm

Mike says: “NO… consolidating your forces is never a winning strategy. It simply allows the enemy to focus their fire. Having a diverse and dispersed opposition to this Redistribution Scheme is the best way to fight.”
Quite wrong. Obviously you’ve never taken any military strategy courses, Mike. The Battle of the Little Big Horn was lost precisely because Custer split his forces. Classic mistake that all the books warn about.
I’m wondering how many of the commenters who are against the idea are people we’ve never seen here before…

Liberal Skeptic
April 19, 2014 1:00 pm

I voted yes, but now I’ve read the comments I’m less certain it’s necessary.
Being organised gives them something to attack and discredit and smear.
Right now they are losing because at worse they can smear individuals and by doing so, they often get it very wrong.
You can’t discredit a movement that disagrees with you one person at a time. You’ll run out of time before you get found out..

Gunga Din
April 19, 2014 1:01 pm

Janice Moore says:
April 19, 2014 at 12:41 pm

And to you.
PS II Corinthians 2:14-17

April 19, 2014 1:02 pm

I think alarmists are voting yes.

James Allison
April 19, 2014 1:09 pm

Many friends and acquaintances are interested in climate change and human influence and they read Climate Scientist press releases that are often alarming and sometimes quite terrifying. Most of these people firmly believe humans are surely destroying our planet and our children will suffer. They are uninformed about the data and so their views are simply based on ignorance and propaganda. I’m a sceptic and do my best to counteract their views by digging out – mostly from WUWT – simple graphs that indicate planet Earth is existing well within its normal variation. And that increasing CO2 isn’t a threat. Once they see this data they inevitably say something like – “well I wish I had been shown this stuff earlier”. Based on my own experiences I suggest that a website is produced that displays simple graphs and data that laymen would easily understand. Laymen sceptics, and there are many of us, could then point to this one source of “irrefutable data” that shows them the earth is behaving completely normally and they needn’t be alarmed or scared. The website should only contain empirical data without projections or predictions as this would encourage criticism from Alarmists.

Craig Hamilton
April 19, 2014 1:10 pm

This is a very interesting discussion to be having just before Easter. As an atheist, I have always regarded the divinity of Christ as a myth, but many of the messages in the bible do have application to our lives. The crucifixion is probably the most dramatic example of the forceful submission of individual thought to the prejudice of mob consensus.
You don’t stop a mob by forming another mob. The reason that skeptics are so hated by the authoritarians and academic group-thinkers is that we speak as individuals. The global warming panic is finally starting to fade, and its proponents are beginning to sound shrill and silly. The last thing we need to do is to set up a fresh target.

April 19, 2014 1:10 pm

I think it should be loose organization under one slogan: there is no evidence that the increase in CO2 causes a significant increase in temperature. They should belong into it primarily scientists. Zbigniew Jaworowski ( deceased) for me is an example of a man who against all preached the truth. This is important mainly for the media.

April 19, 2014 1:11 pm

What is the definition of “official” what what keeps existing organizations from being considered “official”? It sounds like you mean “credible” and capable of wide appeal and most of all, trust. Those are characteristics that come from without. The GWPF doesn’t have these characteristics. Why? Probably because they are seen as activist, political, and just a little bit stupid for some of the things they’ve done.
Finally, as with the IPCC, any credible organization has to have the endorsement of an even more credible organization and while I may think the UN is the most corrupt thing since Stalin’s apparatchik, the freeloading nations that seek the largess of such an organization are fully behind it. If a proper “official” skeptic organization were possible it would already exist.

April 19, 2014 1:12 pm

That the so called alarmists never learnt what the teachers taught back in the early years in school doesn’t give them the rights calling those who did for Climate Sceptics…..
Strong>Facts about our Earth
diameter 12 756 km
In other words
Jordens radie är 6 378 km
if you use a rope where one centimeter represent 10 km as an instrument to draw a circle the rope will be 6 meter 37.8 cm.
[caption id="attachment_21755" align="aligncenter" width="256"] Röd prick = skalenlig illustration av Mt Everest.Blå prick = skalenlig illustration av Marinergraven.Observera att människan förvisso varit i rymden, men vi har inte full kontroll av allt ens där vi skickat mätinstrument. Än mindre vet vi detaljfakta om jordens inre. Vi utgår från mätningar inom prickarnas ramar.[/caption]
Red dot than represent Mt Everest. Blue dot the Mariner Grave. Please observe that while it’s true man have been in space anda that we know some re. first microsecunds after Big Bang, it’s also true that no man ever been deeper than Mariner Grave and that we humans don’t know all factors and facts within our Earth. What we have is measured figures and observations within the limits up and down represented by the dots….

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 1:12 pm

I found these, Mark Bofill (re: Q at 12:18pm):
3. “A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?” By Blakeley B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner”:
Hope you find them helpful.

Tom J
April 19, 2014 1:17 pm

I voted ‘yes’ but I do have to say that sometimes organizations have a nasty way metamorphosizeing into something different than the founders intended.

April 19, 2014 1:19 pm

Skepticism is all about non-conformism.
There is no point in trying to “tame” it or organize it.
Creating it will demand concensus, the mere phrase gives me the creeps.
The “skeptic cloud” does it best. Do not fall in that trap.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 1:20 pm

Thanks for that, Gunga Din. Amen.
Your sister,
@ Edim (1:02pm) — I was thinking along the same lines…. (probably because I want the “No’s” to win, LOL)…
or, at least, the “Yes’s” are less likely to write a comment about their vote.
It appears that more commentors are expounding on their “No” votes, … .

April 19, 2014 1:22 pm

SanityP says:
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.

Maybe something like ‘the Feynman Society‘? Emphasis on objective science and the Scientific Method: every honest scientist must be a skeptic, first and foremost. “If it disagrees with experiment, if it disagrees with observation, it’s wrong.” [Or maybe, the Eisenhower Report?]
There is no Scientific Method on the alarmist side. It has been 16 years since Michael Mann issued MBH98. Sixteen years of constant stonewalling; refusing all requests for the complete data, methodologies, code, metadata, which went into fabricating that scare. And the IPCC has no skeptical scientist in any position of authority; there is scarcely a university anywhere that has an honest skeptic in authority.
When you take away all the arbitrary assumptions, and all the baseless assertions, and the evidence-free conjectures, and then apply Occam’s Razor and the null hypothesis to the CAGW narrative, what you are left with is… nothing. There is no runaway global warming threat. It simply does not exist. The Null Hypothesis remains standing, despite constant attempts to falsify it.
There are very good arguments on both sides of this question. I agree with just about all of them. There is a real need for a strong organization to counter the misinformation being fed to the public. OTOH, there is strength in not presenting a big target to be attacked. At this point, I’m unsure of the best course of action. Will have to give it more thought.
[PS: some of the comments about a magazine are interesting. My subscription to Nature Climate Change was terminated when they asked me to start paying. As if! Too bad publications like that are so expensive. I’d love to see a WUWT mag…]

April 19, 2014 1:23 pm

jorgekafkazar (April 19, 2014 at 12:40 pm) makes some good points above:

Identify your objectives. See how they can be accomplished by the organization. Ask whether there are alternatives to do the same thing.
Naming is very important. Mission statement, almost as much so.

Creating an aimless organization just to have something to join is makes no sense. Given good well-defined reasons for its existence would be a useful starting point.
I voted “unsure”.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 1:23 pm

EYAL PORAT! I was just wondering how you were doing last week (since it was Passover, you came to mind). It’s been a looong time since I noticed your name on WUWT. Glad you posted! Hope all is well. Yes, yes, I know, you told me that Israel is a perfectly safe place to live, but, I can’t help but feel some concern for you.
Take care and SHALOM!

April 19, 2014 1:24 pm

I am astonished at the number of no votes. I suppose it could be related to the level of freedom one actually has in their country that can position such a view.
This Global Warming movement is not about science anylonger. It is pure politics and power grabs. Nobody is successful at politics at an individual level. Nobody!
Hence my amazment of the no votes. Those of you who voted no gave a variety of reasons for such. I found none of them valid. The, it is a waste of time, nobody will listen, they already exist, excuse is nothing but BS and being lazy in your comfy chair as you gaze at pixels in your privacy using cheap energy.
The warmists are very well organized and have repositories with prepared responses to virtually any sceptical postion. Most of which use character assasination as opposed to scientific rebuttal.
The skeptics have a handful of good sites, no organization on a large scale, no easy to reference material access for quick rebuttals, few non-profit status oranizational structured environments.
Need I go on?
Without organization, you are powerless to impact policy. The “Policy” that is currently being set by the alarmists erodes your freedom more everyday. Look at what the POTUS has done through the EPA! Did you vote for that? No, but 4 million missing republican votes that did not come to the polls did by vitue of the same excuses. Now we all pay the price for their inaction.
To give up is cowardly in my book. Perhaps most folks just don’t realize their freedom is what is at stake here. If the AGW group had their way you would be living on energy rations and in the dark ages. Their way is not far off folks. December 2015 will be a big hurdle to jump for them. All it takes is a vote into the UN CO2 constraints and your life as you know it will never be the same again.
So yes, you can stand by and watch your future be determined by others or you can do something about it yourself and take ownership of your own future.
The voice of thousands can silence the indivudual quickly, efficiently, and permanently.
Wake up dissenters! Your time is here, and your voice needs heard in mass or it will disappear in the regulations being positioned in your own backyard and living room.
I for one will not stand idly by and watch our society disintegrate in to the socialist abyss that has failed time after time in history.
Think about it>
Back to your regularly scheduled program if you have a TV and electricity allowances available

John in L du B
April 19, 2014 1:26 pm

We most certainly need such an organization but wouldn’t Tom Harris’ ICSC meet the criteria for such an institution?
As for the left/right divide, I’ve tried to say here and at other sites for a long time now that it’s pointless to sound off against warmists as extreme left wing anti-capitalist ideologues because it gives them the chance to characterize skeptics as angry old white rich republicans. Besides not sure the left wing characterization is near accurate. Those big bankers like Goldman Sachs who’d just love to trade on carbon could hardly be called anti-capitalist. Monopoly capitalists maybe. Possibly oligarchist in nature, which would put them in the same league as Putin.

April 19, 2014 1:29 pm

I voted No, because I don’t think some skeptical headquarter will be able to achieve what all single skeptics like yourself and independent organizations like GWPF already have achieved.
And will there be a ‘global consensus’ then, of the skeptical point of view?
I think one doesn’t want to go there.
Skeptics will win the argument in the end.
The scientific world will leave CAGW behind.
The politics will change when they run out of OPM.

April 19, 2014 1:30 pm

“Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
No. That would politicize skepticism which is a frame of mind not a political position. The reason skepticism has been successful is that it is individuals expressing opinions, and not group-think which would immediately make it suspect. The warmists are the ones who hang labels. Lets not help them.

Leon Brozyna
April 19, 2014 1:33 pm

Once, the U.S. was noted for individual rights and self-reliance … now, it’s in a mad rush to join a gang … it’s gang-warfare of the kind you’d find in any totalitarian state … join a gang to protect your interests, whether it’s AARP or WWF … so, of course I voted NO … let’s stop joining gangs.
Besides, nobody swallows the alarmist junk any more … which gives them something else about which to be alarmed … and no single entity at which to point.

Dave the Engineer
April 19, 2014 1:34 pm

If we did set up such an organization the climate change people would call it a “Cult”. You know they would and the media would dutifully repeat it.

Paul Pierett
April 19, 2014 1:36 pm

I have a friend and colleagues in New Zealand on our side and one continues to post the Skeptical side with plenty of links. It is pretty neat. I could forward it to you if you wish, or we could develop our own research link bank on your Website, along with a policy statement and such along with goals. Good PR. I seem to remember Joseph D’Aleo’ site ? Ice age??? Has A link format.
The left has almost a Commie manifesto with a hit list. That is why I think it is time. The left is vicious. We need to answer with calm and logic. Hypothesis, theory and natural law.
I hold to Milankovitch Cycles. My server raised my rate a few bucks because of hackers.
Paul Pierett

April 19, 2014 1:37 pm

I cannot see this working and worse suggests there really is a legitimate position for Global Warming/Climate Change. We had no need to establish organizations to put the other side on plate tectonics, evolution, microbes as disease agents, blood pumped around the body, the brain as more than a device to cool the body, Earth as the centre of the universe, etc etc. Reality eventually becomes established even if the edges remain ragged.

April 19, 2014 1:38 pm

I voted no for several reasons:
1. Such organizations tend to become a thing unto themselves where the survival of the organization becomes paramount and the original mission is either given lip service or changed completely.
2. As noted by many above the diversity of opinion among us who do not believe is vast. Diversity is not a bad thing except when one tries to make coherent statement which satisfy all the view points within an organization. Then your down to POLITICS! And the last thing I want to see is those who now demand honest science and focusing their efforts in the direction wrapped around the axle dealing with internal politics.
3. it seems to me that in a way there is already such an organization being formed. Or am I wrong about the NIPCC as being the nucleus of such a national organization?
4. The very last thing I want to see is the great websites like this one here and Climate Depot and Ice Cap, etc all be saying the exact same things in the exact same way as a coordinated group.

April 19, 2014 1:38 pm

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

Don K
April 19, 2014 1:38 pm

When you are dealing with badly behaved chuzzlewits, it is hard to resist the temptation to fight back. But I think the temptation should be resisted.
Better to leave the bozos to wither away as their dire predictions continue to fail to come to fruition. And remember to poke fun at them in public fora when they embrace something particularly boneheaded like coral reefs dying en masse or an ice free Arctic in 2015.
And if their predictions turn out to be true. Highly unlikely IMHO, but in that case I reckon that case we should have paid more attention to them.

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 1:39 pm

Janice Moore says:
April 19, 2014 at 1:12 pm
You rock Janice. Thanks!

April 19, 2014 1:40 pm

No. Two things ..firstly, I’m reminded of Animal Farm and secondly, it won’t stop Lewandowsky and his crew from sending diatribes and personal abuse ….that is their “modus operandi” – they are righteous people fighting a righteous cause – their wages and self-importance – don’t believe that by giving them a more defined target you will stop their barbs

April 19, 2014 1:41 pm

I voted “no.” When social architecture or infrastructure begins to develop, it requires/attracts those who need that, along with whatever the real need is.
If it is salary, then the salary/livelihood becomes important. In the world of research, there is much emphasis on grantsmanship, how to transition from doctoral program to fellowship, to early-career, to mid-career, to tenure-ready.
If it is credentials, then the resume-packers will show up. I ran an undergrad college newsletter once upon a time. The most worthless committee members were the “pre-law” people: they were angling themselves for law school apps, and the fraternity and sorority involvement (“networking”) took all their time. This was all volunteer, so I had no power to fire anyone, and I only had one occasion to write a letter of recommendation for someone based on all of that.
There is not much, relative to the career-development stuff, built in to academic research where someone or people work with you to develop a great idea and develop a great research agenda that will change the world – the build-a-better-mousetrap-and-you-will-succeed-in-research idea.
The monster is created, and wants to sustain itself more than it wants to solve problems. The docs, the insurance companies, the hospital organizations, and the pharmaceutical companies were all in the closed-door meetings when Obamacare was developed. When you take a radical idea that would resolve our problem, then engineer it so none of the major players loses, it is destined to not work as intended. In my various involvements, I was able to express this opinion in a lecture. Someone in the audience happened to be in a fellowship-type role at the time, and verified for all in attendance that all kinds of deal-making and skull-duggery was going on in that brief, intense Capitol Hill episode. She stumbled into the middle of it all and saw it all.
I submitted a good study to a good journal regarding how healthcare might work better to detect and address incidental, confounding problems. My analysis showed that the accepted status quo worked to detect the problems, but was inadequate for leading to the next steps of resolving the incidental problem.
My paper was rejected. One reviewer said I had bad outcomes, and so the paper was not worthy. I did not have bad outcomes, the prevailing system had bad outcomes.
That was the point: the status quo does not work; no one had published genuine data at that time. Since then, I have gotten my paper out, and a couple similar papers have come out. I have quickly been cited. This is pushing the issue and people are moving on to ‘what will really work?’
A year after I submitted to that journal, that SAME journal published a paper that was almost the same as mine – including on-the-ground real-world data on how to detect and institute the process to address the confounding problem, but the paper lacked the final part mine had: how well does that path work? They totally ignored that final step.
Had I lopped that final “does-it-actually-yield-any-results” analysis from my paper, I would have been the one to get published in this good journal. By good, I mean they are identified among the top 3-4 in the field.
The reviewers wanted the status quo to be maintained: let’s publish some data on the status quo we have endorsed/accepted, but not go the further step and address its worthlessness.
They did that because moving to the next step would require shucking all the existing folklore, and would require inter-disciplinary collaboration outside of their silo.
I understand and respect the value of some compromise in order to advance things in a certain way, but this social architecture also brings along weaknesses.

April 19, 2014 1:41 pm

Nature will provide. There’s a limit to how much CACA advocates in government can rig current surface station data, however free the felons are to fudge pre-1979 observations. The satellites are watching.
It might take another generation, but eventually CACA will go the way of phlogiston & Ptolemy.

Don K
April 19, 2014 1:46 pm

I should have added that your continued work in publishing a diverse collection of opinion and research on climate is greatly appreciated and a far better answer to climate nuttiness than initiating a nasty and pointless firefight.

April 19, 2014 1:47 pm

Jesus talked to plain people. The grass-roots people. He also said, a few times, don’t tell what I did.
By time the establishment got wind of all of this, they could not simply have him disappear. They had to get him legitimately, and in a way that would not inspire riots from his local ground-swell. The one recognized person he worked with – John the Baptist – was outside the establishment.
His message was the same as the message that had already been delivered: there is a God, he loves you, he knows how he designed the world and life and to have the best life you ought to be humble and follow his direction. The architecture of the Law, and other messages, were trans-mogrified into a worldly gravy train for the religious architecture.
Power to the people. Open government. Open media. Open Bible. Sunlight.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 1:47 pm

@ Mark Bofill — You’re welcome! My pleasure.

April 19, 2014 1:48 pm

No – why give the true believers a central target organization to attack vs dedicated individuals in search of the truth.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 1:49 pm

Nice insight, Last Democrat. True. No one was ever more anti-establishment.

April 19, 2014 1:52 pm

I decline to vote. We could win the CAGW battle and still loose the war. CAGW gets traction because it furthers the goals of UN Agenda 21. Do a search for the map illustrating the Wildlands Project’s goal for America. It is mostly red and yellow. The red covers areas where humans are not allowed, about half the country. See what will be left of your state. Idaho, my state, is mostly red with a little yellow. Most of the rest most of the rest of the country is yellow, areas of very restricted human use. If you look real hard you can find spots of pale green. That’s where humans will be allowed to live, looks like maybe 5%? If you do the research and find you support Agenda 21, then you should join the CAGW alarmist. Support or oppose, either way Agenda 21 is on the way. Our ‘leaders’ sold us down the river decades ago. There will not be an election. It’s all for sustainability.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 1:52 pm

LOL, (more to mine at 1:49pm) — He, a 1st century Jewish rabbi, even talked with and hung out with and promoted the rights of — women!

April 19, 2014 1:54 pm

[Note: “pyromancer76” is “beckleybud” and “H Grouse”. He is the same sockpuppet. Banned multiple times. ~mod.]

April 19, 2014 1:54 pm

I forgot to add that these guys you are concerned about have less than a pimple on a gnat on the back of an elephant as far as the day-to-day life of most of us…..I can understand your concern because you have the knowledge and experience of science and get your heads kicked at times.
However, what the world doesn’t need is another organisation telling us what we should believe …you will become just as irrelevant as the other organisations trying to tell me what to believe …..Joe Public will figure it out, and has been, without another organisation.

April 19, 2014 1:55 pm

george e. smith says:
April 19, 2014 at 12:13 pm
“””””…..David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:56 am
george e. smith says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:54 am
“For example it is just plain silly to argue that the physics of CO2 and other GHGs, including H2O, is a fiction, or that 400 ppm of anything couldn’t possibly have an effect.”
With all due respect, George, this is a misrepresentation of the position……”””””
Well David; with all due respect; that is a completely accurate representation OF SOME SKEPTICS position.
So just where in my post did you find I assigned that position to ALL skeptics ?? I did not.
That’s YOUR error, not mine.

This is a perfect example of why I should have voted ‘NO’.
I voted ‘YES’ though, thinking of a bloc of realists buying billboards and TV ads showing the RSS satellite temp record since 1979. Upon seeing this, the average Joe can’t deny the truth of it.

April 19, 2014 1:56 pm

personally I think an umbrella “organization” that issues Press Releases to the media on this topic and related topics is a good idea in principle, the media will however ignore the PRs for a long(ish) time until sanity finally breaks out.
However reaching a consensus view among so many different voices will be difficult., Perhaps approaching a PR consultancy or media savvy people for advice on how to get this message out is a good beginning. Then creating an “official” spokesman and creating a “brains trust” of advisers to help create a media friendly message (which is NOT the bald facts but a “media package” suitable for “copy’n’paste” journalism.Also time is required to explain the message to the same media people, this organization could become to “go to” place for quotes as a balance.
This kind of strategy has worked for me in the past and it may be possible to replicate again and again. I have some documents on strategies and pitfalls to avoid…

April 19, 2014 1:59 pm

I think the national organisations – GWPF, Heartland, WUWT, JoNova – are doing a good job of focussing opposition to climate madness. What is more important, they are genuine grass roots movements, and are obviously such. To try to create a supranational organisation would be to pander to the paranoia of our opponents – they would instantly brand such an organisation a Koch funded menace to democracy. And given how well we are doing, on many fronts – it seems unnecessary.

Mark Bofill
April 19, 2014 1:59 pm

Thanks for the alternate perspective. You’ve given me things to think about.

April 19, 2014 1:59 pm

I think Anthony gave the major reasons for not having one central point of information dissemination – (1) it will not have the authority of all climate sceptics and (2) it gives a single target for the alarmist side to aim at and try to discredit. The amorphous nature of the climate realists, each with their own individual expertise and journey to their present understanding provides a sort of hydra for those saying the science is settled – for every argument they try to make, two counter-arguments are put forward.

April 19, 2014 2:01 pm

1. george e. smith says on April 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm:
“””””……O H Dahlsveen says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:33 am:
“Well that little word there; “theoretical”, sets off alarm bells.”
The “theoretical” little word hangs together with the fact that Mathematicians/Physicists have worked out what the temperature (T) of our planet would be if there was no atmosphere to insulate it and they worked it out to be 255 Kelvin (K). But as you probably know the Earth does have an atmosphere. Therefore an airless planet’s T must be theoretical. This has not been worked out by me and I do believe it was Hansen & al doing this mathematics back in the 1980s. So in my epistle of April 19, 2014 at 11:33 am I am only using the CAGW people’s own numbers and formulas to prove mathematically that there has been no enhancement of the GH effect between the years 1980 – 2 010. –
A 30 year gap or strech should be long enough, even for the CAGW crowd.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 2:02 pm

Excellent points above about needing to COMMUNICATE MORE EFFECTIVELY.
Ad hoc seems the way to go.
And… Hi, Tom J! Hope all is well. Keep warm!

Mike Maguire
April 19, 2014 2:03 pm

The alarmist’s have many well defined beliefs and projections. The tactic has to been to put forth the same catastrophic projections with higher and higher confidence levels, presenting the illusion that the science is settled and the debate should be over……….even as the empirical evidence goes in the complete opposite direction.
Our position is and always has been, that we are following the empirical evidence with open minds. This means there MUST be uncertainty in order to prevent the human emotions related to cognitive bias from causing us to interpret the evidence in a way that lines up with our defined belief system vs what the truth is.
The downside is that the public and media get a message from one side that assigns 95% confidence and 97% agreement vs the other side that states they disagree(and are easy targets because their marketing scheme is not as effective) can actually show why they disagree but don’t have this powerful appealing mission to save the world.
They have the far superior marketing scheme.
Marketing is everything in politics, advertising, entertainment and many other fields.
Science is about physical laws, discovery, empirical data, observations, applications, adjustments, proof and things like that. Truth should be the only thing that matters!
But the question is……….can we maintain integrity as authentic scientists and incorporate a united front as a marketing scheme, to compete with those that base everything on their marketing scheme and fraudulently use science as part of it?

April 19, 2014 2:05 pm

In other news: The drug companies are using our legally-demanded immunization compliance architecture (cf: Jacobson vs. Mass) to make money. In this case, not only is the vaccination unnecessary, it likely yields no long-term benefit, and has terrible negatives for a few.
Someone sought my input as they were developing a term paper on how great Gardasil was, and how terrible it was that the religious, ignorant, stuck-in-the-1950s non-scientific Christians were balking at mandatory delivery for all schoolgirls.
I pointed out how the vaccination would in the long run have little or no impact. My thinking went like this: HPV is fairly prevalent – nearly ubiquitous among the younger adults who are sexually active; Gardasil guards against a couple of the several HPV strains recognized to lead to cervical cancer; the sexually active will eventually contract a strain against which they have no protection, and so will be at ground zero as far as vulnerability to HPV-induced cervical cancer goes.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation noted a few years delay of getting hit with a cervical-cancer-causing HPV strain. That would be fine if the typical trend was for someone to become modestly sexually active in high school, date a few years, and get married by age 25.
This paper-writer looked at me like I had monkey crawling out of my ears. She had bought the propaganda: Gardasil is good, and don’t listen to those pesky Christian, anti-science Leave-It-To-Beaver / Father-Knows-Best un-hip hold-outs.
Gardasil lobbied each and every state, including governors, to require Gardasil to be given to all schoolgirls. It worked in many states.
We are just now beginning to figure out what a mistake this has been.
Jacobson vs. Mass had to do with compulsory vaccinations for disease transmitted simply by begin in the vicinity of an infected person – not having genital contact with them. Mandatory vacc for MMR makes sense. Flu shots make sense (to a certain degree).
Gardasil might be wise for some. But mandatory? No.
This is what The Machine does to you. It makes you go along with prevailing thoughts, and heaps scorn on you when you threaten to not swim along.
I have a pseudonym because I see this thought-control a lot, but could not be frank about all of it in my professional life. In the long run, I have a better chance of being correct than many because I don’t have a problem with myself questioning the prevailing wisdom, or having a contrary opinion.
What to do once I detect yet another scam riding on the architecture of our existing institutions? That is a different matter and I don’t have good answers. Except know your stuff and be prepared to run arguments and analyses to their full conclusions.

Glenn D
April 19, 2014 2:05 pm

With the possible exception of our host, no one has done more for climate scientific truth than Steve McIntyre and his Climate Audit site. He is apolitical, polite, professional, competent and completely devastates those works of poor science, statistics and behavior that catch his attention. Again and again he reminds us that climate science standards are far below what is acceptable in his area of expertise, mining and other business.
He is but one man who may decide to, or be forced to stop his efforts at any time.
Far more than a political organization, we need an organization that works to raise the standard of the science. One that reviews climate work and reporting according to a set of rock-hard standards and reports the results in an apolitical manner. Think of it as a group of experts dedicated to extending Steve’s work, and communicating results to the media and academia. The group would not be sceptics, but scientific and statistical auditors who are not afraid to say, ‘this is wrong and here’s why’, ‘this is how this work can be improved’, and ‘this is an example of a work that meets our standards’.
The IPCC and peer review are obviously not doing what is necessary in this respect. We need a chorus of Steves.

April 19, 2014 2:05 pm

The guerrilla phase is long over, time to work together. We’d be so much more effective.

April 19, 2014 2:06 pm

I vote “No” only because there was no “Hell, no” option.
By the way, “politcal dissent” and “I realized his science was so week”!

James Allison
April 19, 2014 2:08 pm

Janice Moore says:
April 19, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Cheers Janice 🙂

Chad Levi Bergen
April 19, 2014 2:10 pm

Yeah what the world needs is an organization of wackos, bipolar street entertainers, and media flakes/failed scientists,
who actually believed the atmosphere’s thermal profile is based on chemical composition, i.e. ”magic gases”
rather than the real law that governs the atmospheric thermal profile, Ideal Gas Law,
Barking that ludicrous Magic Gas story as if they represent working science, trying to make claim to represent another consensus:
a consensus still so stupid it thought magic gas rules the atmospheric thermal regime, and refuses to let scientists who are actually atmospheric experts remind them the magic gas is what led them all to utter, humiliated defeat,
referring to it’s own cherished GCMs as “junk”.
How’s it been working trying to pass that voodoo you thought was science off on everybody for the past ten years?
Go ahead and incorporate yourselves into a second consensus of magical gas believers and see if anybody in the actual scientific world has any more respect for your constantly being wrong, and character assassination as a way of life.
Ideal Gas Law.
It is what rules you.
Until you face that you are going to be the Concensus Clown Circus Network.
The people who didn’t know Ideal Gas Law rules over the atmosphere.
Not Magic Gas Law.
[Reply to all: See? We publish all comments, so long as they don’t violate Policy. No censorship here! ~mod.]

April 19, 2014 2:11 pm

I voted ‘yes’ but for different reasons than have been presented earlier. I don’t think it worthwhile to form a ‘skeptic organization’ (hate that name) to promote policy, but rather to coordinate skeptical climate studies and communicate the results of those studies.
(1) I believe that WUWT would be more effective if it harnessed expert members collaboratively to carryout more comprehensive and coordinated studies that reveal the shortcomings of institutional AGW research and findings. It strikes me that while WUWT posters generally have done fine work; that work often could be even better if the work were done in collaboration with other experts. This could be accomplished with small action groups (maybe even self organized) who could correspond via web-meeting or by using web collaboration tools (similar to what done daily in industry and probably by the AGW crowd). Result could be posted or webinars could be used to allow other WUWTers to watch the proceedings.
(2) Similarly, groups could be formed to provide educational materials that highlight the skeptical viewpoint (I know there’s probably many) and showcase the problems, uncertainties, and misrepresentations of the CAGW perspective.
There’s probably other opportunities for organizing the WUWT community (maybe with other like-mined blogs) but this comment is probably too long already.

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 2:11 pm

Cheers, James. #(:)) Thanks for bothering to say so.

April 19, 2014 2:12 pm

I voted no. As indicated some time ago a better strategy is guerrilla tactics rather than an obvious BIG target. The top sceptic blogs and NIPCC are sufficient but the NIPPC needs to develop better strategies and employ an experienced PR person and not to put up any more of those silly and counter-productive billboards of the past. For example they should put up a billboard using the 17 years global no-temperature-rise graph and text “ NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR MORE THAN 17 YEARS” would be a good start.

April 19, 2014 2:23 pm

Agree with your comments, but I have always thought that sceptics should have help to produce material capable of being peer reviewed in leading journals. Peer reviewed articles are what changes scientific viewpoints, not good blog posts, no matter how interesting or well written.
Sceptics often also need help with producing better articles, as you suggest, with notable weaknesses being lack of editing by a third party and amateur graphics. By that I mean graphics produced by writers who often have limited graphics skill. A good graph can put over a point more effectively than a long article.

April 19, 2014 2:29 pm

I thought quite seriously about Anthony’s idea. Of course the sceptical front has many ‘cells’ all fighting CAGW orthodoxy in different (and sometimes contradictory) ways. There are also more than a few well organised groups who have taken up the banner for their own ideological/spiritual/personal reasons. I may not agree with everything they say but (to paraphrase), I completely support their right to say it. Most of these groups and associations also seem to have access to some limited resource and funding (bought a coffee cup lately anyone?). They all do well in their own specific forums. The blogs, of course, fall into a similar space, with specific zones of influence.
So do we need (or even want) a well funded centralised North American organisation to stream-line, lobby for and disseminate information on our behalf? This idea poses some subtle questions/issues;
Would we fight a better fight if we had a bigger ‘home base’. I don’t think so – The neo-liberal and socialist MSM have always had a bit of a ‘hate on’ for any non-government body which appears to have access to money or power. On the contrary, they seem to go gushy over any group that touts a socialist agenda or supports bigger government (regardless of it’s size or funding). I think a big ‘home base’ would just provide a big, juicy target for the MSM. Such an big organisation would naturally have bureaucratic, financial and ideological weaknesses – the same weaknesses that Anthony and others continually expose in the IPCC, EPA etc. They investigative vultures would soon start hovering, looking for a quick and dirty feed. Normal decent people may be persuaded by MSM attacks that such a large ‘anti CAGW’ org has a devious secret agenda (or is just plain crazy). It would be be easy game for propaganda attacks to undermine the ‘contrarians’ and to marginalise our views.
Secondly, The smart people on our side have nicely framed the debate around the scientific data and observations. They produce awesome work in researching, analysing, and rebutting screeds of papers and studies. My hat goes off to them This is obviously a great place for us to be, because most of the data and observations support us and make warmists look like foolish soothsayers. That is what wins battles in public forums: bashing out the (IMO often boring) but very valid and often compelling research. Arguing about the ideology or politics of CAGW just drags us away from the high ground. While there is a valid time and place to apply political pressure, it should not be while you are purporting to be searching for ‘the truth’ – after all, politics has noting to do with truth.
In short, I think we do a better service for ‘the cause’ by remaining ad-hoc, decentralised and somewhat disorganised. In general people aren’t dumb, they are completely turned off by the diatribe that is being used by the warmists. We don’t need a lobby group to throw around more political muck – I am absolutely certain that the IPCC’s stupid theory will come apart in time if we focus on the facts and keep nibbling at the end of the thread. I vote NO.

April 19, 2014 2:30 pm

As was said above, I don’t think skepticism is a right or left issue, I’m way out in left field chuckling at anarcho-primitivists as they’re the only ones crazier than I am.

April 19, 2014 2:33 pm

“Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
I voted no.
I have no use for it.
I don’t think it serves a public good.
And it’s reactionary in construction.
We could need organization for science.
That would be a refreshing idea.
We need an organization for dialogue, and it seems WUWT [and others] aredoing fine with that.
And if someone can provide a good argument for the religion of global warming, I want to
hear it, I might even become a believer.
I sort lacking in area of being involved in an organized religion, so always looking
for some good cult to be member but I tend want to do something and rather be
against something.
So far I have found many good cults, though there are lots idiotic ones
are out there.

April 19, 2014 2:33 pm

climatereason says:
April 19, 2014 at 2:23 pm
I agree with all of your points. . . given the calibre of many WUWT posters and commenters, it strikes me that at least some collaborative WUWT studies could be publishable in a climate journal. Folks on WUWT should think about it. . . how many AGW published papers have only one author. I’m no climate expert, but I suspect many have more than 3.

April 19, 2014 2:35 pm

It’s getting towards bedtime. But I feel I need to respond to three comments – two positively, one not so much.
And a further thought… could the poll results be, at least partly, due to many people’s immediate, emotional reaction being “yes,” but those who count to 10 (or 1,000), and try to look at the matter more objectively before voting, tend to end up saying “no?”
You can’t discredit a movement that disagrees with you one person at a time.
With a little cleaning up, I think that will deserve Quote of the Week.

Feynman Society? A world-wide organization of “ordinary” people, devoted to replacing the nonscience that today passes for “science” by real, objective science, and ensuring that science is kept honest? Yes, excellent idea. …but that isn’t what the poll proposes.
I worry that you may take this much as Willis took Janice Moore’s comment on the previous thread. But here goes…
Wow, you really are mired in our enemies’ way of thinking, aren’t you?
I was also going to say something about guerrilla warfare and Afghanistan, but I thought that even Anthony might find that OTT.

John F. Hultquist
April 19, 2014 2:35 pm

I voted “unsure” as regards an “official” climate skeptics organization. Second choice is No.
If there ever is such a thing I would take the Groucho Marx (?) approach: ‘I sent the Club a note stating, Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member.’
The notion of using CAGW (a false hypothesis) as a tactic to impoverish 100s of millions of people is appalling and where, I think, skeptics share a bond. Within this commonality I sense there is considerable disagreement on many things.

April 19, 2014 2:40 pm

RE Dahlsveen calculations on the Greenhouse effect.
Hasen’s greenhouse efffect difference calculation only applies to one set of surface and OLR conditions. But rather than a difference in temperatures, it is more correct to use a ratio of radiations leaving the surface and that leaving the planet and get a “greenhouse multiplier”. From the surface one must first subtract that going directly to space through the “atmospheric window” (where there is no greenhouse action except a little from ozone). This is about 23% with clear skies down to 10% with average cloudiness. From this one can get a change in surface temperature per change in OLR. The IPCC seems to ignore that through the window and uses a value 1/3.2 or 0.3125 C / Wm^2. (My models show about 0.26). For the 2 W change in OLR you mention, IPCC gets a surface temperature change of 2 x 0.3125 or 0.625C. Since only 0.4C was observed, this indicates a net negative feedback with a feedback multiplier of 0.40 / 0.625 or 0.64, This compares with the IPCC positive feedback multiplier of about 2.6, an overall difference factor of 4.6.
Of course minor changes in the OLR measurements could change the 2 W difference a large amount. And we still do not know what caused the 2 W OLR or 0.4 C surface temperature changes.

April 19, 2014 2:40 pm

So what would be the party line of a skeptical organization? Clearly there must be a party line if there is to be such an organization.
I can think of at least two planks I could see in the party platform:
1. There must be a return to the fundamental precepts of the scientific method. Post Modern science, the precautionary principal, the bleat, “We have got to do something!” all that must be done away with in favor of experimental design that has falsification as the touchstone.
2. The Warmists must make clear to the world the consequences of their vision. What does it mean to ordinary people the if their “Carbon footprint” must return to that of 1990 or 1950 or 1900. Is the warmist world view anti humanist? Tell us then, no more Polar Bears as canaries in the coal mine nonsense.

April 19, 2014 2:40 pm

There have been some attempts to organise something previously. They havent got anywhere. Regrettably the anwer is no, as is clear from all the comments here. We can’t agree with each other about anything.

April 19, 2014 2:43 pm

Sean says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:38 am
Some interesting points you wrote…
I have read some 35 years ago a book about the influence of the sun on earth’s climate. One of the more intruiging parts, according to that book, was that in certain periods of the 11-year sun cycle (flanks or maxima, I can’t remember) there are more clusters of earthquakes than in other periods. I have asked it to the people of the KMI (the worldwide centre for sunspots at Ukkel, Brussels, Belgium) during a visit there, but they couldn’t answer that question. Maybe Dr. Svalgaard can delve in the correlation – if there is any…

Dan James
April 19, 2014 2:43 pm

My thinking is that it might be good to have some type of recognized go to source for the media to contact for counter points to what is put out by the scaremongers. Persons who come off as knowledgable, reasonable, self-possessed. Pointing out what is demonstrably false about what is being advanced as climate science as well as the things that are being studied in climate science as possible alternative answers could do much to increase public awareness about the actual uncertainty of what these activists are promoting.
Debate style tv appearances where two talking heads are attempting to shout over one another should always be avoided.
I understand the tendency for human organizations to go bad, but is that a good reason to not even make an attempt? The US Constitution has been mangled and twisted, but aren’t we glad those men took the time and expended the great effort required to put this document together?

April 19, 2014 2:44 pm

Reason I voted yes is the way the alarmists continually argue that climate change is “real” and (explicitly) their opponents are “d@n!ers” of warming. Governments appear too scared to engage, and so allow that to hang unchallenged.
I’d love to see our Greens asked obvious questions: so if it’s so settled that “skeptics” aren’t even allowed freedom of speech, what IS the sensitivity per doubling? Oh, so if it’s [6C] per doubling, you concede it’s logarithmic – why do you draw the hockey stick upside-down? Why do you use “per century” interchangably with “per doubling” when we’re unlikely to double this century? How do you explain the historical observation of [0.6] doublings but only 0.9C since 1950 given your preferred sensitivity? By what mechanism is Antarctic ice setting record extent anomalies? Why do you [graduate of Arts / Law / Politics – Marxism] know more than Lindzen? Why do your speeches reject the pause when the IPCC acknowledge it on [page] of the latest draft.
If China is abating so much, why the tripling of emissions last decade? How do you explain [this] chart of Australia’s cyclones falling sharply – including severe cyclones? How do you explain a record 8yrs without a Cat 3 in the US? Why do you talk about ocean acidification when it’s more basic than pure water and will be for [1000] years. While on that, if CO2 is making oceans less basic, doesn’t that mean it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere long and so doubling is almost physically impossible? Are you double counting carbon?
And so on. There is no one to argue the skeptical case, and the economic argument against misguided “solutions” like wind.
Of course, this organisation they would need funding. Leading to more smears.

j ferguson
April 19, 2014 2:45 pm

I’m with John Hultquist. What would make anyone think that an organization along the lines suggested would have any credibility with the media. In the US the media seems unable to imagine that there could be other equally credible views on many of these issues?
Because of this, such an organization would very quickly be labeled “crank” and have little if any impact.
I think we’re stuck fighting the craziness one person at a time and hope that the guys and gals who do the IPCC underlying reports continue to come to grips with the reality that’s not (so far) modeled.

April 19, 2014 2:46 pm

is there not a Skeptical society already? And haven’t they, in the form of their Magazine embraced climate change and placed climate skeptics in the same category as big foot believers?
That’s why I object to a formal organization. Way too easy for it to become controlled by a very few individuals who politic their way into being in charge.
There would be no guarantee that twenty years down the road they wouldn’t be drinking the kool-aid on the next great scare.

Roy Spencer
April 19, 2014 2:48 pm

I voted no. Herding cats immediately came to mind.

April 19, 2014 2:50 pm

Oh, I think you could group for people recovering from the brainwashing of
global warming. But I think someone is already doing something like this- but don’t know the link to the site.
I think being traumatized by the State propaganda can something some people could gain some relief by doing something like group therapy.

April 19, 2014 2:50 pm

Janice Moore says:
April 19, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Thanks Janice for the nice song… In a few minutes it will be Easter here…
Have a Happy Easter too!

April 19, 2014 2:53 pm

I decided not to vote. I see scepticism as an individual trait, and I always find it hard to support ‘statements’, however well they are written. Fundamentally, Nature is the key to this whole scare, and for the last couple of decades Nature has been indifferent to global warming caused by CO2. Yes, it is irritating that governments, the media and the academies have not seen the light, but little chinks are occurring, and if Nature remains indifferent sooner or later there will be a lifting of the curtain.
But no-one much will apologise for their errors and hectoring in the past. Some will move into a new scare.
I recognise Anthony’s interest in posing the question, but for many of the reasons already given above, I think that a a ‘sceptical’ organisation would not get anywhere, and not fast (!).

April 19, 2014 2:53 pm

I voted yes. Not for a ‘skeptic’ organisation, but for something like a citizens’ science one. The elite organisations such as, in the UK, the Royal Society have betrayed their own traditions, and have been ill-served by either very weak or very opportunistic leaderships. The fiasco over CO2 has revealed many political and intellectual weaknesses in western societies (for it is there that the hyperbole and sophistry has both started and thrived in this subject). Some kind of new organisation might help restore some integrity in the intersections between science and politics.

Aaron Luke
April 19, 2014 3:00 pm

I remember vividly seeing Hansen lie, and saying to myself, “that lying m****** is telling falsehood after falsehood. Our avionic global industries fly through the tropopause all the time, and our instruments are fine. They got us to the moon. Surely nobody believes this obviously faked drivel.”
I was in avionics instrumentation school at the time and knew for a fact he was misrepresenting the entire situation.
The original sin of Hansen was when he constructed atmospheric models
whose temperature is governed by The Ideal Gas Law,
choosing instead to invoke something called ”green house gas effect”
wherein he taught people to weight the atmosphere according to a few scant percent proportion
instead of what it is really weighted by, the over arching law that governs gas behavior.
People have been saying it for twenty five years. Hansen’s science is fake.
That is why every one of you who touches it is humiliatingly proven wrong no matter how long you try to shove the fake science down reality based science’s throat.
Ideal Gas Law.
Until you can face the fact it always precluded there being a green house gas effect you’re still a failed engineering student telling working atmospheric energy and chemistry scientists, you know better.
When you don’t.
The certified experts in managing atmospheric conditions with human life in our hands – Aeronautic and Avionic Engineering – have repeatedly told you, and all these different media people, that James Hansens’ warming models are fakes.
James Hansen’s fellow employees at N.A.S.A. knew they are fakes that don’t have the atmosphere obeying the constraints of the Ideal Gas Law.
Multiple N.A.S.A. employees resigned in disgust before they would continue to work with Hansen.
“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 week 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.”

David Ball
April 19, 2014 3:00 pm

Roy Spencer says:
April 19, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Now we know what Dr. Spencer thinks of all of us. Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, the diverse opinions are created because of the very real lack of data on many aspects of the climate. Some have the temerity to see (and admit) this.

April 19, 2014 3:02 pm

[snip – Doug Cotton]

April 19, 2014 3:02 pm

I think a strong association could do quite a bit of good. To make the association strong, it should have a strong constitution and significant dues. In addition, there should be a test for admission.
I think the association should be something like the Association of climate scientists. However, no one could gain membership with full privileges of publishing and voting without passing a test with seriously difficult questions such as the observed temperature data, how surface station data has been collected historically, climate sensitivity, effect of carbon dioxide on plant growth, historical climate cycles, etc., etc. This might even force some of the more dogmatic climate scientists to do some real research and confront their own beliefs

April 19, 2014 3:06 pm

No. If there were a ministry of truth that properly dispensed revealed truth as an oracle, it would be very inconvenient – for Gore & Co. We live in a world where one side screams “tastes grate”, and the other “less filling!”, and no one really wants to find the truth – at least not through reason or the traditional methods. Reasoning to a conclusion is as obsolete as retaining one’s virginity until marriage, or marriage itself. (I don’t mean to be shocking or insulting, merely coldly illustrative).
This thread will not solve the loose-knit nature of skepticism. The problem is exactly that people are only skeptical on a few issues, and utterly reject even seeking the truth on others. Is an unborn baby a person or just “a blob of tissue”? Is homosexuality either innate, immutable, or both? Ought those who wish to amputate a limb and those who wish to change their (anatomical) sex through surgery be allowed to do so?
The fundamental question is when and/or how far can we as a society or community allow or tolerate individuals to deviate from what we accept as truth – some certain, some more fuzzy.
I think if I asked “If it was properly, scientifically, proved tomorrow that human activity X would cause a serious, threatening environmental effect Y, would you endorse action to mitigate or prevent it?”, most would agree. Yet I think I can say equivalent if not worse has been proven for divorce, or the hook-up culture, or even HIV, they would make an exception. If there was an STD that had a morbidity and mortality rate worse than the black death, I doubt anyone would lift a finger to do anything public health wise. (some of the XDR “moldy oldies” like gonnorhea and syphlyss might prove to be exactly this). I’m again merely illustrating or observing, not hoping or condemning. On a lesser harm, the housing bubble was prophecized well in advance, and Madoff too and nothing was done.
A is A is acknowledged by Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand. It is not by the warmists. But also not acknowledged by many others. Warmism is merely a microcosm, a symptom. Chesterton said when you reject what is true, the problem is not that you believe nothing, but that you will believe anything.

April 19, 2014 3:09 pm

[Bye, Doug. ~mod.]

Janice Moore
April 19, 2014 3:10 pm

Thank you, Ferdinand! Thanks for saying something. So glad you liked that song.
My pleasure.
(so, though we disagree about atmospheric CO2 (ESP. v. a v. Dr. Salby, heh, heh), … we agree on the most important thing of all…. — cool!)

charles nelson
April 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Can we please have WUWT focus in a major and prolonged way on the ‘doctoring’ of climate data?
Steven Goddard regularly posts graphs of the same data from the same organisation, one from say…twenty years ago, the other from today. And it appears they have been tampered with.
Assuming that these are not clever and careful fakes could we please bring the calm authority of WUWT to bear on this issue? Nothing undermines the alarmists’ more than these examples of scientific distortion.
By the way, I voted NO up above. The reason is simple- I believe that genuine science will always rectify itself. Our naming and shaming of the worst culprits in the climate scam has already degraded them. Oh it might appear that the establishment has closed ranks to defend them, but as the old saying goes ‘shit sticks’…how many of Michael Mann’s students sit at the back of the lecture hall wondering just how big a fake he is? That sort of stuff eats away at you. Ultimately climate science will purge itself of the Warmists, we need only sit back and enjoy.
How about it Anthony, a formal page where pairs of graphs demonstrating manipulation or distortion of data by the same organisation have occurred… they’d absolutely hate that!

April 19, 2014 3:16 pm

I struggled a lot coming up with a response to the poll, but after considerable consideration I voted no. I just do not think another activist body could bring anything good to science, especially when it is that same sort of activism that has so terribly corrupted science. I was greatly relieved to see that Professor Svalgaard holds a similar view.

April 19, 2014 3:23 pm

I voted yes, because an organization could be a useful addition to our present efforts, not a replacement.
I suggest a name like Reality Check, and not be limited exclusively to Global warming. It should be a counter balance to alarmism of all kinds, particularly the politics of crises. What it doesn’t need to do is promote or advocate any particular idea.
It simply needs to reiterate that often the best course of action is to do nothing and show why the current crises is overblown. The medical profession used to believe foremost in ‘do no harm’, now the medical profession is being destroyed because they have forgotten their primary mission, same for education, most of the environmental efforts, etc. Politicization eventually destroys.

April 19, 2014 3:26 pm

Richard Petschauer says on April 19, 2014 at 2:40 pm:
“Of course minor changes in the OLR measurements could change the 2 W difference a large amount. And we still do not know what caused the 2 W OLR or 0.4 C surface temperature changes.”
= = = = = = = = =
Quite so Richard, we do not know and further more if the answers to the calculations:
”1980 Ts = 288.2 K Te = 252.64 K
2010 Ts = 288.6 K Te = 253.18 K
1980 greenhouse effect = 288.2-252.64=35.56°C
2010 greenhouse effect = 288.6-253.18=35.42°C “
are correct, then there is no enhancement of the GHE and therefore any increase or decrease (fluctuations) of T cannot be due to CO2, even to the GHeffect at all.

Steve in Seattle
April 19, 2014 3:31 pm

Warmists already have a large number of formal organizations where they belong; Universities, research institutes, government laboratories, etc., and they long ago learned to use their pulpits to amplify the gravity of their agenda.
The fact that the AGU, AMS, and the Royal Society issue “Position Statements” means we, the scientific opposition, have been left with no option but to fight fire with fire.
Skeptics need to find a way to get balanced media ( TV, radio, print ) coverage, but that’s easier said than done.

I voted YES.
I think the effort needs to be to promote the Oregon petition. It’s cover statement would work for a majority of those here. This new entity would simply be tasked with raising money and buying media time to put forward the intent of the Oregon petition. Buying media time is the ONLY way the warmist agenda can be countered. It’s a WAR now folks, and you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

April 19, 2014 3:32 pm

I voted unsure.
key issue is that the risk is that if you create an organisation like this it becomes self serving just like the IPCC and employs publicity people who want to pursue a “line”. It would be very difficult to guard against this and if it happened would further debase he debate and make it more political and less about the science.

Robert of Ottawa
April 19, 2014 3:34 pm

I say no because the diversity and continuum of skeptic views make it difficult for the warmistas to pin the tail on the donkey, as it were. This variety is the skeptic strength, it is generalized but not a formal movement, unlike the Warmistas. There can be no insistence on ideological correctness, unlike the Warmistas and its IPCC.
If it came to two opposing organizations, then the Warmistas would win as they have all the government money, while skeptics do not.
BTW Lewandowski was not able to make his claims stick. He is only listened to by the Warmista clericy and its captured faithful. Outside of that, he is derided.

Svend Ferdinandsen
April 19, 2014 3:37 pm

I said unsure, because the skeptic view is more or less an anti cause. The climate movement has all the cards. It is laid out very simple and on top of that, it is not sufficient that you believe yourself. In most religions you secure your own salvation by believing and acting.
The climate movement demands all other to act also for your salvation, in that way it is worse than the most fundamentalistic religion. That is why the true believers are so hatefull and fight any dissenter.

April 19, 2014 3:39 pm

There can never be a skeptical consensus. Once we start to cherry pick skeptical challenges to the “97%” certainty we will find splinter groups skeptical to our skeptical stance. The very nature of questioning consensus to push the boundaries of knowledge means we can never fully agree. By coming together in an organisation are we saying our version of the science is settled? However, contrary to that opinion is the clear need to challenge with authority and with a voice that can be respected and heard, the “consensus” stance of the IPCC and Mr Gore and, God bless him, Ed Davey

April 19, 2014 3:43 pm

At the heart of every societal debate on appropriate governance is the natural friction between individual liberty and legitimate collective interests. SO YES!!! We need an organization in the climate debate that centers on the scientific argument and which prizes the values of individual liberty. Illegitimate science that supports an ideology prizing collective power and fancies hyperbole MUST be opposed with cool, calm and deliberate scientific argument.

Robert of Ottawa
April 19, 2014 3:47 pm

Roy Spencer said:
I voted no. Herding cats immediately came to mind.
This is not an insult, but an astute assessment of the variety and range of skepticism. Remember that the gamut runs from lukewarmers to …? The only thing in common is an acceptance that climate change is mostly, if not all, natural. It is only the warmistas who have a fixed, unwritten, article of faith of a static climate.

April 19, 2014 3:48 pm

I voted NO.
I would ask other readers to compare the apparent vote tally to the far higher “no” or “unsure” responses in comments.
My reasons for “no” are that the grassroots sceptic movement has already been highly successful in bringing the global warming fellow travellers to their knees. Part of this success is that the scammers tell themselves that they are a fighting “a well funded denialist machine”. If they don’t know who they’re fighting, the can’t win.
A second reason for “no” is that such an organization will adopt a “party line”. Currently most sceptics believe as AGW propagandists do that our atmosphere warms the oceans. When you have the physics wrong you can’t win. The lukewarmer position is a political position but this should be won on the science.
My third reason for “no” is the future. The fellow travellers plan to slink away and try again with a new manufactured crisis if this one falls. Give them an organization to plead and bargin with and they will get the “soft landing” they so crave. They will remain a threat to science, reason, freedom and democracy. If sceptics remain legion, the threat to the fellow travellers is not diminished.

Robert of Ottawa
April 19, 2014 3:50 pm

Dan James,
My thinking is that it might be good to have some type of recognized go to source for the media to contact for counter points
That will never happen; the media are constantly criticized for presenting any counter whatsoever by the enviro-fascists. It is even BBC policy.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
April 19, 2014 3:57 pm

It is CURRENT BBC policy that is true….but even the beeb can be swayed by logical arguments on occasion. Doing nothing is imho not a solid argument, the cracks are appearing in the consensus view so now is the time to strike with real media friendly facts and arguments.
I agree it is somewhat like “herding cats” and that there are 100s of disparate views on this topic but *I* think a few intelligible voices would do wonders, even if shouting in the wilderness for a while…it’s worked before

April 19, 2014 3:51 pm

We do realize, don’t we, that having an additional voice out there does not preclude anyone from still expressing their personal opinion?

April 19, 2014 3:54 pm

I vote no, since I am a sceptic about many things, including CAGW, precisely because I refuse to be told what to believe (or to say that I believe what I am told to say). I would not join a “sceptical organisation” because I could not promise to toe the party line unless that line was so woolly as to be worthless.
I would support, and might even subscribe to, an organisation which brought pressure on journals, academia, and other producers of “science” to always make data and algorithms available, particularly where the outcome of such “science” informs public policy. But I would not support and would not join any organisation which had a “position” on specific aspects of science. Science is not politics, and we should not join the Alarmists’ game of making it so.
But why does anyone think such an organisation is needed? The sceptics have already won the argument, aided and abetted by our greatest ally, Nature. The Alarmists are in retreat, fighting (and losing) a rearguard action. Little more needs to be done now but wait.

David Smith
April 19, 2014 3:58 pm

jorgekafkazar says:
April 19, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Mike says: “NO… consolidating your forces is never a winning strategy. It simply allows the enemy to focus their fire. Having a diverse and dispersed opposition to this Redistribution Scheme is the best way to fight.”
Quite wrong. Obviously you’ve never taken any military strategy courses, Mike. The Battle of the Little Big Horn was lost precisely because Custer split his forces. Classic mistake that all the books warn about.

Actually, I think you’re wrong jorgekafkazar.
Guerrilla warfare is not about splitting your forces in one particular battle. It is instead about a war of attrition and subterfuge that is fought everywhere a conventional soldier cares to look. Crucially, it is also fought where a conventional soldier fails to look. It can be highly successful – look at Vietnam and Afghanistan.
I voted yes, but like all true skeptics I read what everyone here had to say and their arguments changed my mind. I realised that we are an effective guerrilla force that will not go away, no matter how hard the conventional forces of the establishment try to beat us back. We are a nebulous bunch who often have differing points of view that differ scientifically, politically and theologically but we are all people who don’t want our lives ruled by an oppressive and economically crippling authority.
Conventional soldiers fighting a guerrilla force often complain that when they enter a village they can’t tell the enemy apart from the civilians and that is what makes it so hard. I post under a pseudonym because I’m a school maths and science teacher who cannot afford to risk his job by letting his views be known. Instead, when the kids ask me about CAGW I present them with the facts and ask them to make their own minds up – it doesn’t take much to establish their scepticism. Does that make me a guerrilla hiding amongst the villagers? I suppose so.
Our many excellent skeptic sites (WUWT, Jo Nova, B Hill, Clim Audit, etc) are the places where our nebulous force can share ammunition to bring to the fight. We will win eventually, but it’s been a damned hard slog of a war.