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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
We do realize, don’t we, that having an additional voice out there does not preclude anyone from still expressing their personal opinion?
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.
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.
tz2026 gives a perfect example to illustrate why NO:
“The fundamental question is when and/or how far can we as a society or community allow or tolerate individuals”
waving of ‘we, we’ and ‘allowing individuals’ is the mark of the collectivist and tyrant.
‘be the problem’ is never a solution to any problem.
do not violate my rights. they are sacred. you have no right to violate my rights and there can be no such thing as a right to violate the rights of any individual.
some people have their heads so deep in the marxist religion they don’t even have a vestigial concept of rights.
nobody needs a skeptic cult- the answer to a cult that makes human sacrifice is not another cult.
for the problem of leeches – do not add more leeches.
– 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. 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 http://www.climate4you.com ) 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. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php )
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.-
That seems reasonable in in terms of Math.
But one also say it this way. The greenhouse effect is largely actually an attempt of accounting for the daily effect of the sun in terms of air temperature. So the 35.56°C or the 35.42°C is what sun it doing in a day.
Or what the 35.56°C or 35.42°C is being added to is what sun has warmed in the past.
But it’s failing to include the heat capacity of the heat.
Or if one had the impossible of earth having no heat capacity, then roughly each day it adds 35.56°C [and loses 35.56°C].
Or the number one arrives at, in which one adds the greenhouse effect to, is how warm the Earth is. But you should not confuse how warm the Earth is with what temperature some part of Earth is. Or one should not confuse how warm earth is with a measurement of surface air temperature.
Or if Earth was 5 C, and then you add the fact that sun is shining on Earth- the sun is causing this addition of this 35.56°C of air surface temperature.
Though of course the Earth isn’t as warm as 5 C, if Earth was 5 C, the sun would add less to the increase in temperature.
Or more warm the Earth is, the less temperature is added by Sun, and colder Earth is, the more temperature is added by the Sun.
There is only one reason ocean and land temperatures go up or down, either there is sufficient solar activity for temps to go up, or there is insufficient solar activity, and temps go down. Further, the sun caused extreme weather events such as Haiyan, Katrina, and others.
Until Anthony, Leif, and Willis all agree that the Sun is responsible for warming and cooling and extreme weather events, and are willing to carry that message with full enthusiasm and conviction, along with the rest of us, and do whatever it takes to get that across to the whole world, we “skeptics” will always be sending mixed messages by arguing amongst each other all the time instead of exclusively against the CAGW true believers.
It’s not enough to consistently disagree with the true believers’ view of weather and climate with “just the facts” – there has to be a rational, provable, easy to understand, ongoing play-by play explanation for what has already happened with the weather and climate, and what happens on a daily basis. That’s what needs to be accomplished to completely demolish the warmists’ agit-prop.
That solidity of position has not been achieved here, in spite of all the years of the daily back and forth on this and other blogs. You can’t beat the other team when you’re always fighting amongst each other, often disrepectfully. There are times when I wonder whose team some are playing for…
Supporting objective reality is not groupthink. The problem is in establishing and conveying the true nature of objective reality. I think there has been a fundamental misinterpretation of reality by many players, some here, and by ALL of the CAGW (and AGW) believers.
If Anthony and Willis come back from the Heartland conference in July and are firmly and unequivacably in the solar camp, and Leif is right there with them, then I’ll change my mind.
In the meantime, I agree with Vuk and others. I vote no.
I voted no.
Science is merely applied reasoning. Science is not the sole user. Science is not the source of applied reasoning.
Skepticism is using it (applied reasoning) very very critically on everything all the time. It cannot be represented.
I recommend to work on PR and on representing philosophically the fundamental basis of rational human rights instead.
John
Keep it simple say – Science Watch America, so press releases are readily recognised. The preamble could be, an organisation dedicated to the protection and promotion of ethical science and promotion /protection of the scientific method or simply truth not political science.
We can call this the Solar Society which will place the crown of climate back where it belongs, on our local star.
bealtine says:
April 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm
“It is CURRENT BBC policy that is true….but even the beeb can be swayed by logical arguments on occasion.”
The BBC is a 100% Fabian Socialist organisation and will only ever promote Fabian Socialism.
I just found a “documentary” by them where they “show” that American obesity is Nixon’s fault.
Strange. I thought it was Bush.
Granted on the Fabian thing but I’d go even further and consider the F in Fabian to actually mean Feminist Broadcasting Corporation 🙂 That’s a tad beyond the scope of this topic but *I* think that feminism and climate hysteria are intimate bedfellows and both use the same concepts to promote “social change”
The executive board of such an organisation will be judged on its ability to rebut poor/unethical science without allowing political undertones or partisan sectional differences to destroy the impact of important announcements. and stick to that line.
The People’s Front of Judea
The pressing problem I see is the fact of policy to regulate us into absolute control by various organs of state, that Orwellian future is now, right now agenda, and that agenda is being implemented as social engineering power tools of mass psychological operations. I think more thought should be given to this idea of an organization or pool of truth seekers and reporters, a platform to push back against the wave of policy advancing on us. Hard fact of accurate data across time will eventually out the faulty CAGW models and predictions, but , this is not what is at stake is it? I agree with many thoughts from the NO voters here, yet, I still feel that something very wrong is going on geo-politically that is now affecting me locally. Even the right to grow one’s own food is now to be regulated with permits. EPA may soon outlaw wood stoves to warm my cabin because carbon is a pollutant! Yeah, something has gotta give.
Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?
I voted “Not Sure” on this as I would like to know more about what exactly is being proposed before making up my mind. I can see that there could be a real need for a new organization to take over the critical, rational sceptical function that the existing scientific institutions should be performing in relation to the warmist establishment’s propositions but aren’t because the warmists have taken them over in a kind of “Invasion of the Body-snatchers” operation and turned them into warmist-advocacy organizations instead.
However, I think the function of such a “sceptical” organization should be restricted to providing the necessary rational scientific testing and criticism of the warmist establishment’s propositions and should not include advocating or promoting any alternative “sceptical” propositions of its own, albeit that those may be the unanimous beliefs of its members. In my view its sole objective should be to expose the flaws, the irrationalities and the uncertainties in the now-orthodox “climate science” that is providing the fundamental ideological support for the warmist belief-system that is in turn supporting the entire social-political movement. That means taking the warmists’ climate theories apart and showing the public how and where they are wrong and/or at variance with reality. It does not mean proposing alternative “sceptic” theories to explain global warming or any other perceived climate phenomena. It is a purely sceptical, critical function that would exist to provide society with the vital negative feedback on the “climate scientists’ ” propositions of which society is presently being deprived.
As Richard Courtney pointed out (in “Global Warming: How It All Began” at http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm ) the warmist movement’s rise to global power and pre-eminence was achieved by the removal of the negative feedback processes inherent in society that otherwise would have arrested it at an earlier stage, thereby leaving only the positive feedbacks free to promote it. It was, you might say, an example of a runaway greenhouse effect (at the ideological level) that the early promoters of the movement were so strident in warning us about in relation to the physical environment. If we want to get this overblown genie back in its bottle, I think it is negative feedback that we need to apply.
I voted no. I am cynical and skeptical about most organizations, as they eventually degenerate into politics. I follow Marx’s philosophy: Groucho said “I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member.”
While I voted “No” I AGREE with this firmly: we should boldly “promote the Oregon petition. (Steve in Seattle)
********************************************
AND NOW… SOME GREAT PROMOTION FOR TRUTH!
Truth-in-science people in the U.S. have often wondered about the puzzling lack of promotion (TV ads, etc…) of the truth about CO2… “Where are all OUR deep pockets? All the money has gone to promote ‘green’ this and that… . Surely all those shrewd capitalists can’t have fallen for the CO2 cult’s baloney?……”
They haven’t. They are simply doing what will make the most money for their shareholders. For the past 25 years or so, largely Democrat (they controlled Congress during Bush years) policies have made “green” investment and lip-service to “greeeennn” the way to make money. And, for just a little bit longer, in the SHORT-run, they can still make some money off of CO2 gassing.
They DO look at the LONG-run, however… .
And the handwriting is on-the-wall. For instance, Warren Buffett, seeing that his windmill stock price is going to tank within a year, made a hasty, stock-price boosting, purchase last fall of Siemens turbine technology. He has the cash to do that. Most windmill investors do not. They are selling. He will, too, but first, he had to bolster that price… .
Guys like Buffett are ANOMALIES. They like to gamble a little…, but, even a Buffett reaches a point where his risk-aversion says, “Sell.” Look at his TOTAL portfolio… it isn’t all in “green” junk.
It simply boils down to Enviroprofiteering — so far, the deep pockets out there have put their money on the Envirostalinists and Big Business has cynically used their CO2 policies to gain market share. Market share is market share, whether based on truth or l1es. It is sickening, but most business people regard business as a “game” and all is fair so long as all play by the same rules. So, if all are lying (here, about CO2), it’s okay to l1e.
SO, my POINT — IS…!
The truth IS OUT. CO2 UP — WARMING STOPPED is now common knowledge. It is becoming rapidly (exponentially!) more difficult to make a profit off of junk like windmills and solar (tax payers against this waste of their money are nearing “critical mass”),
The free market ship is turning…. (already is in Germany and elsewhere)…, a large ship takes time to turn, but it is turning. And NO amount of shrill screaming and jumping up and down on the deck by Algore, et. al. is going to stop the captain(s) of industry, now.
AGW IS DEAD.
Zombies sound kinda scary (some just sound dumb), but they are DEAD.
Hang in there folks!
Better days are close at hand!
******************************************************
And a song!
The captains of the ships of the world’s economies and of the world’s businesses, seeing an immovable object ahead, the Rock of the Truth About CO2, are, one after the other, bellowing the order: “HARRRD RIGHT!!!” (or left — had to choose one and I like right (smile), not a political direction, IT’S JUST ABOUT MONEY for them)
“Somethin’s Gotta Give” — McGuire Sisters
Truth Is IRRESISTIBLE …. #(:))
(those who do resist truth end up miserable — every time)
One thing is for sure — anyone who maintains their current course heading is going HARD aground. Only fools will fight on for AGW (and windmills)… . Let them. Every circus needs a few clowns.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaa!
TRUTH HAS WON!
I am mostly in agreement with those who voted “no”, although I do agree that it is appropriate to ask the question.
However, I do believe that, however and whenever possible, we support those who “issue press releases, and provide educational guidance” in support of the general skeptical position which I believe is stated well in the Oregon Petition Project petition.
Repeated here, for those who don’t have it memorized:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth “
Bob Weber says:
April 19, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Until Anthony, Leif, and Willis all agree that the Sun is responsible for warming and cooling and extreme weather events,
I sincerely hope and pray that it would be so, as it would do wonders for my funding situation. Somebody, please, tell Congress that. Personally, I cannot in good conscience do so, but will, of course, accept the funding anyway…
Leif is on the right tract. I also voted no. The science will self-correct, embarrasingly so, and science will have crow to eat for a while. I know it sucks, but anything else will be viewed as being outside the realm of science and thus may serve only to mask the embarrassment due alarmist scientists who went rat-crazy over this stuff. It reminds me of the sage advice of older folks when dealing with a toddler tantrum in the grocery store. Let the child scream. Just walk away. Why? The more they stand alone in their mess without other voices distracting the eyes of the audience, the easier it is to focus just on that out of control toddler. Soon enough it’s own behavior will be its punishment, and the child will sculk away redfaced in search of mommy.
Can we please have WUWT focus in a major and prolonged way on the ‘doctoring’ of climate data?
We will be looking carefully at that subject in the upcoming paper on surface stations. We’ll be using the USHCN stations (unaffected by TOBS bias or station moves, while accounting for MMTS conversion). What I have found after breaking down both raw and adjusted trend data speaks directly to adjustment (homogenization in particular) and its spurious effects on trend. We believe this was not intentional manipulation, but, rather, an egregious (yet understandable) error on the part of NOAA/NCDC.