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.
charles nelson says:
April 19, 2014 at 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.
=====
EXACTLY
I’m sick and tired of discussing someone’s theory/paper/whatever, and not calling out the fact that it’s based on some temperature/history/CO2 crap that’s fake to begin with.
Hey, Pamela.
It reminds me of the sage advice of older folks when dealing with a toddler tantrum in the grocery store.
Times they are a-changin’. If I had — ever — had the unutterable face to throw a tantrum in a grocery store, I can assure you it would have been my last. (And my folks never hit me once in my life, so it ain’t on account o’ that!)
And I must add that once the CO2-ers sculk away redfaced, Bob Weber-ish scientists will be next. Who will be calmly standing by the wayside to clean up the mess? Why Bob Tisdale of course.
Dear Evan M. Jones,
I sure hope you see this. I wanted to thank you last night, but, well, as you know, that was impossible. Thank you, so much, for your support. MUCH appreciated.
Gratefully,
Janice
Robert of Ottawa, perfect. Absolutely perfect.
I’m sick and tired of discussing someone’s theory/paper/whatever, and not calling out the fact that it’s based on some temperature/history/CO2 crap that’s fake to begin with.
We don’t find it to be fake, per se. We do find it to be significantly exaggerated. But that has taken a tremendous amount of time and effort.
We are effective because there is no target to focus on. That is why the alarmists and collectivists conjure up targets such as “Big Oil” and the Koch brothers. They need a big Satan to attack and be seen to be in the moral right by doing so. The less we seem like an organisation the more we seem to be the many voices of the people which is what we are and need to stay.
Also we have seen how organisations become monolithic in nature and we need have the internally dissenting and divergent views as a fundamental part of who we are. It is the open debate that we need to show and that is not helped by having a formal organisation as that will invariably try to focus the conversation on what those running the organisation believe to be right.
No-one has a perfect understanding of the universe. That means everyone is wrong. Any structure, no matter how well intentioned will always gravitate to uniformity which ultimately means that everyone ends up being wrong in the same way.
Roy Spencer says:
April 19, 2014 at 2:48 pm
I voted no. Herding cats immediately came to mind.
=====
Of course…and great analogy
Global warming believers tend to be much more tolerant of other GWBs/liberals…as long as you believe. ….as long as you believe in the save the planet, GMO, animal rescue, green mess….you can be anything else and they still think they share a common cause One of the main reasons democrats get away with all the crap they get away with in government….
Unfortunately, skeptics are a much more diverse group…and a lot less tolerant. Which is how people get away with saying republicans are divided…they are! Skeptics could win this war hands down in a second….the “science” is all on their side..but they won’t because they are not united in a common cause and are intolerant of all the rest.
(read the comments on Willis’ last post for a visual aid)
We don’t find it to be fake, per se. We do find it to be significantly exaggerated. But that has taken a tremendous amount of time and effort.
=====
ROTFL…..thanks evan!
Steve Goddard is doing it on a daily basis……..I think you just said it’s not really turquoise …it’s more of a teal
and # 1 on the top 10 reasons for NO:
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!”
I sure hope you see this. I wanted to thank you last night, but, well, as you know, that was impossible. Thank you, so much, for your support. MUCH appreciated.
I see you. Yes, I knew it was impossible and I knew darn well what you must have been feeling. I needed to try to bring Willis back to equilibrium. That was the best I could do for the both of you. Willis has much wisdom to relate. And, if you analyze it, it is not in contradiction with your own beliefs, it’s just a different song. I want you two to reconcile with all my heart.
Part of that is mere emotionalism. Part of it is practicality. If we do not stick together there is no hope for any of us. To the extent we are divided (I am a lukewarmer), let it be over the science, alone.
And, yes, I thought you might be around these parts, so I have been keeping an eye out.
To clarify my own views, as far as Christianity (and other religions) go, I am more concerned about the message — not the fiddlin’ facts. I don’t have to believe in Aesop’s Fables to garner their wisdom. I don’t believe in the Fox and the Stork. I believe in the message of the Fox and the Stork. That’s my “journey”. I’ll accept wherever that leads.
So, happy, happy Easter. That’s a message of peace, reconciliation, and hope — whatever else it is or isn’t.
i voted “no”, and was surprised at the results, showing 62% saying “yes”.
the MSM & CAGW websites already ignore the many & varied views expressed by CAGW sceptics, reducing us all to being “climate deniers”. an organisation claiming to speak on behalf of some unspecified large group of CAGW sceptics wouldn’t help, & would only provide an easier target for further mindless attacks. an organisation might also alienate some sceptics & non-sceptics (occasionally) who have chosen to participate on WUWT, CA, Bishop Hill, JoanneNova, etc.
@TRG: You seem to be missing the point. Nearly all of the existing “accredited” science organizations have sold out to the warmists and thus discredited themselves — AAAS, the Royal Society, Nature, and even the committee that awards Nobel Prizes. (I’m expecting any day to hear that the King of Sweden has resigned rather than be made a monkey of by those people again.)
Of course, no organization can be trusted to stay honest forever, and so I would not want one made “official” by any government. But we need somebody to carry the torch of real science, and a skeptics umbrella group would be a good start. Especially if it can publish a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
The trick is to avoid infiltration by the liars without engaging in direct, arbitrary censorship as their scholarly journals now do, and without excluding potential allies. I would try to do this by being very strict about the methods of science, and of honest statistics, when evaluating any paper.
@jaypan: We already are a movement against the misuse of science (or more accurately, against the mischaracterization of fallacies such as argument from authority and assuming your conclusion as being science).
The trick is to get enough visibility so that the liars can no longer say there is only one science establishment and it equals them and their toadies.
Thank you, dear Mr. Jones, so much.
Why should an organization be started to address views on climate change contrary to the mainstream? Isn’t it all about first principles of physics? If the mainstream and any other contrary organization do not follow first principles, then, it is just hubbub amounting to no relevance to the real science. Just another way to validate a theory by inclusion of a false dichotomy.
I think the costs of a “climate skeptics organization” will out-weigh the benefits.
BTW, there already is a skeptic publication bought into CAGW http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/ so expect a turf-war.
Steve Goddard is doing it on a daily basis……..I think you just said it’s not really turquoise …it’s more of a teal
What I am saying is that there is no evidence the error is intentional. If most of the stations happened to be well sited (or if siting had no effect on trend), homogenization would be a mere boondoggle rather than a catastrophic fail. But homogenization is a boondoggle at best. I mean, why go to all the (considerable) bother of oversampling if you are just going to make pap out of the data?
Skipped all the comments. Voted yes for a simple obvious reason. Unorganized protesters are a rabble. Organized become the American Revolutionary Army.
There is a great difference between the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence, or better yet the Constitutional Convention that has stood the test of over 2 centuries time.
Regards
In Australia much of our serious media (ABC, SBS & Fairfax) takes the pronouncements of the IPCC and alarmist scientists as gospel. What is needed is another group of scientists and experts that the media can call on for an alternate view. I’m sure many the patrons of the above media have no idea that climate science is such a grey area.
When our governments consider or pass a new law, usually the media will interview someone from the Civil Liberties Council to provide an opposing but quite legitimate view as to problems the law may cause. Unfortunately with media releases relating to climate science there is no council or body that can provide contrary evidence or advice.
The problem here is that like any religious cult, the warmers will never admit
to anything that challenges their faith. Their central tenant is that the earth
is going to boil as a result of CO2 levels above 350 PPM. Anyone who
challenges them must be either evil or crazy.
Calling for deniers to be put in prison is entirely consistent with the history
of leftist political movements of the 20th Century. Both the Soviets and the
Nazis used sanitariums to house political dissenters. The Nazis found a
simpler solution to the problem using diesel exhaust.
Communism and socialism appeal to the simple minded who can be made
to envy the rich with simplistic appeals to class envy. Both Marx and Hitler
profited from this technique. This ideology is an anti-intellectual and
anti-science. While perverting psychology, the Soviets also supported the
great scientific hoaxter Trofim Lysenko, who set science in the Soviet Union
back decades.
The difference between us and them is that we think they are wrong, while
they think we are evil. Even if the majority of atmospheric scientists deny
AGW, to challenge their belief would be like walking into a Catholic church
and calling Mother Theresa a whore.
We are losing this debate because responsible scientists rarely jump into the
political arena, where this pseudo-religion resides. Being good Marxists, they
deny the existence of God, but have no problem embracing Gaia. They believe
in AGW because their belief is based on emotion and faith, not on science.
In 10 years time, someone in the government may find this post and haul
my ass off to a sanitarium, reeducation camp or worse.
I am a layman. It is time for the scientists to speak up.
Janice Moore says:
April 19, 2014 at 5:24 pm (Edit)
When you’re falling awake and you take stock of the new day,
and you hear your voice croak as you choke on what you need to say,
well, don’t you fret, don’t you fear,
I will give you good cheer.
Life’s a long song.
Life’s a long song.
Life’s a long song.
If you wait then your plate I will fill.
As the verses unfold and your soul suffers the long day,
and the twelve o’clock gloom spins the room,
you struggle on your way.
Well, don’t you sigh, don’t you cry,
lick the dust from your eye.
Life’s a long song.
Life’s a long song.
Life’s a long song.
We will meet in the sweet light of dawn.
As the Baker Street train spills your pain all over your new dress,
and the symphony sounds underground put you under duress,
well don’t you squeal as the heel grinds you under the wheel.
Life’s a long song.
Life’s a long song.
Life’s a long song.
But the tune ends too soon for us all.
The mainstream media are incredibly lazy. When they want people to speak on a particular issue they just look for an organisation and an official spokesperson. They are seldom willing to put in any more effort than that. Part of the reason why the reasonable voice of skepticism is not heard in the mainstream media is that when they look for a climate skeptic they can’t easily find one. An organisation for climate skeptics is a massive great big sign saying “climate skeptics here”.
Voted yes but not for the reason of an official organization. I see a scientific “clearing house” to praise or damn any and all papers presented on either side, and a fast moving team of “first responders” to get the word out to various outlets. AND, in words I can understand. I try very hard to keep up with the language here, but most times my last few hairs hurt. The one larrrrrrrrrrrrge problem I see is an organization being hijacked by a politician who can destroy it virtually overnight.
Another problem is media exposure. Good luck with that. Regardless of what one may think of talk radio, they do get the word out, and would seem to be the first avenue.
I would suggest, if an organization is begun, that there be one basic rule: No e-mails allowed; all communication through snail-mail. 😉
I think what really may be needed is a Scientific Ethics organization.