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.
Pamela Gray says:
April 19, 2014 at 4:43 pm
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.
___________________________________________________________________________
Pamela, how long do you think that the “Self Correct” will take as a reaction, as opposed to intervention?
Passive resistance is just that,,,,,,,,, passive…………
Yes, to a skeptics organization.
One means to get the message out would be to make a big box-office movie.
The audience learns about the big CON as well as the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that proves the CON.
(It’s a gripping story filled with lies, billions $, bum science, politics, pseudo-religion, moral prostitution, careers in jeopardy, first world gainers, third world losers, skeptic Davids and alarmist Goliaths, heroes/heroines and villains.)
The CON has gone on long enough now – the collection of facts cannot be ignored. The public is sick of being lied to.
.
.
lsvalgaard says:
April 19, 2014 at 4:37 pm
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…
I can help you get that funding! because we’re gonna need it.
nutso fasst says:
April 19, 2014 at 8:14 pm
Do you want to become your opposition? You do, you lose. Your opposition is composed of far more authoritative organizations than an “official” bunch of skeptics could be, however large the membership. Much better to show up in online commentary as an individual than a ‘member of’ or ‘spokesman for’ some organization.
There is nothing to stop individuals from writing convincing commentary. I write letters to my local paper in response to absurd claims and they print them, and I then banter with catastrophists in online comments. I research to bolster my claims, and as I do I become ever more convinced I’m on the right side of the argument and more effective in responding to criticism. I don’t want some organization doing my thinking for me.
Methinks those voting yes are craving an authority to appeal to.
__________________________________________________________________________
So,,,,,,,,,, what you are saying is we should yield to the same thing of which you condemn…….
No!
Re: “Organized become the American Revolutionary Army. … .” (Rud Istvan 5:35pm)
Your premise is sound, Mr. Istvan, however, it is not relevant in this context.
THE WAR IS OVER — just mopping up, now, and keeping the enemy on the far frontiers.
That’s why they scream so loudly these days — getting heard from that far away is tough.
To organize implies a need to.
AGW IS DEAD. It was D.O.A., but now everyone not in the Cult of Climastrology knows: the gig is up.
(the true believer cult members are not significant influencers; they are just brainwashed followers).
REALITY finally overwhelmed the climate l1ars.
Rejoice!
I am afraid I voted “unsure” as both sides have merits. But when I voted the majority of votes was in favour of such an organization. I’ve only read a few of the comments as I am both late to this party and it is a late hour after a full day of work.
If such an organization were to be formed, there would have to be several individuals paid to provide responses to IPCC reports, media queries, and educational matter. Is there enough consistent financial support from skeptics for this to work? I would suggest that fairly pricy memberships would be required to enable this, as the organization would have to categorically reject any funding from oil companies or right-wing organizations.
The stance would have to be purely scientific, but since policy is the objective, it would also have to focus on exposing the underlying political and policy aims of the alarmist cause, consistently building arguments and scientific evidence to show that the ‘solutions’ posed by alarmists are either irrelevant or unnecessary. Of course, the alarmist science would require tireless debunking. The plus side of such an organization would be that WUWT ‘crowd sourcing’ could provide instant critical responses to weak or lopsided alarmist claims in myriad publications. If experienced professional scientists were to screen and summarize the better WUWT responses, a summary position showing the scientific weaknesses of many of the very sketchy publications could be published.
As for a name, I would suggest something similar to the names of organizations formed to rescue Jewish scientists from Nazi Germany: viz. “Society for the Protection of Science”. For many of us, the climate policy shenanigans of recent science and the damage activist scientists are doing to science is a major source of grief, and a name like this would reflect these concerns.
The temperature profile of the atmosphere is utterly unrelated to the amount of CO2 in it as dictated by the Ideal Gas Law PV-nRT.
The gas constant R represents any particular gas mix whatever it’s chemical composition and this is the reason every one of you who believe in the CO2 fantasy can’t predict what the temperature is going to be for the past 17 years.
You’re what’s called a new guy.
The working scientists, the people who were around laughing when Hansen lied on tv
are what’s called,
the ones who wore out the last bunch of hog callers
who told us all why “they believe.”
evanmjones says:
April 19, 2014 at 4:55 pm
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.
Oss Qss — I want to compliment you on how well you have articulated your “Yes” position far above (and just now). I’m wondering, however, if maybe (just maybe) you are misunderstanding us “No” people.
To put your mind at ease (I hope), none of us wants to quit fighting for truth. We just don’t want to be part of a formal organization to do that. We will remain FOREVER VIGILANT and continue the (as someone ably pointed out above) war of attrition and the mopping up operations… . We will maintain a ready, strong, defense of truth.
So, we AGREE! #(:)) NEVER YIELD to l1es!
I hope that might have reassured you a bit.
Your WUWT ally for truth (no matter how you voted!),
Janice
P.S. Thank you, again, for all the nifty videos you so often share with us. I know your business keeps you very busy, but, do try to share more often — they are cool!
I suggest rather than a central organization, we form a peer reviewed academic journal with an editorial board from the NIPCC. This journal would be a place for academics and others to publish papers on climate science without requiring fealty to Phil Jones. The journal would have a website where all the data and code was published for individuals to use in replication.
I voted No.
In the immortal words of Groucho Marx ‘I don’t want to belong to a club that will accept people like me as a member.’
No. You will only create a Name the media will discredit with bogus lies for the LIVs to mock. You are better off waging a “guerilla warfare” type campaign instead of gathering up all the rebels under one banner to be nuked.
I’m an amatuer re the science, especially when it gets deep in the weeds like Climate Audit does (though having hard scientific data to link to is vital). But for the politics, I’m somewhat of an expert. And one thing I have noticed in dealing with public support for Climate Alarmism is the need for these LIVs to feel enlightened and sophisticated. I can post reams of studies debunking Climatology, but what resonates with them is this: “In 5 years you’ll be pretending you never believed in this crap”. Those in the public that support Climate Alarmism wants to be viewed as intelligent chaps, not fools. Attack them there.
I voted no.
An official position is not necessary and I appreciate hearing and thinking about the multitude of thoughts on climate here and elsewhere. Especially the ones I disagree with.
Eugene WR Gallun mówi:
Such an organization would need to be seen (by both the general public and climate realists) as having been formed as a reaction to climate hysteria and not as a group formed to push a particular climate agenda. A name like the following with an attached mission statement:might set the tone.
CLIMATE REALITY — The past and the present compared and shoddy science exposed.
100% yes.
I’m with george e. conant – I think an organized campaign against climate alarmism is needed. I’m not concerned about differences in detail among skeptics’ positions. I have very definite ideas about what is wrong with climate alarmism, and I personally believe, based on the evidence I’ve seen, that there is no identifiable effect whatever of CO2 or man’s activities on global climate, but rather than try to adopt an official position as a group, I think that we should attack the specific false or unscientific aspects of alarmism. This can be as simple, for example, as responding to claims that “the years 2001-2010 were the warmest in history” with the factual data we have that proves otherwise, or a synopsis of Steve McIntyre’s demolition of Mann’s hockey stick model..
As one who engages in blog wars, I feel we need truthful versions of:
SouceWatch
SkepticalScience
RealClimate.
In other words, Quick reference guides to the truth. Simple statements, with good backup, such as CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, Climate data is adjusted from cooling to warming, the Earth quit warming, earlier warm periods were warmer, who is raking in the money.
There needs to be rapid response to new warmist papers.
I feel all this can be done without politics – stick to climate facts.
Look at skeptical science for format, then do it truthfully.
thanks
I think the cacophony of individual voices carries more weight than an easily mischaracterized organization of skeptics. The warmists will attack and paint all of us with the beliefs – or past words – of our most outspoken affiliate.
Dear Mr Watts:
If you care about the science, I would say it would not be a good idea to form a pro-anti-CAGW organization. I was going to elaborate why, but I see that rah has already listed the most cogent reasons including his first point that should be definitive (I’m not sure on his third point):
rah says:
April 19, 2014 at 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.
Steve McIntire also makes a pithy point on which I totally agree.
I voted no, because I agree with Oilwatcher (April 19, 2014 at 11:01 am) and climatereason (April 19, 2014 at 2:23 pm) about a journal that would allow more and better science to be produced.
I do not find it very necessary to formalize a body around climate skepticism as such, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider the formation of professional organizations, say for example, a National Meteorological Society, or a National Geophysical Union, to provide a voice of equal standing to those in the field, who differ with the so called consensus view.
It connects us one thing: there is no evidence that one molecule more CO2 will melt all of the ice in the drink.
Another no vote here, for the reasons well articulated by others above.
There is absolutely no shortage of data around the blogs that addresses pretty much any issue that people want to research. Not only all the stuff on the sidebar here (thanks, Ant-hony and elves) but at places like MasterResource for energy stuff, Bishop Hill and Donna’s place for IPCC and other policy stuff, Climate Audit for proxies and other things, and so on. It is not the the material is inaccessible, it is that lazy or prejudiced MSM journalists don’t want to read it.
Oh, and Happy Easter, Janice Moore. I am not a Christian, but have no trouble at all with saying that. I’m not Jewish, but just wished another friend all the best for Passover. And I manage to do this politely despite being as “passionate” and “complex” as the next person. 😉
No. Absolutely no. I mean, if you are into knowledge, and not into activism. You need competing ideas and tests to advance the knowledge. You need heresy. You need to look at every corner of the table. And this is the opposite of “position statements”.
But the GWPF is doing a great job. Probably because they don’t seem to be in the consensus business. “The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming”.
The world’s human rights, democracy and rule of law champion (UN) cocoons in my opinion the worst threats to all of them (cAGW).
Perhaps the World Tax-payers Associations will be pondering the same paradox in Vancouver at the end of May. Although I answered ‘yes’, perhaps we should let them take this on.
Ferdinand
For what its worth I do a lot of primary research on the historic climate record back to 1000AD.
It is quite noticeable how earthquakes appear in the record in bunches, in as much they are mentioned for a number of years, then there is no mention at all of them for many more. Similarly with the Aurora Borealis as see from Britain.
I cant comment on whether any of this coincides with sunspot activity, but I did make this observation a year or two back but no one seemed interested enough to comment.
There have been a couple of earthquakes in Britain this past week
tonyb
Absolutely no.
That scepticism is unorganized is it’s very strength. There is no ‘body’ to criticise, and attempts to do so looks ridiculous to everybody still able to see the daylight.