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.
No, it buys into and lends credence to the idea of consensus. Science is independent inquiry. You already pointed out there are no targets to attack. It’s a huge advantage. The main disadvantage is getting ideas air time. However, even with an official organization, there would not necessarily be any more air time than we already get. Was Galileo part of an official skeptic organization? Did he have a profound impact?
Oh! Way to go Eyal. I just saw that. Right on brother.
Maggie says:
…now I’m more stupid than I was when I first stumbled upon this worthless article.
Impossible.
Anyway, Hansen’s ‘science’ has been repeatedly debunked. All of his predictions have failed.
You can believe in someone who cannot get anything right. That’s your choice. But the rest of us prefer to listen to people who can make at least a few correct predictions.
@dbstealey – “Impossible.”
2014/04/20 at 8:08 am
Short and succinct.
I had to ponder the three choices in the poll for quite a bit. It was a difficult vote/decision for me. I voted UNSURE. A NO vote is where my heart and mind is and probably the way I should have chosen. I think I exercised a poor use of the precautionary principle on this one.
While it may be a good concept to create a depository of research and articles with an index linking to the source, the idea of a “controlling authority” is IMHO a poor one.
There are an “army of ones” that have been and are now working independently at breaking the CAGW scam down. They have not and do not need a central authority. McIntyre, Watts, Lindzen, Montford, etc., etc., etc. do not need a unified statement. They make their own and the guests and commenters do the same.
I should have cast my vote as ABSOLUTELY NO.
No – Science needs to get as far away from politics as possible. Officially organized groups on this subject will have to become political. Just keep calling them out on the basic – bad science. The reason it works today is because the diversity of skeptics and insanity of the CAGW people to call anyone who disagrees even a fraction a skeptic. At the rate they are going, there will not be many left their core pool for the future. They are self destructing and can’t even see it. Let them keep going.
I voted unsure. However I have it on no information whatsoever that John Kerry voted no before he voted yes.
Another thought: whatever we do, if we organize, we MUST hammer relentlessly on what is the REAL object of global warming alarmism. It ultimately has NOTHING to do with climate – that ids only the manipulative pitch to the uninformed, to get them to go along with the alarmists’ program.
It also has NOTH*ING to do with the environment. Wind and large-scale solar power are highly destructive of the environment – killing birds, destroying ground habitats cver vast areas,, emitting a whole new array of especially nasty pollutants – and actually resulting in more carbon dioxide emissions and plain dirty pollution, because more fossil fuel must be burned than if there were no wind or solar – to fuel spinning reserve (generation that isn’t putting power4 into the grid) that MUST be running to prevent collapse of the grid when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes behind clouds, and which run dirtier than baseload generation. In short, so-called “renewable” power is far dirtier than fossil fuel power.
The alarmist agenda is simply, straightforwardly to deprive people of their liberty and the fruits of their labor. All “green” programs function as upward redistributions of wealth, from poorer to richer. Poor farmers in Uganda are driven off their land so billionaires can plant trees and earn carbon credits. Low- and middle-income consumers pay higher prices for gasoline so that billionaires can make money trading carbon credits. Low- and middle-income people who can’t afford solar panels on their homes pay higher taxes and higher electric rates so that more affluent people can have solar panels on their houses. Ditto for electric cars – lower- and middle-income people pay extra taxes so that rich people can buy (worthless) $100,000 electric cars that actually cost up to $300,000 to produce, the balance paid from tax monies.
These are the themes global warming skeptics should be emphasizing in our communications.
I voted yes but I agree with many that an organization might have negative consequences. On the one hand, it would be useful and beneficial to have an organization that can counter the IPCC and the organizations that advocate for the fear of global warming and climate change. One of the reasons such a giant fraud has succeeded is the propaganda of the organizations behind it. Such an organization would be able to publish objective data that has not been “adjusted” to look more alarmist.
However, it’s also true that an authoritative body could not possibly speak for the diversity of opinions that span skepticism, and would possibly marginalize some of those views in the same way that the IPCC marginalizes some scientific views today. Additionally, science does not move by consensus, and trying to form a body that represents a skeptic consensus might be counter-productive.
As I said before, I voted “unsure” and haven’t changed my mind.
But there is something on the plus to consider. Someone mentioned the NRA (not the Irish one). The NRA is a single issue group. Come election time they rate US politicians solely on their voting record concerning 2nd Amendment issues. Sometimes a “liberal” gets a higher rating than a “conservative” because of this. A single issue voting guide on CAGW would be helpful.
Hey, Johanna (smile),
Thank you, so much.
We may not agree about the significance of Easter or Passover, but,
we agree on a LOT — a lot that matters very much to the people
of the world. Life (with affordable energy, etc…) and death (from freezing)
importance.
And I hear you, girl — #(;)). I remember… .
Have a good week and enjoy your birds!
Janice
Any such organisation such as Anthony proposes would be ethical. The other side are not. They will win because they do not play by the rules.
They ARE winning because they do not play by the rules.
minus one “such”
Harold says:
April 20, 2014 at 7:50 am
“And it risks being taken over by the fringe elements such as Principia.”
You know what is funny Harold. This is exactly the phrasing used to marginalize the skeptic community by the alarmists when all this crap started. Please bear in mind that I have been watching this thing evolve at least 2 decades longer than anyone here. My father was first attacked in the early 80’s. They have been trying to marginalize him ever since, but none of the smears have stuck, mainly because they were untrue. And there was good science behind my father views.
I am troubled that even the moderators here use terms like “Slayers junk”. The earmarks of a dogmatic echo chamber are growing apparent, even at a wonderful place like WUWT?.
Now I fully admit some of the actions of the some of the slayers have been deplorable, but that is very different from them being wrong. Keep some objectivity, as that is what the alarmist side lacks.
One wonders what sort of ‘political vacuum’ you reside in, Mr. McIntyre. Perhaps some day you can expound on that, staring first with a cataloging of the ‘socialist’ communes and societies and where they are now (starting first perhaps with the account and journal kept by William Bradford circa 1620). In the mean time, thank you for your tireless statistical work on climate-related issues.
.
I just had a thought. This morning, I finished rereading a book by Ann Coulter
and it dawned on me that our side needs a spokesperson. I am a big fan of
Coulter’s style (Sharp wit and sharper tongue.) We need someone with a more
than passing knowledge of the science and someone with the wit and humor
to deliver the message with an appropriate degree of sarcasm.
If the people on the other side insist on demonizing their opponents, the least our
side can do is to issue some Churchillesque zingers as a part of our message.
Who would you get to be our spokesperson?
At the several meetings we’ve had both Tom Fuller and I have suggested one thing.
That Anthony would benefit from making clear what he believes.
The same would go for steve mcIntyre I suppose.
Until such time folks like lewandowsky will effectively group you with the many nut jobs that run rampant on the web.
Positions on the following would help
1. Is the rise in C02 since 1850 due to man? Stop entertaining and promoting the nonsense that say no to this question.
2. Does C02 cause warming or cooling. State this clearly in your “about” statements on your blog
3.what range of warming are we talking about? (1-6C per doubling) and are you sure of your position
The luke warmer way of doing this.
1, The C02 rise is due to man.
2. C02 causes warming not cooling.
3. Our best science indicates a warming of between 1C and 6C per doubling
4. If offered a bet that doubling will cause 3C of warming, we will take the Under bet
5. If offered a bet that doubling will cause 1C of warming, we will take the over bet.
Everything else? its open to debate and that debate should be good.
Its pretty simple. When I grew tired of being lumped with skeptics and nut jobs I just made in clear
what I beleived on 1-3. I did this repeatedly in comments I would make on blogs.
the lewandowsky of the world will pigeon hole you as they see fit. You dont need an organization to stop this. Just persistent repeated statements of what you do believe. what you doubt and what you have no clue about.
There exists a possible remedy within the system although I think it would be very difficult: The False Claims Act, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/3729.html, and the associated Whistleblower Protection Act. These laws provide a mechanism for private individuals or other entities to file suit for damages when the Federal or State governments have been defrauded by a variety of contractors. It was designed to assure that government funds are not paid to contractors or other performers who claim payment (quoting from the act at http://www.justice.gov/civil/docs_forms/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf
and A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; or
B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent [claim];
Google it yourself and you can find out about it. Any knowledgeable attorneys could also weight in. There are specified procedures for discovery, deposition and conduct of the case. The DOJ may choose to take over the prosecution of the case if the evidence warrants (unlikely in the current administration) but in any event the claimant can continue the case alone. It would require identifying a recipient of government funds associated with likely GW fraud in which the funds were large enough to warrant action (unless an argument could be made against a class of contractors). It is possible some set of the bankrupt government loanee firms could be identified. It does take a fair amount of effort to develop the information demonstrating the likelihood of fraud. It also usually takes a fair amount of legal representation, which in the past has been done by law firms working on a cut of the potentially large damages (trebled according to the act). There is also a restriction against the news media initiating such claims.
On positive outcome if the suit got far enough is the discovery process which in the past has involved provision of all supporting data by the defendant, sufficient to enable third parties to reproduce the supposedly fraudulent analyses (or not, as the case turned out.)
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 11:51 am
A rise of 6 degrees C from a doubling of CO2 (~280 ppm in AD 1850 to ~560 possibly sometime before 2150) is ludicrous. The only way that could happen would be for a net positive feedback effect of water vapor to exist (it’s not in evidence), be much stronger than physically possible & not cancelled out by negative feedbacks known to operate.
Mosh….you left out the most important part
Everything is based on a temp history that has been so fiddled with and jack around….no one knows anything anymore
Latitude says:
April 20, 2014 at 1:52 pm
There are also human activities with a climatic cooling effect, so the net sign of anthropogenic “climate change” cannot be known, but it’s liable to be negligible. So far, more CO2 has been beneficial.
My answer is “no.”
Official organizations already exist, and while they may be temporarily corrupted by hysteria and advocacy, time has a way of smoothing out these little wrinkles in science. Furthermore, nobody would pay any attention to such an organization except the choir that it preaches to.
No, because it would still be a means to talk past physics and physical chemistry to some emotionally held personal beliefs. Beliefs such as: an intensive measurement like temperature can be averaged in some objective way; that a photon absorbed by a gas molecule will do no work on the molecule which absorbs it and thus have no increase in entropy and be emitted at the same wavelength that it was absorbed; that the atmosphere is heated somehow by emission from carbon dioxide and water vapor and not by work done from absorbed heat energy and transfer of momentum with other molecules: the belief that incoming solar long wave radiation is not absorbed by CO2 and H2O; that air temperature without knowledge of the local heat capacity of the earth and the entropy change are irrelevant; that only sea surface and land air temperatures are significant and not the local soil temperatures and energy content; that the solar radiation can be averaged over the Earth’s surface; that black body theory is applicable to a low density fluid such as the atmosphere; that high entropy radiation can cause a decrease in entropy in a lower entropy situation; that an abstraction (climate) about weather can be reified to a causative concrete which causes weather changes over periods of time; and many other things which are held by those who disagree with the most verbal of the climate soothsayers.
@Orson Olson –
Yes, the spending on AGW propaganda is INSANE. Just think how many millions of people in poor countries could have been provided with clean water and electricity with the money and other resources wasted on chasing a bogeyman? Makes one sick to think about it – and it shows how heartless and callous and just plain evil the AGW crowd really is.
No, I can’t see an ‘organisation’ working out well in the long run. Herding Cats as many have pointed out.
As Latimer Alder said earlier… “Such individualists [sceptics for want of a better label] do not, in general, take easily to formal structures and institutions”. Which means, of course, that those who do love the cut and thrust of political structures will quickly rise in the new central committee.
Doing this because Loo papers are getting some exposure is an even bigger mistake. The guy and his life’s works are pretty much unknown outside his clique and those he has offended. May the silly little man long remain a legend in his own lunchtime.
A formal organisation gives the bed wetters a clear target. Personalities at which to aim their venom. How about we just keep them guessing?
On the one hand I can see that a single source would be advantageous in knocking down the extremists on a particular day but, in the long run, we have been very successful as we are. It is fine watching some extremist tell the world that we are few and shouldn’t get any air time.
If we are ‘the few’ and we have no impact then why do we get Loo Papers and constant debate as to who should be allowed to speak? Plainly, the extremists are losing the debate. They are losing because they are wrong not because we are better funded or better organised
I voted no since I agree with Mark W. and others that there is no official position of the skeptics or dissenters of which I am one. True scientists always are ready to question their own positions. The only thing that we all probably agree on is that the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is pseudoscience. Phil Fishman – author of A Really Inconvenient Truth – The Case Against the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Why? Just my 4 cents.