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.
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…
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.
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..
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.
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.
Anthony
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.
tonyb
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?
The Confeferation of Skeptical Scientists? Maybe someone with a Masters in Public Policy could be the Executive Director.
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
-villified
-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 .
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…
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.”
I’d rather have a movement against the misuse of science.
Climate, psychology, …
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.
lsvalgaard says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:58 am
===
oh for God’s sake…no one is that dense
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…
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
tonyb
Stop smearing Dr. Svalgaard. It is childish in the extreme.
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? 🙂
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.”
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…
And you’ve never made an error? Get over yourself.