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.
The GWPF in the UK is – as it name implies – concerned with policy and especially the economic effects of climate alarmism. Perhaps there is a place for an organisation to restore integrity and honour to science – because they sure as hell have gone missing now.
David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:17 am
And you’ve never made an error? Get over yourself.
I make errors every day, but am very careful and precise with insults.
I voted no. Organizations require controls; I doubt there would be a satisfactory happy meeting of all stakeholders. I would rather see unconstrained input from all. We don’t need controls, we need continued free thought from all who care to contribute. I think the NIPCC is sufficient, as was stated above. WUWT and the other blogs are here, for all who desire knowledge, to find if they care to look.
“I make errors every day, but am very careful and precise with insults.”
Well, this clarifies what is important to you.
Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization?
—
Would it be an organization that claims to represent the “consensus”? Then no. In science, it only takes one scientist with accurate data to overturn the consensus. That’s the way it should be. While I like forums, such as WUWT, where skeptics and non-skeptics alike are allowed to debate, I’m skeptical about having one “official” organization that claims to speak for all skeptics. It gives the opposition one target to attack. What happens when a spokesman makes a mistake and ends up looking like a fool? It makes it easier for warmists to brand all skeptics as fools. With just one organization to target, the media will use the Alinsky method to level all kinds of accusations against it, and it won’t matter if the accusations are true or not as long as they are widely repeated.
But another potential problem is who controls the message. Skeptics don’t agree on all issues, so will all sides be allowed to participate? Or will the message be tightly controlled to prevent the “kooks” from making the organization look foolish? Either way is problematic. An open organization invites more attacks. A closed one ends up banning everyone except a close-knit few who think alike. It’s very difficult to walk a tight-rope between those two extremes. I have no problem with the idea of skeptic organizations making their voices heard. I just don’t like the idea of an “official” organization that claims a monopoly on climate skepticism. It seems like an oxymoron to me. That’s why I voted no.
/ jest
Look at us. Latitude vrs Svalgaard. Multitudes vrs. Mosher. All we need now is for Richard Courtney to comment and yet another battle will erupt. We’re like a Monty Python skit, the only thing that unites us is the appearance of the Peoples Front of Judea.
I mean P.S.I.
:>
Herding cats doesn’t quite capture the difficulties inherent in the idea of organizing us, I think.
It is all about money, power and control. For Al Gore, AGW is about his getting rich and having power and control in a way he could only have dreamed of if he had won in 2000.
By providing a unified message, we realists will have a better chance to overcome his disinformation campaign.
Mark Bofill says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:23 am
“the only thing that unites us is the appearance of the Peoples Front of Judea.
I mean P.S.I.”
And Mr. Bofill confirms my “no” vote.
I voted, “No.” Any such organization is subject to the same corruption as the global warmists.
David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:22 am
“very careful and precise…”
Well, this clarifies what is important to you.
Care and Precision in all matters, but you should apply that double when your comment is insulting. And apparently you think that ‘hogwash’ was appropriate [at a level that you would subscribe to]…
Beg pardon Dr. Ball. 🙂
No hesitation in voting NO, there is no unified view, there would be too much in-fighting, and it would provide an easy target for the alarmist attack dogs.
I voted no because it represents the kind of group think, conformity and collectivism I see coming from the alarmist policy-wonk side of the debate. The facts are what they are, and an organization runs the risk of being pigeon-holed. Official statements and positions are always subject to change, and the alarmist side has painted themselves into a corner. They have invested everything in their position and their rationalization is becoming more difficult to support. Now they must turn up the volume on the propaganda and keep repeating the lies louder and more often. We constantly hear from their side that it is a communication problem, but their problem is their contempt for the general public and their underestimation of the intelligence of individuals. Ultimately it is up to every individual to decide what is true and what isn’t, and no policy statement will or should make much of a difference. Organizations are fine and I fully support the freedom to associate with whomever one wishes, I just don’t usually buy what their selling because at heart I am and always will be an individualist.
When I first heard that the Earth was going warm I shouted
yippee! Just think, when the Tundra thaws, all that fallow ground,
400 bushel per acre Triticale!!!!
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
lsvalgaard says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:27 am
Smear without substance in usually against site policy.
“Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.”
Correction: “…buy what they’re selling…” Thought I was a better proofreader than that.
Oh and I have voted by the way
Mark Bofill says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:27 am
“Beg pardon Dr. Ball. :)”
I am not a Dr.
I am a climatologist and meteorologist (for those who think there is a difference) and I have never trusted the models to give a fair description of what happens 30, 40, 50 years hence. Besides that i have a reasonable experience of climate and its variability, which makes me think we are just seeing natural variability.
Starting to feel like Bilbo Baggins here, allow me beg your pardon again. I confused you with Dr. Tim Ball.
Is it noble cause corruption that has caused the contemperaneous brainwashing of schoolchildren in Australia and Europe? or is it a well planned social engineering project?
The social stereotyping they’ve been forcing into curricula is not limited to environmentalism and the fact that all this agit prop has the same smell leads me to believe that noble cause corruption has a fairly minor role in the problem we have.
This in an open thread comment.
I’ve noticed that the number of major earthquakes on the Pacific Rim has been exceptional over the last 19 days. I did a quick query on how many major (7.0-7.9) earthquakes normally occur in a year and the answer is 18. But since the first of April, there have been 6 Mag 7+ and one Mag 8+ earthquakes on the Pacific Rim. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/index.php
Is this an unusually high cluster for earthquakes of this magnitude even if some of these large quakes are aftershocks?
7.5
75km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
2014-04-19 13:27:59 UTC30.9 km deep
6.6
59km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
2014-04-19 01:04:03 UTC24.4 km deep
7.2
36km NNW of Tecpan de Galeana, Mexico
2014-04-18 14:27:26 UTC24.0 km deep
6.9
Bouvet Island region
2014-04-15 03:57:02 UTC11.7 km deep
6.6
75km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
2014-04-13 13:25:03 UTC35.0 km deep
7.4
111km S of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
2014-04-13 12:36:18 UTC35.0 km deep
7.6
100km SSE of Kirakira, Solomon Islands
2014-04-12 20:14:39 UTC29.3 km deep
6.6
18km S of Nandaime, Nicaragua
2014-04-11 20:29:13 UTC135.0 km deep
6.5
78km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
2014-04-11 08:16:48 UTC39.4 km deep
7.1
57km SW of Panguna, Papua New Guinea
2014-04-11 07:07:21 UTC50.0 km deep
7.7
49km SW of Iquique, Chile
2014-04-03 02:43:14 UTC31.1 km deep
6.5
43km W of Iquique, Chile
2014-04-03 01:58:31 UTC22.8 km deep
6.9
89km WNW of Iquique, Chile
2014-04-01 23:57:57 UTC20.2 km deep
8.2
95km NW of Iquique, Chile
2014-04-01 23:46:46 UTC20.1 km deep
Dear Fellow Villagers,
“Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
This is the most ridiculous and impossible idea I have ever heard. Scepticism’s strength is in nebulous, self-contradictory argumentation. A moving target must continue to be the most effective form of evasion. A policy statement that goes any further than “it’s natural variation” will be a dead canard. Sceptics should do what they are best at – sniping with well aimed ad hom shots, muck raking and publicizing game-changing research.
Oh! And give Sir Christopher of Belchly plenty more rope.
Re:post. Missed a comma. Should be more careful as the meaning changes dramatically.
There’s an old story that one of Catherine the (to be) Great’s “army friends” had been discovered and was condemned to exile. Catherine intervened, and received the following letter from Peter:
“Pardon impossible, to be sent to Siberia.”
Catherine did a little photoshopping and produced the following:
“Pardon, impossible to be sent to Siberia.”