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.
If we cannot be accurate, we can at least be precise. In any case, I voted NO.
Village Idiot says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:40 am
I doubt you would be able to differentiate a 0.76C change in the temperature of your bathwater.
What was that you were saying again?
A policy statement that goes any further than “it’s natural variation” will be a dead canard.
I don’t think he knows us very well.
the only thing that unites us is the appearance of the Peoples Front of Judea.
Splitter!
It’s long past time to have rigorous science done on the Earth’s weather, past present and, if enough understanding is achieved, perhaps future. This means discovering the factors that make up weather, measuring them, determining patterns and their causes and recording METICULOUSLY the variables over the entire globe.
These record sites must be sited carefully and documented. Perhaps this would be something that could be done by volunteers as the amount of time and money would otherwise be prohibitive.
Studies must be instituted to determine exactly what causes various weather. We know quite a bit but there are still variables that elude us.
Computer models must be formulated that are repeatedly compared to actual weather to provide feedback on the weighting of events and measurements.
And primarily this must be done in a transparent and publicly monitored fashion so that any disputes of data or result can be resolved and that resolution seen by all as correct.
Any governing body must be free from political and economic influences and seen to be so.
Until at least some of these steps are taken, we’re all just spitting into the wind.
For me, it is a quest for truth, and my opinion(s) will or may change as I discover more information. I voted unsure, though, my hunch is that science should not be political and or based on a predetermined outcome.
NO… consolidating your forces is never a winning strategy. It simply allows the enemy to focus their fire. Having a diverse and dispersed opposition to this Redistribution Scheme is the best way to fight.
I voted no. I think the present situation, where a whole range of persons with different educational backgrounds, including different levels of “science” background, is a good situation. A formal organization with eventually an official position, in some sense creates another religion.
The formal gatherings, such as Heartland promotes / sponsors / organizes / whatever, are a sufficient melding situation.
Just as the warmistas have a hard core nucleus of agenda (maybe sinister) driven zealots, the “skeptic community” also has some who take unsupportable positions. For example it is just plain silly to argue that the physics of CO2 and other GHGs, including H2O, is a fiction, or that 400 ppm of anything couldn’t possibly have an effect.
We are all hashing these things out in a silicon universe, where an abundance (concentration) of 400 ppm of impurity (dopant) would be a “huge” amount, and our circuits function because of much lower impurity levels. Raw semiconductor materials have purity levels of six nines or seven nines (maybe more); as in 99.99999% pure materials, so that controlled doping to a part in 10,000 or so is not corrupted by junk in the “cake mix”.
So there are plenty of self described skeptics, who need to broaden their knowledge level, so they don’t take fatally flawed positions that tarnish their credibility.
WUWT, is a central meeting place in that educational process.
Ultimately the MSM must take responsibility, for the fact that they are failing in THEIR duty to address THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO KNOW.
I voted No. “We” have been remarkably successful for various reasons waging our guerilla war. I say “we” meaning the skeptical bloggers managing to cover a lot of territory by just following areas that need attention. In many ways we’ve done better than the existing organizations and parts of them, e.g. Heartland, Cato, CFACT, etc.
I think one reason the warmists blather on about being funded by Big Oil reflects in part on our success – how can we, as a bunch of volunteers, be responsible for the low ranking that AGW has on national polls. The answer has a lot to do with the warmist oversell of the dangers, the great recession, and the 17 year pause – it’s hard to keep the hype alive when reality doesn’t play along.
If we were better organized, then we’d have to actively work to resolve conflicts between ourselves instead of just rolling our eyes when Vukcevic and Svallgard go at each other again. So while our lack of structure leads to some inefficiencies, if we had more structure, that would lead to a different set of inefficiencies.
I’m happy in the niche we’ve made.
A complete waste of time. It would be completely demonized by the left 10 minutes after it became public. If there are doubts, go back and read this thread. Its purpose, presumably,would be to collect and disseminate factual scientific information on the state of climate and its research to audience which has no use for, or interest in any of it.
george e. smith says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:54 am
“For example it is just plain silly to argue that the physics of CO2 and other GHGs, including H2O, is a fiction, or that 400 ppm of anything couldn’t possibly have an effect.”
With all due respect, George, this is a misrepresentation of the position.
Thanks, Anthony, it is a question worth asking. I’m affiliated with a major US research university, and the party-line rules supreme. Therefore, I have to bite my tongue until it bleeds.
We do have some leading authorities who lead the charge, most notably Dr. Lindzen. However, we shouldn’t have to organize as a skeptics-organization if scientists were behaving in an ethical and honest manner.
By cooking the books, “hiding the decline” etc., the Hockey Team shows that they are not scientists, but policy advocates. However, you can’t fool all the people, all the time.
More important than having a formal “skeptics society” would be honest reporting of our concerns by the major media outlets. Many billions of dollars of public spending ride upon the policy pronouncements of a “chosen few,” and their voices are powerful. Science should always allow dissent, otherwise it becomes, as you point out, a Soviet exercise in policy-dictates-science. The blogosphere seems to be the most powerful tool we have to counter this trend.
Cheers, Charles the DrPH p.s. I still miss REP!
I voted No, as it I don’t think we need another institution with a policy. In Norway, we have a loose organization called “Climate Realists”, as we do not like calling us sceptical to global warming and global change. We cannot be sceptical to climate change as it is happening all the time, and is part of Nature.
It is funny to think about the sceptic inside the Holy Bible – his name was Thomas, and one of the disciples. Even though his comrades bullied him for his scepticism to Jesus’ resurection, Jesus himself told him that he still loved him, even though he was sceptical…
I think that the work done by Anthony and his guest writers, here at WUWT are doing a fantastic job internationally. Keep it as informal as it is, we will be there and guide you. Time itself, and Nature in its working will prove us right,
I voted ‘yes’ but I am concerned that decisions on overall policy would be open to much disagreement and that consensus (sorry – couldn’t think of an alternative) might be impossible.
What I think is more needed is a repository site for all the ACTUAL data and conclusions written for the man in the street, easily understandable (as far as possible, difficult I know) and accessible
to everyone,including (OK – I’m an optimist) the MSM.
I voted not sure.
All of these “bodies” are based on some supposed appointed authority. Without such authority and what is perceived to be a credible authority then such a body has little bite and little impact. Remember, even if you create a board of members with first rate credentials it is STILL “the perception” of authority (legitimate or not) that holds the day. I don’t see it being possible that such an official organization can gain or achieve such credibility.
I am seeing signs that “some” governments “might” be backing down on this CAGW issue. But only to save the GREATER cause.
When you look at “how far” the rabbit hole is on this CAGW issue, it truly boggles the mind.
The most useful result of those whole climate scam?
5 years ago I could have NEVER EVER explained to anyone that a bunch of governments and international elites actually banded together to scheme against their people.
This issue here is that a “revolution” against people actually exists. This issue is FAR GREATER of a fallout then that of climate gate and the spiraling downward support of this CAGW scam.
In other words, this whole issue has opened the eyes of HUGE numbers of people to learn + understand of a socialist revolution that is being systematic run and promoted to inflict not only economic damage but that of simply eroding our rights and freedoms.
At the end of the day, the CAGW issue was NEVER about the science, and never about saving the planet. It was always about the “cause” as so many climate-gate emails refer to.
As a result an organization that becomes a counter revolution to the CAGW mess would in fact find itself fighting a MUCH larger cause and one that is essentially an ideological fight.
So many innocent people were fooled that this CAGW scam was about basic science. We now realize that this fight is not about science but that of exposing the socialist’s trogen horse that is hiding “under” the green banner.
So we cannot make the same mistake and think that some official organization here would only be about the science. As we all know the prompters of this CAGW scam are NOT about the science and MOST of this moment is based on pushing their ideological views and that of the socialists dream to redistribute wealth on a world scale.
I think it world be a mistake to think that any “official” organization would and could be limited to just science since we see the other side is LITTLE about the science and rarely limits themselves to just science.
This is about “their” cause and their revolution.
So this is like the great revolutions of Europe that pushed socialism and communism on their people.
At the end of the day the REAL fight is about this socialist revolution.
Therefore little if any possibility of some such organization being able to limit itself to simply science would not be effective since at the end of the day that is NOT what this fight is about.
We are fighting a socialist revolution hiding under the trogen horse of the green banner.
So as long as one realizes we are in an ideological fight then this will DEFINE and determine what kind of organization needs to be created here.
First of all, I voted “yes”, and secondly, I am a “denier” of CAGW and I detest the use of the word “skeptic” in any way, shape or form primarily because it was coined by the proponents of CAGW to badmouth, berate, criticize and/or discredit anyone that disagrees with their “junk science” claims ….. and thus the general public interprets the word “skeptic” as being someone who doesn’t believe in climate change and/or is utterly ignorant and uneducated in/on matters of science.
Anyway, to reach the masses with a “denier message” about the junk science of CAGW an “association/agreement” should be established with Fox News for publication of science based commentary and then similar articles as those posted on WUWT but worded so that Fox readers could easily understand their contents/context could be submitted for publication.
There is already one (1) “denier” that is publishing commentary on Fox News and a dozen more wouldn’t hurt any, to wit:
“‘Chicken Little ‘science’
The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, writes, “If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken? … Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there’s more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads.” Yet another reason not to trust climate change alarmists.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/17/chicken-little-science/?intcmp=HPBucket
A no vote from me. Such a group would be far too polarizing in my opinion and it’s message could easily become just another bumper sticker meme. As others have said, there is a range of valid and useful ideas on the skeptic’s side and it would be way too easy to lump them all together into a group that really represents no one’s view. Another poster said we should focus on exposing all bad science and I would certainly agree with that, and think WUWT has done an exemplary job at doing just that very thing. Plus, the education that Anthony and other independent minded bloggers have provided us all certainly supports the value of the current independent and loosely knit paradigm that seems to best define the skeptic camp.
I voted “unsure”.
While it would be good to have a place where, say, a journalist could go to check the facts of a CAGW press release or at least get the other side. It would be good to have a place a teacher could go unbiased info.
But how would the policy statement read? I’m just a layman here but what would it say? “We are certain that they should be uncertain.”?
I suppose I’d have to see it before I’d vote other than “unsure”.
And how would it differ from SEPP?
“””””……O H Dahlsveen says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:33 am
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. …..”””””
Well that little word there; “theoretical”, sets off alarm bells.
It starts off with the assumption that there IS a “theoretical value”, and hence a “theory” that is correct.
So just where is this theory, and its derived theoretical value ??
There is NO thermal equilibrium; given that the earth rotates, so an earth sans atmosphere, would never have any theoretical Temperature, and we certainly haven’t the knowledge (data) to determine one.
How much do YOU know about the thermal conductivities of the earth or the specific radiant emissivities of its vast array of different surface materials ??
Earth has no credible theoretical Temperature either in its present condition or an atmosphere free condition.
“The Road to skepticism” Could be a nice title for a book. subtitle ‘ The Many Paths followed”
Actually, instead of an organization with a negative in the title, I would prefer
the name to be “Climate honesty” or perhaps “climate diversity”—- throw the negative in the alarmist and very narrow court.
As I see it, skeptics are simply being honest with respect to what they have observed. Because the science is very complicated with many uncertainties, there will be varying viewpoints among those who might consider themselves to be skeptics. I would think the best conclusion, is that yes there may be some AGW, but mostly likely it is small compared to many other known and unknown natural forcings.
Yeah, I started out about five years ago with a vague idea of ice melting and those poor lovable polar bears.
My daughter, who has degrees in biology and environmentalism challenged me as to who said that, to which I replied ‘they said’. She looked at me with a winning and knowing grin and said ‘they’? After I had taught her just the opposite approach, we both knew she had me, so I started out to prove her wrong. Funny thing, the more I worked at it, the greater my conversion.
She reminded me that at one point I was very upset with President Bush for not signing the Kyoto Protocol.
One more related item, IMO is the Trenberth’s howling of the publication of the paper by Roy Spencer. Another book Title “Mann, Jones, Hansen, Trenberth et al”, the Founders of Totalitarian Science”.
I voted No. To do this would be playing our enemies at their own game. Never a good idea.
Providing educational guidance is fine, and even the occasional well-put press release might do some good. But a “policy statement?” Tirez l’autre, mon ami.
What is the “policy” of climate skeptics? Unless it’s to be honest and to tell the truth? How could skeptics possibly have a climate “policy,” other than “wait and see?”
“””””…..David Ball says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:56 am
george e. smith says:
April 19, 2014 at 11:54 am
“For example it is just plain silly to argue that the physics of CO2 and other GHGs, including H2O, is a fiction, or that 400 ppm of anything couldn’t possibly have an effect.”
With all due respect, George, this is a misrepresentation of the position……”””””
Well David; with all due respect; that is a completely accurate representation OF SOME SKEPTICS position.
So just where in my post did you find I assigned that position to ALL skeptics ?? I did not.
YOU , simply attached YOUR INTERPRETATION to MY WORDS.
That’s YOUR error, not mine.
I voted no because to me it seems that the possible drawback are more likely to occur than the possible benefits.
The drawback is that the head of an organization will always feel the need to make a statement even if he’s not sure the “membership” is in agreement. The American Physical Society comes to mind.
A possible benefit is that the press would have a go-to place to get the other side in response to the latest alarmist press release. But if the press were open to that kind of information, they would already be getting it; it wouldn’t be hard for an Associated Press reporter to find someone willing to give him the straight dope. Yet they don’t.
Organizing is a bad idea.
george e. smith says:
April 19, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Thank you for your reply George. This once again shows why the vote should be “no”.
No, but:
There is a need for an organization or an individual who could put together a really tightly reasoned set of absolutely ‘bullet-proof’ questions on climate change that could be asked of candidates running for any political office. Circulating this to political party organizations and the press would not be costly.
The potential impact could be significant. For example: Imagine a candidate running for governor being asked in a public forum about a greenhouse gas reduction proposal he’s advocating: “You are telling us that your proposal will reduce emissions by x megatons. This means nothing to me. Do you know and can you tell us what the impact of your proposed project on global warming will be in DEGREES? If not, why not?”
Not my preferred vehicle, but one could imagine the Tea Party putting good talking points to use.