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.
Off topic, anybody know of a no B.S. reference on the accuracy and limitations of the various temperature proxies? If anyone would point me with some links I’d be grateful.
“Is it time for an ‘official’ climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
Absolutely not. CAGW is a product of progressivism, not science. That is why its supporters have formed and joined centralized organizations and imbued them with ever increasing authority.
While skeptics may be found in all political persuasions, the political aspect is one of conservatism/libertarianism. It would be a mistake for those who value freedom to adopt the tactics of those who lust for centralization.
Plus trust me, if any such “official” skeptic organization were created (by government or otherwise), the positions of control in that organization would eventually attract those people who are drawn to power, ie. progressives.
Just look at the Republican Party.
I voted yes but on thinking about it a little further ,that might not be a good idea .Any origination can be infiltrated and taken over . The loose but effective groups of skeptics are making a difference because when someone like myself approaches the subject ,you have to learn stuff .I once drank the kool-aid just out of being lazy about it but I found this site .Some stuff ,well a lot of stuff goes over my head but I some how come away each time with another small piece of the puzzle called climate change . Even learning how not to debate the issue is a big plus .They work on fallacies and plain fraud .If it aint broke then don’t fix it ….
As one of the original skeptics, this strikes me as a lousy idea. So are we going to have “consensus” skeptical statements? Isn’t that virtually an oxymoron?
1. “Consensus” is a fancy word for groupthink. As a skeptic of things in general, which I believe every thinking person ought to be, that sticks in my craw.
2. The notion of “consensus”, while perfectly acceptable for politics and bureaucracies, is antithetical to the scientific method.
3. There are so many factors involved in AGW, some of which I’m more skeptical about than others, I am skeptical — that damned word again — that my, or for that matter, any single individual’s — view would be properly or adequately represented in a joint statement. And IMO not worth the effort. Consider my specific set of views: I was, believe it or not, a little concerned about CO2 in the late 1970s, but became more skeptical over time. First I became skeptical of one thing, then another, then another, and so on… but I still believe that CO2, all else being equal, might cause (some) warming. Although I’m skeptical about thermometer measurements, despite believing there is a relatively large “warming” bias, phenological records from non-urban areas suggest to me that there has been some warming (although they too are “contaminated” by an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations). Regardless, I’m not convinced that the warming we have seen so far is outside of the bounds of natural variability. I have always been skeptical that we knew enough to say the impacts would be catastrophic, or that we couldn’t/wouldn’t be able to adapt, or that mitigation would be cheap in the short run, or that spending money on mitigation is the best use of societies’ (always) scarce resources … and so on. I can see that some skeptics might agree with me on one but not another of these above cited facets. How would all this be captured in a joint statement?
4. About the only thing skeptics might be able to agree on is that “consensus” is not part of the scientific method.
5. To paraphrase Mark Twain — or was it Groucho — I would be skeptical of any group that would join me in a “joint statement”.
Not likely we could form an OCS (“Organization of Climate Skeptics”). I think it would be possible and helpful to come up with a set of statements summarizing the current state of our knowledge, something like the WUWT article here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/15/ditto-tom-here-are-some-things-i-believe/#more-107550
or here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/matt-ridley-a-lukewarmers-ten-tests/
i.e. statements with solid scientific evidence behind them that (almost) all skeptics can support. Possible examples:
1. The incidence and power of severe weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc) has NOT increased over the past (30/40/50) years, with references.
2. The observed increase in the so-called “global average temperature” is mainly due to an observed rise in nighttime lows. (we might also want to call on the IPCC to actually DEFINE the so-called GAT)
3. The observed rate of increase of the so-called GAT in “the CO2 era” is indistinguishable from the rate of increase in pre-CO2 eras, with references.
Stuff like that. Being a heterogeneous lot, not all CAGW skeptics are likely to agree with all points, but having a central reference would help us narrow and define our differences and give us a set of “talking points” for discussions with CAGW inthusiasts (who are also somewhat heterogeneous in their exact beliefs and familiarity with the facts–some think CO2 is 40% of the atmosphere, for example). When somebody like Village Idiot (April 19, 2014 at 11:40 am) does a drive-by, we can point to our “manifesto” and ask exactly what he disputes, and why.
Just don’t ask me who comes up with the list and how we decide what’s included and what isn’t. I’m strictly a “big picture” kind of guy. 🙂
I voted yes because here in the UK the Government, BBC, press and almost every institution supports the warmist cause. The GWPF makes a modest but important contribution to the alternative view.
The GWPF tends to be a notice board for serious sceptical reports and articles and only occasionally publishes an opinion piece which tends to be an assessment or review with credibility and merit.
The creation of a cheerleading, rallying club that attracts supporters committed to rubbishing the warmists is probably the last thing we want.
My message is therefore is to define what you want and what you do not want very, very carefully.
darrylb: “‘The Road to skepticism’ Could be a nice title for a book. subtitle ‘ ‘The Many Paths followed'”
In addition to describing how the scales fell from their eyes, it could, for the better-known folks like Crichton and Rutan, include the kinds of reaction they encountered when they attempted to disseminate what they had learned.
I am going with a ‘no’ vote. Any organisation would of necessity be seen as being of a political nature. One of the many problems with the whole question of global warming is that the science has become politicised. We need to get back to the science being done by scientists and not the activists who have held sway for too many years.
The policy response is another matter. Crap policy based on crap science. We must continue to point out the futile nature of the policy response and the injustice this causes to the most vulnerable members of our fellow men.
I voted “No” as I don’t think it would do any good. As many have observed, this is not really about science, but control. “Experts” telling us where to live, what to drive, how to live. They ignore anything that doesn’t agree, science or not. Sadly, I fear we are wasting our time as it is. The CAGW express is roaring along, running over anything in its path. Wind, solar, electric cars, you name it, all big time PR, (with small time benefit). An official organization? One more thing to trample and ridicule. Perhaps even “domestic terrorists” as one Senator likes to claim.
And, as many have said, we don’t agree on everything. Hard to build an organization with that flexibility.
I have read this blog daily for years and have never commented, so this is my first time. I voted ‘No’ on this for the following reasons:
(1) any organization begun with the express purpose of being skeptical of some position will immediately be ignored or demonized by the other side as simply being an ‘anti’ organization.
(2) What we need to preserve for ourselves and our posterity is good science in all areas, not just climate. Of course skepticism plays a part in that but our fundamental goal is in the long run to discover how the climate actually does work and what can be reliably predicted (if anything) about its future.
(3) It seems to me that what we skeptics most universally oppose is the politicization of science and its use for what are in the end fundamentally political goals. This is an increasingly common use of ‘science’ across all kinds of public policy areas including climate, the environment, health, safety, etc. We need to base our decisions for the future on actual science and not on advocacy ‘science’ which is little more than a form of witch doctoring to which various activists appeal to bolster their political cases to the general public.
I voted yes. I think there needs to be a common ground for support. But I maintain that any public release should be that of diversity of opinion and a look at all possibilities of which one and only one of many is alarmist. Another perception should be ‘Yeah, bring it on, the world is going to be a much better place’ —and really scientifically, we do no know, but we should prepare as efficiently as possible for all possibilities.
Within the possible perceptions, the alarmist position should be that of a very scientifically challenged, narrow, biased political, but acknowledged position, but one of many.
Lets have a look at everything and let the viewer/reader/listener decide for him/herself.
In deciding to vote yes or no, remember the warming establishment has voted yes hundreds of times; every time they use the 97% meme. Their mentality is kind of like the teenage argument,
‘see, its true, everybody says so’.
This is purely a funding question. Funding means you can hire the staff, because much of the work can only be done professionally.
I don’t care much for any organization (I have seen them on the both sides of the old Iron curtain), they are loved by authoritarians and their followers.
I am more than content with what I am doing, despite all the obfuscation and occasional slander I encounter on these pages.
Good luck with it, I will not vote no, but would not join either.
I voted no, because the best punishment for the alarmist would be that nobody would care about what they are saying. I think we should not argue with them, especially not on their level. Stick to the science.
Clever man don’t argue with climate fools.
Besides the arguments it seems to have caused, I see two problems with this poll:
(1) It let me vote twice. Worse, it wouldn’t let me see the results a second time until I voted a second time!
(2) Why does the poll show an approximately 3:1 Yes vote, while the commenters go the other way, probably by more than 3:1?
Was our friend Prof. Lewandowsky by any chance involved in setting up this poll?
REPLY: The poll was set to exclude multiple voting by cookies and by IP address, and is run by wordpress.com. The issues you point out aren’t what you think they are, yes you can vote a second time, but your vote was not recorded. – Anthony
I voted no.
Would such an organization merely make us feel better, or would it actually serve the purpose of making skeptics out of true believers? Given the nature of Belief in Global Warming and its resemblance to religion, I doubt (heh, heh) that we would be changing anyone’s minds.
For a long time I used to respond to Huff Post articles (posted as ‘Oso Politico’), but to what avail? I was merely ridiculed, verbally abused, and insulted. This was especially true if I should cite
Anthony’s site.
WUWT is organization enough for me. We cannot make others think as we do. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink – to coin a phrase.
Does CO2 warm things up? Maybe, at least in a greenhouse. But is the Earth’s atmosphere like a greenhouse? Well, I will let all of you bright fellows, and gals, too, decide that.
Where I see weather, Warmistas see climate. Where I see natural variation, they see CAGW.
I think where we can all help is in calling them out for their lack of skepticism, lack of science-based proofs, and tortured use of the language.
By being loyal readers of WUWT we already belong an organization, albeit ad hoc.
Paz.
I voted “No.”
While good can come from such organizing, the risk of harm is greater.
And, it is not necessary for truth to win that we formally organize.
This needs a lot of thought. Some concerns:
The first year, ten percent of the new members will be moles. Within three years, the board, if elective, may mostly be Warmists. Within five, the organization could announce that the members now endorse CAGW 97%. No actual vote would be taken, of course. How do you propose to prevent Alinskyfication?
Re WUWT Magazine: Print journalism is dead. Why devote effort to a printosaurus? Ok, it would be nice PR, just don’t expect it to ever break even.
Yes, the organization, if it’s any good, will draw the lightning. And may even draw the attention of He Who Must Not Be Named and his IRS / NSA bullies.
One thing to factor into your thinking: In certain emergencies, the Internet may be down for days. And when it comes back online, it may be…different. How to maintain continuity, security, and positive identification?
Look at how other organizations operate, particularly the NRA.
Identify your objectives. See how they can be accomplished by the organization. Ask whether there are alternatives to do the same thing.
Naming is very important. Mission statement, almost as much so. [is joke. almost.]
Still, I voted yes. Can we have a secret handshake? Pens? Baseball caps? Cups? Bodges…? Medals…?
David in Cal says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
It won’t do any good IMHO. The Heartland Institute plays this role, but the media ignore it. Another commenter pointed to the NIPCC. The media ignore them, too. Skeptics need to find a way to get fair media coverage, but that’s easier said than done.
I agree. Perhaps someone with connections could get a monthly magazine going that contains, for example, the ten or so best articles in WUWT every month. And once an article is chosen, the author could tweak it, based on various comments, to make it “perfect” for publication in a magazine. The cover could be an eye catching graph such as Lord Monckton’s graph of RSS with no warming for 17 years and 8 months or whatever it may be at the time.
It is now (for some readers — for others, it is just another Sunday morning)
Easter Morning in Australia and New Zealand…
HAPPY EASTER, EVERYONE!
With love,
Janice
brian says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:44 am
. . .Certainly, no one can deny, humans have caused some warming. . .
——————————————————————-
If I did deny that, what evidence would you produce to prove that I was wrong?
Thanks Janice 🙂
Mine’s a no.
Such a body would need funding. Where would this come from?
It would also lead to another hierachy to impose their views upon their “supporters”.
I think that Steven Schneider accurately described the dilemma faced by any group of scientists or citizen scientists interested in climate change, be they skeptics or alarmists. WIth my modifications, he said
On the one hand, as [skeptical] scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just [skeptical] scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change [mitigation]. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary [mitigation] scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements [about the mistakes of the IPCC and others], and make little mention of any doubts we might have [that warming could be as bad as models project]. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
For any organization of climate skeptics, who will decide what mix of science and policy advocacy/propaganda is appropriate? The GWPF, for example, has both scientists and politicians. Perhaps there should be two umbrella groups, one for scientists (as Schneider describes them) and one for policy advocates.
I personally think that Schneider should have resolved his “ethical double-bind” by informing his audience when he was speaking as a scientist (and including all of the caveats doubts) and when he was speaking as a policy advocate (and wouldn’t include the caveats and doubts). Incidently, since the IPCC’s SPM’s contain few, if any, caveats about a field packed with uncertainties, we can automatically categorize their reports as policy advocacy (even though the claim to not be prescriptive).
I voted no. I’d be very skeptical of any organization that would have me as a member.