Last weekend, I conducted a poll asking this question that has been on my mind for a couple of years:
Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?
The results are in, seen below, and there is an interesting dichotomy that can be observed in the excercise.
I’ve closed the poll with a count of 2701 votes. While there was a clearly decisive result, there were over 440 comments on the thread, many of which argued for “no”. A common reason discussed was that “organizing skeptics is like herding cats” or that “it will provide a target”. While that may be true, I really wasn’t all that interested in herding or target practice, I was thinking about representation. By its nature, all representation of varied viewpoints of a group of people is imperfect, but it does have its advantages if that representation satisfies a common need. The common need I see is getting a slowdown on the freight train of bureaucracy that is growing from CAGW claims and more coverage in media.
Pointman writes about the poll results and that dichotomy in Get real, get organised and finish it.
Anthony Watts recently ran a poll at WUWT that posed the question – “Is it time for an “official” climate skeptics organization, one that produces a policy statement, issues press releases, and provides educational guidance?”
I voted “yes” and I’d like to outline my reasons for doing so.
Any scattered and disparate opposition to an unjust law, policy or controversial issue which doesn’t get organised under some umbrella organisation is not only politically naïve but a consequently weak faction which doesn’t need to be taken seriously. More often than not, they’re comfortable in their armchairs living in their own deluded and secluded cloud cuckoo land.
There’s nicer ways of saying it but if want to be a force to be reckoned with, you have to get all ganged up. You seriously want to take on that exploitive employer, get unionised brothers and sisters. You want political change, form a lobby group. You don’t want that wind farm monstrosity blighting your life, start a local campaigning group. You want equal civil rights irrespective of the colour of your ass, start marching en masse. You want women to have the vote, get those bustles out of the drawing rooms and onto the streets as a mob waving placards and make the powers that be listen to you.
There’s simply no other way to get an issue onto the political agenda, and if you happen to think global warming isn’t a political thing, you pop that blue pill brother and dream on.
Give people a standard they can rally to and if the cause has real popular support, they’ll flock to it and become a bigger voice which will be heard despite any attempts to suppress it. Those attempts will just serve to strengthen group identity and make it a much more powerful force.
The deep primordial history of us as a species is all about getting together and cooperation. You might be rubbish at knapping a flint spearhead, but as long as one of the group can do that specialist thing, everyone is happy. Crap at tracking game? No matter, that runty kid over there is somehow brilliant at it. You might just be a spear carrier, but you know you play your part for the good of everyone else. That compulsion to gang up and work together is by now deeply embedded in our DNA. It’s been selected for. Without it, civilisation would fall apart in a day.
The worst thing you can ever do is sit in grumpy isolation doing nothing more than bitching away to a few cronies, and that’s exactly what’s all too common across the skeptic blogosphere. I call it the whinge and dump mentality and in the whole history of the human race, it’s never achieved anything other than being known as a complete bore to be avoided at all costs. Here they come – run away, run away!
As I look at the poll results to date, out of 2,683 votes cast, the response was 63% Yes, 24% No and the rest going for unsure. Scanning through the five hundred comments below the piece, a substantial majority expressed a “No” for various reasons. That’s an interesting dichotomy but an unsurprising one given the web dynamics of such a controversial issue as global warming.
There are just simply too many polarised people on either side who’ve spent years doing nothing more than venting spleen at each other. It’s become a social activity, a recreational pastime, a macho ego trip, a catharsis for a lot of tangential frustrations. Log in quickly, hurl an insult or two and surf onto the next brawl. Underneath the most combative blogs, out of hundreds of comments, barely a single digit percentage of the comments even reference the original blog topic, whatever it was.
Full essay here: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/get-real-get-organised-and-finish-it/
He’s right, it has become a social spleen venting activity, and that my friends doesn’t get much traction.
This passage:
More often than not, they’re comfortable in their armchairs living in their own deluded and secluded cloud cuckoo land.
There’s nicer ways of saying it but if want to be a force to be reckoned with, you have to get all ganged up.
Could just as easily be used to describe crazy Bill McKibben. Most of us think he’s nuts, and he most likely is. The difference is he got out of his “armchairs living in their own deluded and secluded cloud cuckoo land” and formed 350.org. Now look at what we have, an organization that has successfully lobbied for blocking the Keystone pipeline by affecting the office of presidency. Do you think weepy Bill could do that himself without having organized first?
Think about it, and sound off in comments.
In this age where nothing is achieved without lobbying we must be represented by a strong group and I would love this to be based on this site. Please go for it, I for one will support it.
AGW skeptics come in many types, but most of them fight awfully hard about their positions. So getting agreement on a given subject might not be easy.
Maybe something like this could work, or maybe not. Suppose that Lindzen and Curry and McIntyre and McKittrick and Christy and Spencer and Watts and Michaels and Lomborg, to take a few names, could agree on something like a manifesto. I imagine that it would start by stating that, yes, CO2 is warming the planet, but that by itself isn’t a spur for costly present reductions, that is just basic science. It would then lay out many of the issues that cause the kinds of uncertainty that Judith Curry in particular discusses. At the end of the day, it would be kind of what the APS statement of 2007 SHOULD have been, but wasn’t.
Then let’s see who would sign up for such a statement. You might get a large contingent of APS members, for one, if the science is stated well. In other words, lots of real scientists.
I’ll bet that whatever the statement, only a minority of WUWT readers would sign it, although I could be wrong.
Just a thought for what its worth.
Why not simply get all the global principals, which take issue with the scientific stance/rush to judgement, to agree to approach the UN as a single group. Its highly likely the UN would like to put the IPCC issues “to bed” and move forward in a logical way.
This is a highly news worthy approach which will properly position your support for resolution.
The benefits for the UN are numerous and they hold all the cards and the purse. All you’ll need to do is present the benefits in relation to needed change.
If the UN refuses, it’s a solid reason to move forward as a separate group.
Dr. Curry and others would likely support this approach.
Blue Sky says:
Skeptics don’t organize.
And you know that how? The OISM alone organized more than 30,000 co-signers. No CAGW organization has come anywhere close to those numbers.
You may be right, or not. There are ways of finding out. But your assertion is probably wrong, based on the success of WUWT.
Sorry, I meant to add that as a movement together we cannot lose. If we never have a movement then we will lose.
Friends:
There is a series of posts in this thread which demonstrate why a political anti-AGW organisation would be harmful for AGW-sceptics.
The series of posts assert that AGW is a left vs right issue. It is not (except perhaps in the USA). But the untrue assertion sets AGW-sceptics against each other. The posts making this assertion are calling for a political organisation to be formed as a tool for right-wingers to attack left-wing AGW-sceptics.
These posts can only derive from misguided political bigots or from AGW-alarmists who are trying to encourage internal strife between AGW-sceptics.
Richard
Quick note: two different “Johns” at 1:34 comment time.
Seriously, I’m not so sure the word “skeptic” (or any derivative) needs or should be in the title or “mission statement”.
Are we skeptical of proper science – not just regarding “climate science” either, but any science?
Every scientist in any scientific organization should strongly support proper science that undergoes the scientific method and is written up in a properly peer-reviewed manner. That so many clearly do not is, dare I say it, a travesty.
There is a need for an organization that supports proper science, as well as a group that presses for proper science in the “global warming/climate change” arena.
Maybe the call here should be for “skeptics” to unite behind one of the organizations that is already functioning in this capacity?
Just an observation.
conscious1 says:
April 25, 2014 at 10:54 am
“CAGW believers are victims of sophisticated mind control propaganda and should be treated with compassion rather than as enemies. They have no frame of reference to understand the current state of climate science and so are ignorant of the empirical facts.”
There are always prols who do what they are told but many understand the deceit involved in greenshirt authority politics of which the AGW movement is a subset. Therefore they are perps not misguided intellectually at all, they know exactly the road to power and at times money. They need to be destroyed with as much compassion as you like but destroyed none the less.
AGW is like any other “we need to control” for the “common good” meme. Keynesian global monetary order, U.N. sanctimony, high levels of government and regulatory authority in general are all rationalized in the same fashion. That there isn’t empirical or classical science supporting the hypothesis but that isn’t going to end it by a long shot. There is a social discontent always and in the case of the West and the U.S. in particular it can easily be tracked back to anti-industrial schisms predating the Civil War but certainly evident during the industrial revolution and the sentiments about “robber barons”. “Big oil” conspiracy rhetoric leads right to William Jennings Bryant and J.D. Rockefeller and the talking points only evolve but the same class hatreds, envy, reactionary emotions are the same. It’s all really old hat when you trace the history.
Rather than “sophisticated” the success of AGW politics reflects the continued social erosion and intellectual dishonesty of progressive advocacy but also opposition weakness. Common sense and critical thinking are near all time lows. Declining birth rates, broken families, crime, educational politicization (and anything else that in prior times was kept non-political compared to today) and general decline in social ethics are all fruits of the same tree as “science” by “consensus” which means “political consensus”. So it isn’t out of ignorance that AGW has thrived but social decline which is far more complex.
cwon14 said- ” So it isn’t out of ignorance that AGW has thrived but social decline which is far more complex.”
I agree with your comment. My post was in response to an earlier post and not meant to be a stand alone statement. I wish this blog had a reply function like discus so that individual discussions could take place in their own continuous thread. Anthony would get much more traffic and posting if it did.
That being said, my experience is that most people don’t have science backgrounds and are unconscious as to how they are being manipulated by the media. It comes as a surprise to most that there are sound reasons to question the alarm. Those are the people I was speaking about, not the environmental activists who use those people’s good nature and ignorance to further their anti-human crusade.
The more I think about this, the more I am against, and am with Eric Worrall’s various comments at the top of the page.
Also note that when you organise into one group that group as a whole is an easier target to attack by the alarmists in conjunction with the MSM. The alarmists can get away with all sorts of nefarious behaviour, e.g. Cook and Nuccitelli in Nazi uniforms on the SkS website, Nuccitelli posting articles for the alarmist cause when there is a clear conflict of interest with Tetra Tech, and indeed the likes of the Sierra Club tarring opponents as “fossil fuel funded deniers” when they have taken $26m from Cheapeake.
Anything slightly untowards and you have create a bullseye for them to target with typical bandwagons, faux outrage, hypocrisy, and double standards that we frequently see in the M.O. of Guardian rabble rousing by Monbiot et al. Note that “crushers” can get away with a private forum in SkS to coordinate trolling across the blogopshere, and even when that has been exposed they have little to fear as there are few repercussions. If things were the other way round, e.g. a private forum hidden with WUWT uncovered, imagine the MSM guns all targeted at Anthony, feeding into their narratives of scepticism being highly organised and funded, which is really just a way to divert from what is their own M.O.. We all know how fierce the MSM can be, we’ve all seen it with the media circus associated with the highly flawed “BEST” drafts (prior to any ability of sceptics to review them) with Muller on a publicity spree, as well as the couple of days after a release of a new IPCC report.
I see the success of scepticism being due to a many headed hydra, and indeed the number of “heads” continues to grow. Take out Anthony, and there is still Jo Nova, Judith Curry, Dr. Spencer, Bishop Hill, GWPF, HI, James Delingpole, Chris Booker, Nir Shaviv, Lubos Motl, etc., etc. The more “targets” there are the more frustrated alarmists are as marginalisation is more difficult.
I would also like to see what kind of coordination is intended. Would there really be much difference from the current way we go about things? We can’t really have private forums for the reasons I have outlined, and such forums can be highly susceptible to nefarious infiltration. As per EricW I see the glass half full, not half empty, and we are generally in good shape, including via. ClimateDepot as a central DrudgeReport like portal (although some may see pros and cons of that), along with the likes of GWPF.
John says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm
Quick note: two different “Johns” at 1:34 comment time.
Thanks John, I’ll add my last name to future posts.
John says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm
Quick note: two different “Johns” at 1:34 comment time.
=====
Too funny, we had the same thought and posted at exactly the same time. What are the odds ; )
richardscourtney says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Richard, there are always people who split from their groups but your point is well…..pointless and delusional. The entire U.N. regime conforms to classical central planning and authority, wealth redistribution beyond any scale in human history. How is that only in the U.S. on right vs. left splits?? That many countries have effectively zero public libertarian/conservative/free market representation can’t be addressed effectively here but your statement is false.
For the semi-rational and more moderate among the collectively minded they are second or third fiddle in their peer group. They failed to moderate their or their peers inclinations. Curry, Lomborg and the rest are preposterous in their hair splitting positions.
You’re the delusional skeptic who will end up in a reeducation camp before you figure out the obvious to many others.
richardscourtney wrote:
“There is a series of posts in this thread which demonstrate why a political anti-AGW organisation would be harmful for AGW-sceptics. The series of posts assert that AGW is a left vs right issue. It is not…”
I agree totally. If all a new ‘sceptic’ organisation does is pick political sides, it is pointless. Why not just go and join an existing political party of whatever flavour takes your fancy, and start your campaigning from there?
It is because so many alarmists are politically polarised that opposition to them must not be. Political neutrality is the greatest weapon that could be used against them. Expose their real motivations while coming back yourself to the science.
John says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Interesting John but here’s the thing; do you really think Dr. Curry for example would cross the full AGW meme picket line? It’s taken her close to 10 years of incremental public hair splitting and her denouncement of AGW fanaticism is quite selective, vague and obtuse even today. 500000 words and she still fess up and admit the Green movement is exactly what I, Morano or Delingpole can state in a paragraph.
The central idiocy is that want remains is essentially a legitimate “science” debate when in fact there is no classical science structure left after decades of academic social engineering to achieve this new and much less rational standard. Until the central political motivations are acknowledged there can be no honest evaluation of AGW meme and even many of your imagined “skeptics” or “moderates” will conform to pander to political orthodox with the drop of a hat.
Dr. Lindzen was the best on the list intellectually but even he wasted decades in obtuse discussions of the topic. It’s a vague science exploited for that feature by a political agenda. Like economics or psychology topics by political operatives both at the academic levels or government counterparts. Some have gotten better over the year but seriously how can you explain their delays and even their current obfuscations of the obvious political alliance supporting AGW power politics to this day?
@richardscourtney –
I strongly disagree that recognizing the relationship and consistency of opposition to CAGW with fundamental conservative principles (which, by the way, were liberal principles 50 years ago) in any way sets up a conflict between left-leaning and conservative skeptics. The differences of opinion on other matters would not be relevant to discussions of climate, and need not get in the way of unity on the basic issue, which is that AGW is wrong. However, I would urge those who lean left to recognize that the reasons for opposing AGW may well be inconsistent otherwise with their world view, and will put them at odds with people who otherwise share their worldview.
I would further caution everyone that “taking a firm position” does NOT mean shutting our minds to contrary evidence, if any emerges. A true skeptic keeps an open mind no matter how firmly he believes in his position.
Maybe start an organization that will collect plans and initiatives for skeptical adds, books, papers and presentations etc., where members and other visitors can donate to the plan or initiative they like, so that the individual or group with such a plan can actually make it happen? The best plans will get the most attention and donations.
You will only need a website and get coverage on blogs and websites of skeptic-minded people.
Funding for this website can be achieved by asking 0,04% of the donations made.
United Realists for Freedom, Energy and Prosperity. I can see that happen.
But a centralized skeptics organization with one view and one voice? I don’t think so.
I think the organization should remain apolitical. It should stick to the science,
and known facts. My only contribution to the discussion was the idea that
it should have an articulate and entertaining spokesman, one who could
use wit and sarcasm as a weapon against the Elmer Gantry’s on the other
side.
I know it would be better if that person were a scientist, but someone needs to ask
Mark Steyn what he is going to do after the Mann lawsuit is over.
It would shut me off from access to the other side.
Why would you think that?
Don’t you see? They would shut me off.
Attend TEA Party meetings. CAGW, or Global Wierding, or whatever the lame stream media decides this week, is about government control. Grants, regulations, taxes, all geared to re-election of “progressives” explains stuff like the “Hocky S(ch)tick.
Contribute to candidates that use science rather than theology to formulate policy.
My involuntary gut-reaction? ‘Uh-oh. Oh-boy’.
Although WUWT is no doubt extremely rewarding, it also has to be confining. I see many signs, that Mr. Watts chafes; yearns for the wide-open intellectual spaces. For how long has it been the seven-year-itch?
There is always the urge for completion & resolution, in all forms of contest & competition. In fact, a major feature of contest-strategy, is to exacerbate the impatience of the opponent, and then arrange for his imprudent indulgence to cost him dearly. Getting antsy, gazing at the greener grass, becoming deeply concerned about the other side of the hill …
The exploration-urge has played a huge role in the dramatic success of humans. But we see too, that it comes with an extraordinary built-in tolerance for very risky situations and contexts. Jane Goodall found that as female chimps approach sexual maturity, they become possessed by an overpowering urge to investigate neighboring troupes: 30+% of them are then viciously killed, in their first ‘outside’ encounter.
Success & dominance can instill a similar, presumably related ‘anomalous’ tolerance for risk. Once a red-breasted robin believes he has acquired possession of a lawn, he attacks male interlopers with astounding ferocity. He courts females like he is Fred Astaire, on major drugs.
This ‘situational’ tolerance for risk is obviously an ancient element of species success … but it comes at an often extravagant price, for the mere (evolutionarily disposable) individual acting out its role.
====
The arc of climate-alarmism appeared to top-out about 2006. It may have been sagging already, but was somewhat artificially buoyed by Mr. Gore’s Inconvenient. My sense for some years now has been that we are steadily moving in the right direction. The new IPCC material is much-moderated.
I think we’re ‘getting there’ … and I think Anthony Watts & WUWT are the best tools we have for cajoling the process.
But tell that to my 25th grandfather, who was doing just fine in Normandy, but still jumped in the boat to Hastings, in 1066.
I only have one question: Where do I sign up?
@Jonathan Abbott –
If there is to be political action against AGW in the US, choosing sides – one of the political parties – is inevitable. The Democrats are one hundred percent AGW believers, even the coal and oil state Democrats whose constituencies are under attack by the Obama administration. Only Republicans so far have shown any understanding of the mendacity of AGW, and only some of them at that: Senators Vitter, Inhofe, Tim Scott and maybe a few others, That really leaves only Republicans who can be persuaded and cajoled into supporting the skeptic position.
And as it is, other Republicans too are believers: Christie, Jeb Bush to name the best known, and they will have to be convinced of both the unscience and the uneconomics of AGW before positive action can be taken against it.
This is not just a scientific conflict. After it became too obvious in the latter half of the 20th century that free enterprise provided more prosperity to common workers than did communism/ central planning, the left floundered for lack of a moral issue to justify their totalitarian instincts. Now they believe they have it in climate alarmism. They might grudgingly admit that free enterprise provides immediate material benefits to the masses, but it’s at the long-term expense of the earth itself. Freedom destroys the planet, so there must be less of it!
The scientific battle must be fought, but the collectivist ideology driving climate alarmism must also be exposed. It is this ideology which explains the methods of the climate alarmists: on a collectivist ethics, it is not merely permissible to lie if it benefits most people, it is morally required to lie.
Any ‘skeptic’ organization that attempts to defeat climate alarmism without addressing the political aspect would be fighting with one hand tied behind its back; the moral case for energy freedom is just as important as the scientific case.
On the “science” side, of course a go-to-source for a journalist that wants to actually do some fact checking and one that would issue its own press releases would be good.
But I think a SINGLE ISSUE political ranking such as the NRA does would be essential. Not to tell people how to vote but to let them know how the politicians have actually voted on CAGW issues despite what they say.
(In my state they once gave a republican conservative an “F” rating vs the “A” rating they gave a democrat liberal. Single issue advise.)