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.
What sort of organisation? A global skeptic society poses very large organisational and practical problems, not least in funding. I would go in for local / regional / national organisations, that can respond more directly to the challenges in their localities.
In Norway, the org. “Klimarealistene” (“Climate realists”) was established about 8 years ago, and has today ca. 500 members all over the country. They write press releases, comments in the MSM (although rarely allowed in the Norwegian media, which suffers from a bad case of “Gleickshaltung” and CAGW-friendly censorship), as well as arranging lectures (for instance with prof. Salby) and more informal “climate pizzas”.
Last year, they made a Norwegian translation of “The Delinquent Teenager”, with a lecture by Donna, and are currently working on similar book projects.
A society like this, on a regional scale, can work more directly with the current issues in their country than a global organisation.Climate questions and policies vary a lot from one country to another, and I would prefer a network of smaller skeptical societies to a vast central global one.
http://www.klimarealistene.com/
(sorry, only in Norwegian)
>the consensus or peer-review system
Or maybe it should be termed the ‘guild’ system, the guild groping for any means of distinction while the independent just use those independently, using what’s best, focusing on method instead.
@richardscourtney, I won’t fully endorse your assertion as I haven’t seen enough of comment histories of those who you have pointed to but your theory is quite possible as a highly sophisticated stealth troll has been elucidated on James Delingpole’s articles over the last few weeks, an individual who had mixed in with the crowd over a very long period, and it was determined that their highly divisive nature was not natural but intentional, trying to divide and damage morale from within.
I have worked as an engineer for over 30 years, and I am a member of one single organization: the IEEE.
I would gladly join (and subscribe) to an Institute of Climate XXXXX to assert my interest and commitment to an honest scientific standpoint, but I just checked Institute of Climate Studies (USA) and found it exists, and appears rampantly cAGW.
This further compounds my belief in a “yes” vote to Anthony’s question, but I’m at a loss – the GWPF seems close to the ideal model but does it miss the mark somehow? Too UK-centric? Not “scientific” enough to dispel the warmist bias in MSM?
Hmm. I always thought that if you don’t want that wind farm monstrosity blighting your life you just live near a Kennedy. That can have unfortunate ramifications for the women in your life, though.
Know your enemy. MSM. MSM provides statist central power socialists billions of $$ of free promotion. Without that steadfast support the US Democrat Party (the force behind the Warmunists) would not hold the power they do. Some decline in the credibility of the MSM is palpable. We need to strike there. Insinuate that all who believe the MSM are ignorant pawns… an easy position to support because they are.
richardscourtney, I am just coming to this thread and have not (can’t) read the posts. I understand your concern, and agree with it a lot. But one thing that you may not have considered is that while it’s likely true that only in America is AGW a left/right issue it is, like it or not. And as such, some effort in the fight might natural be focused there. And I don’t think you’re giving full credence, either, to Tue fact that the AGW machine is is a beast that is being largely fed by America and if you want to starve the beast then you have to shut down the American supply line. That supply line is run and maintained by the American left in both politics and media (both news and entertainment). While with you I would wish this argument can be had on purely scientific grounds, it can’t and to be blind to that is to play with one arm tied behind your back, or possibly both.
Many posts here are hoping to get some sort of fairminded treatment in the MSM. That will not happen. The will ridicule (i.e. use “go-along-with-the-crowd” peer pressure) and defame any organization that stands against them. SOMEHOW we need to turn the tide… generate peer pressure that says “if you believe what you hear from MSM, you are an idiot”.
In order to avert the bureaucratic tendencies of organizations, would two friendly but non-sycophantic skeptic groups be good ?
Eugene WR Gallun says:
April 25, 2014 at 7:19 pm
Somehow it seems to me that people are misunderstanding what this organization is to be about.
…
==========
The first search I did yesterday was to see if this name was available: Union of Concerned Journalists. Sure enough, it exists. Its an organization in Dhaka Bangladesh.
http://orgs.tigweb.org/union-of-concerned-journalist
There are numerous issues related to News coverage. Here are a few to consider:
– The first question the News Director will ask, what Ax does the individual or group have to grind related to the information we’ve received?
– Is there any evidence the information received is accurate?
– What will it cost for follow-up research?
– How does this issue relate to our audience either local or network?
– Is any broadcast quality video, audio, or art available?
Credibility, Trust, Accuracy and making it cheap and easy for news agencies to deliver a story are keys to placement in US local news. 2nd day leads are very effective if targeted properly.
So who will be available 24/7 to field questions?
If you just want to do a Wired magazine approach for climate news, create a blog which posts top articles from members of the new organization. You’ll need an independent Editor in Chief to maintain integrity?
Try some PSAs to test the waters?
If I’m elected president of this new organization, I promise:
1. To keep membership fees low (as defined by me).
2. Transparent accounting (done by myself; you can trust me).
3. To listen to the little people, regardless of how stupid they are.
4. To keep Mosher on a leash
Eugene WR Gallun says:
Then I’m in.
I’d join any that sued a high profile British climate scientist for fraudulently claiming the science was settled without producing evidence of them making a 100% accurate prediction as of the first date the claim was made. Pretty easy to do now that even the most facile rolling five year average filter on the data shows a flattening not a rising slope and the work to be tenth rate at the most charitable estimate..
Another thought occurs to me.
The Weather Channel (TWC) has been refining their model lately — added a storm severity index, regional pollen count index, etc. These indexes appear to be climate related?
They would be a logical avenue for national news placement and a way to introduce the new group effort?
David L. says:
April 25, 2014 at 5:07 am
After reading this I realized I will post to WUWT but when amoungst my liberal cohorts, I fear to say anything. My conservative friends and I have always remarked how they have the upper hand in public debate because they will freely spout their rhetoric and the rest of us keep quiet lest we are marginalized. Enough is enough.
You’ve convinced me. We need to “unionize”. What are the next steps and where do I sign up?
==========================================================================
Still not decided, but David’s post leads to a conclusion that has been brewing in my mind. To some degree I have noticed a steady increase in skeptical comments in the pro CAGW articles, yet many of us mainly comment here, of at other skeptical sites.
I suggest it would be hard to organize such a diverse group of skeptics, simply because we are so diverse. However, there are many skeptical sources of information mentioned. If those organizations, WUWT, Jo Nova, Heartland, NIPCC, etc, etc, were to all ask us to comment more at all the MAJOR news outlet MSM sources, and major pro CAGW web sites, I think that ALONE would further move public support in a skeptical direction, perhaps to a tipping point.
However I think there should be some simple suggested guidelines in the debate. Perhaps the major skeptical sites could organize a common resource for the main issues, with concise linked post of recommended responses to typical pro CAGW alarmism. And if those sites regularly encourage us to post more and often at major media sites and major pro CAGW web sites, then I think we can firmly defeat the CAGW alarmist in the real of the public opinion.
“Change Climate Policy”
Do not focus on attacking the science of climate change as it will expose too many internal disagreements. Instead focus on changing the wasteful energy policies that are being pursued by the West in the name of climate change. Criticise the ideologies and financial interests forcing through these policies by leveraging off and perpetuating bias in IPCC reports on climate science. Confront those scientists who exaggerate the impacts and become bedfellows and cheerleaders for these same ideologies. Highlight just how unlikely the dangerous scenarios left in AR5 just to appease the ideologues really are. Propose realistic achievable energy policies over the long term and energy research which can eventually replace fossil fuels by 2100. Always use science and engineering to back up arguments. Try to keep politics out of it to avoid being dismissed as a right wing pressure group or whatever.
I know it’s already used by a blog but I think Climate Sanity would be a good name. Mosher’s questions last weekend are good to think about but I see no reason for a lower bound for a member’s idea of climate sensitivity! The insanity of current climate policies has got the most unifying factor. Another could be the openness required of a science that is considered to be so policy-relevant.
Werner Brozek says:
…I only get one paper delivered every day. But even if I did go to the library and found a New York paper, any article that I may read would be old by the time I read it and any reply by me would be out of date.
Werner, everyone does it their own way, and I’m not telling you what to do. But I like to check out blogs like the Drudge Report and similar news aggregators for any global warming articles. Drudge just links to the newspaper or site, but that way you can make your comment in a timely manner.
The more that our side gets the facts out, the better. I can see it is working, because as David A says, lately most comments and letters are heavily opposed to the runaway global warming scam, and where voting is allowed, the skeptical comments are getting many more ‘thumbs up’ votes than the believers in the carbon scare. After years of riding high, the carbon scaremeisters are clearly running out of steam.
Also, I like your idea of multiple responses to our side’s articles. Some media outlets will still censor us, even if the responses are 10:1 against CAGW. But over time, coordinated responses will have a beneficial effect.
I haven’t read all of the 300+ comments, so this is probably redundant, but: Please let’s stop using the shorthand phrase “climate skeptic.” On its face, it means “one who is skeptical that there is a climate.” Instead, just claim the proper label for what you are doing, such as: Association for the Scientific Study of Climate. Claim the high ground, don’t start with a defensive label.
I am on record saying I cannot support a climate science PAG***; see one comment in the original poll post and 2 previous comments in this post.
Will I hinder it?
The lead post is a call to action to man the political barricades, but not individually as has been spontaneously done by each of us in our own circumstances for many years. It promotes collective action; to form a class for political action. The lead post looks to me like a prep talk to go on a crusade; the crusade being an anti-crusade against the CAGW crusade. I am sorry to say that it looks like a veiled version of rousing agitprop. It makes me look back at the sixties campus agitprop when I was at university in the USA.
I think there will continue to be important success from professional and citizen collaboration on critical evaluation of the climate science subject. I think an immense amount has already been done in such collaborations. I support forming an Academe focused on critical applied reasoning to evaluate the Earth-Atmosphere System, but only if it has a broad mission / foundation in the philosophy of science.
Will I hinder the proposed PAG? Yes, in a nonaggressive indirect way. I will intellectually splinter away and intellectually collaborate with others who do so.
*** PAG => Political Action Group
John
I agree with those calling for a name contest. Leave final choice up to this blog’s owner, but an advisory vote from a list of say, ten suggestions would IMO be appropriate. More than that have been offered here, even counting just serious suggestions.
Scottish Sceptic
“4. A group not only includes people, it also acts to exclude. As such the group sets standards and in itself that tends to raise the respect of the group being represented.”
This is, I think, the most important point. There are many who post on this site who make good points but whose scientific or professional background would lay them open to having their expertise rubbished, a tactic that GAGW activists do not hesitate to use even against those better qualified than themselves.
If the association is to carry weight it should be restricted to those professionals whose credentials as regards one or more aspects of climate science are beyond dispute.
It is quality rather than quantity that might impress the politicians and the media.
Solomon Green says:
April 26, 2014 at 10:13 am
Agree, as per my comment on April 25 @ur momisugly 9:14 PM.
Wayne Delbeke says:
April 25, 2014 at 11:08 pm
“Organizations tend to be captured by a few ideological members and become non-representative of many of their members in fairly short order. I recently resigned from a professional organization because they have drunk too much Kool-Aid for my taste.”
Wayne having been at the Amchitcka protest at the beginning of Greenpeace makes a point better than I did on an organization’s “half-life”. I, too, was in BC at the time, busy making a living in the mining exploration industry, but fascinated by the boldness and integrity of this new Greenpeace. However, since the Iron Curtain came down, a lot of well-schooled-in-the-tactics, never say die ideologues were turned loose who understood that infiltrating prominent organizations that had the right kind of reputation and clout, including universities, other research agencies, the UN, and other social/political agencies, was a first step in gradually turning them to their good use. Yeah, if your organization becomes effective, it becomes infested eventually. Like Wayne, perhaps being an old guy makes one too cynical, although one has to ask how one gets that way.
richardscourtney says:
April 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm
“The series of posts assert that AGW is a left vs right issue. It is not (except perhaps in the USA).”
Richard, I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and integrity and have enjoyed your many cogen analytical posts on CAGW topics. I fear, however, that you are unaware of colorings when you look at left and right. Would it surprise you to know that the Democrats in the US are in fact considerably to the right of Europe’s “right wing” parties that have been stewed in a leftish soup since the 19th Century. If they weren’t they would have disappeared long before now from the US political landscape. When your opponents, here, in the political side of the debate define the left, it certainly includes pretty much the whole spectrum in Europe. I believe this factor continues to puzzle European CAGW proponents when they try to understand why the US Democrats haven’t simply caved in to the climate wave to which Europe has surrendered. I think they thought perhaps they could simply buy Obama’s signature at Copenhagen with a Nobel Prize – it would likely have worked if it was needed to buy a European head of state. Obama knew he would only enjoy one term if he had weakened. Yes my friend, the right is a long way away from where you think it is here. With respect, Gary
Oops,
..cogent…