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.
Allen63 says: “Trying to be open-minded. First thought is “aren’t there already anti-CAGW organizations”. Or, at least, organizations producing “skeptical” point of view reports. How would this new organization be different? What would it add?”
Allen, to the question what would it add, my own experience as Chairman of the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum, is that for policy makers, the relevance of an organisation is largely the number of people it has.
In Scotland, I think if we had got to around 100 members, then even though the political establishment and media were actively hostile, then doors would have been opened. It’s a simple as that. The equivalent in the US might be 1000.
The second key issue is money. As SCEF chairman I was working for free and as such I felt I should not also pay to run the organisation. In retrospect, that was a mistake as lack of money was the biggest barrier I faced. Realistically, if one is to lobby in person, attend meetings, go to see people about issues and generally “keep active”, the cost from where I am (40miles to government) was probably around £5000 in travel and paying for meals, etc.
I would guess, in the US, the costs are far higher. I would not be surprised if the running costs of a one-person lobby organisation were $20,000 – $50,000. For a $25 membership fee, that would consume the membership fees of 800-2000 members leaving no money to do anything else.
This is why I think it is unrealistic to think in terms of a lobbying organisation. Instead, an organisation speaking up for the right of skeptics to exercise their right to free speech without being attacked – particularly by establishment figures, is a more manageable and achievable objective.
In other words and organisation asserting the rights of skeptics to be treated fairly and with respect like any other civic group would be a very laudable achievable and worthwhile end.
Anthony somehow I missed seeing the original poll post. I think it is a great idea – the sooner the better. It is important that any such organization is clearly recognized as having no political agenda or funding from economic entities with an interest in the outcome of climate science so that all discussions reports publications etc are based simply on the data and the science.
How about calling it the “Oganization of Skeptical Scientists.” The OSS.
There are folk here asking how it would differ from GWPF – the Global Warming Policy Foundation is directed towards policy only – not the science. Their advisory panel includes people who “agree with the standard climate science” and are tasked with policy recommendations.
What will this group do? Protest against misrepresentation and name-calling as “deniers”? Argue for Free Speech?
Better still, request research into pre-1950 warming episodes – why did they occur?
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have voted “Yes” here. If it were simply a case of us being able to disseminate cool-headed, more accurate interpretations of the latest climate news, I might have.
But, as other similarly untrusting voices have pointed out above, it’s not. It’s a dirty political fight, in which the voice of reason is routinely slagged off, howled down or (usually) simply ignored by the essentially monolithic block of big money power which is using its pseudoscience and its control of the media to bedazzle the public into supporting and voting for its own enslavement.
If we organise and become even moderately effective, then the organisation will be compromised and discredited, until there is once more nothing to impede the greed of the big money addicts. No, I think this is a job for the “crowd of peasants with torches”, so “They” never know where to look next while “We” chat informally with ordinary people and spread the truth. As Big Youth once sang, “You are a big tree … I got a small axe”. Between us, we’ve got a lot of small axes.
and for those with lots of vigour.
Skeptical Assault Scientists – SAS.
Pointman, as always, persuasively presents his case…but what I don’t see is any appreciation that “science” (not “politicized junk-science”) IS prevailing (IMHO inexorably albeit not nearly fast enough for, perhaps, most).
If credentialed “climate science” practitioners are to survive with credibility intact (a necessity, IMHO, for future viability), that impetus must emanate from a re-affirmation and re-commitment to traditional scientific methodologies…politics be damned…as they WILL be.
Dance with the girl what brung you. 2016 may change EVERYTHING.
“I’ve closed the poll with a count of 2701 votes. While there was a clearly decisive result,…”
Not if you measure the poll’s decisiveness by its entropy (i.e. its implicit uncertainty) I’m afraid. There was clearly a majority in favour of the proposal, but the poll’s decisiveness was just 11.50%, which is less than half-way towards unanimity. This means that the voting group was far more uncertain (88.50%) than certain (11.50%) that it was in favour of the proposal.
So contrary to its superficial appearance of a decisive vote in favour of the proposed organization, this result provides only weak scientific evidence of popular support for it in fact.
I have some experience in politics and lobbying, and I think it is a good idea to get organized. The only official entity, the NIPCC, is unfortunately and unfairly tainted by its connection to the Heartland Institute. It is therefore too easy for the CAGW community to dismiss the group as right wing radical so that those on the fence are un-swayed. Nevertheless, I think a group of skeptics could be a very effective political tool if it can be organized in a way that eliminates and prevents the connections that are too easily mocked and dismissed.
And it must stay as far above reproach as possible. It should not be a blog. Keep it civil, keep it focused on facts, keep the extremism out of the official discourse, go where the data leads. Find a board or steering committee made up primarily of credentialed physical scientists. Consider a primary mission of education and clearinghouse, as opposed to fact-checking or debunking “main stream” science and discourse. There is no way to win that debate. Such a group would be better served to simply ignore the noise of mainstream debate and focus instead on simply trying to gather, understand, and disseminate the best of the available science – on ALL SIDES.
Further, it needs a good name. Science, we all know, is driven by skepticism. But somehow skepticism has become a bad word. So, avoid the word. Just call it “Good Science.org” or something equally simple, non-confrontational, and generic. It should be non-partisan. It should not seek to grab the spotlight, but rather build a reputation as fair and honest over time. Direct, aggressive lobbying is only temporarily effective and the most aggressive groups run out of steam, and especially credibility very quickly.
Properly organized and led, it could be effective and useful. Zealots and wackos within the skeptic community, and there are many, should not have a seat at the table.
I’m with Anthony on this. There needs to be an effective skeptical organization that acts as an exchange between the various skeptical groups and also as an additional and powerful voice. Let’s do it.
Count me as a yes vote. In my mind the leaders begind the CAGW/Climate Change agenda are 100% political which is why the IPCC is an “intergovernmental” panel. The goal is to use propaganda disguised as science to get power. We must unite politically to stop a political agenda.
I agree.
I grow weary of special interests becoming eternal activists. Never adjusting dogma to evolve to new facts on the ground. Organizations pool money and power. Money and power corrupts the hearts of those involved when the end justifies the means.
It seems to be the condition of Man. We have struggled since the dawn of mankind. GK
If, as many did on the poll post and now did on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is phrased and expressed in military terminology, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now did on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is advocated for the purpose of any political objectives, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is described as an ‘anti-ideology’ campaign, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is envisioned as a ‘communicate skepticism’ mission, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is to be formed to publically demarcate what is science and what is pseudo-science, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is tasked to promote publically a ‘position’ on science, then I cannot participate.
If, as many did on the poll post and now do on this post, this idea of climate skeptic ‘organization’ is envisioned as any kind of ‘union’, then I cannot participate.
CONCLUSION: I have maintained and still do that this climate science dialog is best served by simple individual applied reasoning in the circumstances each individual finds themselves in.
NOTE: I voted no on the poll.
ON THE OTHER HAND: I would strongly participate in and provide a large amount of my time, resources and energy to support the formation of an Academe to further critical applied reasoning to the study of the Earth-Atmosphere System; which would be strictly a Philosophy of Science purposed collaboration.
John
I didn’t get in on the poll, but a climate realist organization is desperately needed. For the person who asked why GWPF doesn’t already provide what’s needed, I quote from their website what they say they are:
“◾The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.
◾On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism.
◾Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.”
It is essential to state and keep repeating the many reasons it is clear that under mild scrutiny (no phd. required) the claims of catastrophic human-caused climate change are utterly and transparently unfounded based on science and common sense. This must be done in common-sense terms ordinary people can understand, and repeated over and over where ordinary people will hear it. An organization is required and I would join it and donate to it. The economic consequences of the green assault are massive and un-survivable if not stopped.
I voted not sure, because I expect I’d often disagree whenever scientific arguments become less precise. I’d be looking for an organization mobilizing quality processes in science, a bit like TQMI perhaps, meeting a concern that such get diluted as the scientific community steadily grows, working with social theory of knowledge.
Sorry, but science will not be sufficient.
OK everyone – it’s time to stop telling Anthony to “Go do it” or similar. This is up to US to do together. Having said that:
Anthony, what do you need/want to get this moving? I don’t want to spell out my qualifications in a public forum, but I can offer a lot to this and am ready to jump in to get this moving.
Tom
@David Ball says: “As a person skeptical of the so-called “greenhouse effect”, I will be left to the wayside by such a group anyway.”
As you may be aware, to go against the prevailing “consensus” or “paradigm” will certainly get you into trouble with the Church of Scientism. Periodically I ask why there has never been a real-world experiment that would prove that “greenhouse” gases do what they are said to do, but I am usually just told that there is no need for any such experiment or that I should read “first year physics”.
To answer your question; no your kind would not be welcome and you know it.
I think what Chris is describing is something like a new professional Society or Association of scientists. Perhaps it could be called the Association of Earth Sciences, or something, aimed at restoring balance to the CAGW tilt evinced by the existing science associations, and encompassing scientists from a wide variety of disciplines. This is certainly a laudable goal, and I think we’d all love to see such an organization founded.
The ‘Terra Home’ organization a few of us discussed back in 2009 would be a different animal, a general-public membership organization set up like the Sierra Club, or maybe the National Space Society, with the broad goal of encouraging the Progress of Man, especially the rational exploitation of resources to bring the benefits of civilization to all the peoples of the Earth, while maintaining careful stewardship of the planet. See my comments above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comment-1621368
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/25/results-of-my-poll-on-forming-a-skeptic-organization-plus-some-commentary/#comment-1621397
There is no reason not to work toward the creation of both such organizations.
/Mr Lynn
1 Money?
2. Money!
3. Money……and fundraising.
4. and the ability to swing elections, which takes money.
5. Did I mention money?
6. It helps to be a religion, but do’t forget to pass the collection plate.
7. Useful idiot fellow travelers are also nice to have. The collect adulation (and provide money, or endorsements to raise same).
SO, even though many love the idea, it boils down to money.
I belong to several very narrow organizations. They tend to the moribund, generally supporting a cause, until there is a specific threat, in a case that appears winnable. Then the floodgates, or trickle valve, can be opened and the group becomes efective. Otherwise, its a newsletter and one overworked, underapid lobbyist. Seaplane Pilots organization is a good example.
What are you going to be “for”, that will focus on events to galvinize people to give money? Dead birds are motivators: birds flying in the sky are a nice nirmal state of affairs. “Acid Seas” is a headline grabber, while any high school science teacher will tell you that teaching ph & fluid solutions can put folks to sleep. Charges makes headlines; mea culpas appear on page 4, under the obits.
Specific, affirmative foci work: Your surface stations project is a great example. Photos of badlt sited thermometers were sufficient to motivate specific action to fix same.
But the audience here doesn’t have to stomach, I fear, to base a campaign on utube videos of birds being cusinarted by windmills, or of freezing Brit kids while the north sea windmills rot, or of African villages burning dung to cook while the coal trains don’t run. I don’t either.
I don’t generally have the energy of the haters to personalize and ridicule them.
To rally round the flag, we need a flag that stands for something to rally round. And, realistically, as we haven’t framed the argument, we won’t win being for the things the warming-na**s are against. We would be excoriated for that name even though ‘denier’ seems OK. “Go BIG OIL” doesn’t cut it.
Neither does Rah Rah common sense.
No matter how many PhD folks we pile up, if we can be portrated as screaming “don’t save the planet!” and money we raise (remember the money?) goes odwn a rat hole.
So I put it to you again: in ten words or less. What are we for?
You are probably aware of Friends of Science based out of Calgary, Alberta.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
They do an admirable job considering their small budget. Several learned members post here.
It’s been an uphill battle for FoS. The exec may have some insights about operations etc.
Think of it, outfits like the David Suzuki Foundation get millions in funding. Why not a unified voice of reason?
WARNING regarding funding. Eco foundations get mega bucks from BIG business interests. But the moment $5 comes from the “resource sector” the opposition will scream shills for “BIG OIL.” Just a thought.
Clive
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.
Yes, the key here is: “It’s become a social activity” … which I would only disagree with to the extent that it was always a social activity.
Skeptics are a very social community. Indeed, referring to the recent paper analysing the skeptic blogosphere, I can compare skeptics to a similar activity on political blogs I carreid out in Scotland. Whereas I think all skeptic blogs list a host of other blogs both for an against their position I was quite horrified to find that almost no political blogs in Scotland had any links to other blogs.
Skeptics are almost all highly articulate (if a bit erratic in spelling), and very good at putting their case. As such skeptics are quite capable of lobbying for themselves and don’t need an organisation to support them.
Indeed with Kyoto dead, the UK government now against onshore wind and public opinion turning to the hostile against wind, I’m not sure there is that much more we could achieve by more lobbying!
However, where skeptics have problems is that they are up against the hugely powerful establishment, large institutions like Universities, powerful & rich lobby groups like the greenspins. As individuals, skeptics have been constantly attacked by these large groups often in the most vile way with references like “tattooing them” or concentration camps or even extermination.
As individuals skeptics have been unable to defend themselves against these powerful groups and this has created a culture amongst the establishment permitting us to be denigrated, ignored and ostracised – not because our views were not entirely valid – because our views were never even considered, but because it was deemed legitimate given the culture of attacking skeptics to refuse to listen.
If Anthony’s organisation could achieve one thing it is this: next time I have a legitimate constituency issue and I go to see my elected representative, I would like them to see me as a person and not some vile “greenspin parody” of a hate figure who had no rights.
I don’t need them to agree with me … I just want them to treat me as a person … and then they will listen and then, given the facts are entirely on our side, they will agree.
Organize. The opposition is organized. It is not a matter of debate, but of politics and propaganda and that means that you have to organize if you wish to effect results. Spleen venting effects no cures and the POTUS is pushing a load of **** on the gullible public, utilizing all of the power of his office. The only efective resistance is through organization.
Stay with the empirical evidence, don’t go near any controversial theories. Leave that for the warmists so they can be shot down.
Have a core set of beliefs which ideally should be lukewarm.
Avoid a political stance, particularly that of the right.
Be open with funding and avoid big oil, coal etc.
Sympathise with moderate environmentalists, but go after the nutjobs.
Hound the opposition at every opportunity, but above all use science.
No time to read the comments. I read a book decades ago, written humorously, about the nature of organizations. If I weren’t out of town I’d provide the title, author, and quotes. But the gist was, organizations never end up doing what they were originally intended to do. They always take on a life of their own and evolve into marvelous machines of unpredictable function. They tend to become dogmatic, nepotistic, intolerant, and so on. Moreover there exist already a number of organizations which are competently taking on the task of debunking junk climatology, so far at least (in spite of said book). All we could do is add to the list.
How does one fight dangerous dogma and name calling? Primarily with facts. Secondarily with facts. Third, facts. Counter dogma and name calling are low on the list. Get educated and educate. Most believers have never heard of M&M. Those who have heard of S&B accept dogmatic assertions that their science was flawed. Most have heard of Lord Monckton, and for that reason he is demonized like no other. He’s out there doing the job that needs to be done and it behooves us to expose his detractors for the dupes they are.
WUWT is the most eclectic and widely read climate blog out here, and it’s doing a darn good job too without being evangelical, but many of us can’t keep up with it, and it’s only one of many. And it does a good job of keeping us apprised of what’s going on in the more specialized blogs. Lobbyists are supposed to be evangelical as far as their special interests are concerned. Professors are not. So what is the difference between an evangelist and an educator? The educator never hides the truth, is never afraid to explore new perspectives, is willing to present “inconvenient” facts, is beholden to none except those who write his paycheck, is beholden to no dogma and must adhere to no organizational stance.
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists did more than any other group or person to keep back good science (Continental Drift). Microsoft has done more than any outfit to keep back good computer operation (I’m writing this on Windows 8 as the cursor dances around the screen without my asking). If you want to become part of the problem, get organized and evangelical. Rather, get educated and keep educating. –AGF