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.
While the issue is political the battle is being fought on the scientific front. We don’t need another political organization. We need one to counter the propaganda continually published by the alarmists. We need it to have a scientific face. The face to the public must be PhD skeptics like Dr. Robert Brown or Dr. John Christy or Dr. Judith Curry (etc.). The rest of the skeptics can provide support roles, funding, and pretty much anything to help. I think there are journalists out there that will print the message if it has a strong scientific foundation.
Snappy acronym required I think. The following came to mind.
I.S.I.S (International Society for Independent Science)
A.S.I.S (Associated Society for Independent Science)
Not merely as a platform to fight the ‘Greens’ and their paymasters but ideally to provide crowdsourcing and an umbrella organisation for future independent research.
Scottsh Skeptic makes a lot of sense @ur momisugly 6:51 am above. Really, there are a lot of excellent comments here.
+++++++++++++++++++
John The Cube says:
How did envirofacism become so strong: organizations like Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, et al.
When the Berlin Wall came down, the KGB did not disband. It became the FSB. It had already infiltrated the large enviro groups, and now it has firm control. Leaders who put the environment as their top priority are gone. Now politics is #1.
Don’t listen to their words. Look at their actions: everything they do, and everything they propose, is directed toward their goal of hobbling America and the West.
====================
I think we have to fight fire with fire. Any new organization must begin with a ‘preemptive’ press release acknowledging that the backers of the carbon scare [my words] will instantly try to frame it as a “far right wing” anti-science organization, and demonize it per Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals. So as a lawyer would do in opening arguments, explain what the opposition is planning.
Any such organization needs several top tier climatologists on its board, like Prof R. Lindzen, and others, such as Prof Freeman Dyson and Dr. Judith Curry. This is where the rubber meets the road. They will all be personally demonized. But that is what we’re dealing with. Point it out at the beginning, and when they do it, say, “We told you they would do that.”
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. Or will there be provision for those of us who do not “fit in”?
Good point. And what if folks like Steve Mosher or Doug Cotton get on the board? The answer has to be a solid hypothesis as a mission statement. John Who suggests the Oregon Petition:
Let them try to falsify that.
We’re talking about forming an organization for political purposes. I need to know a lot more details before I’m signing up. What are we going to be doing, what’s our agenda? What are our tactics? Our goals? Our leadership?
I’m game to discuss further, but without details it’s hard to know what the heck we’re really talking about.
The problem with climate science is politicization. Sounder forms of politicization is not the answer. Einstein said in response the the Nazi “Consensus” against Jewish Science (i.e., relativity) that it only takes one scientist to prove somebody wrong. I would rather skeptics remain as independent sound thinkers. Besides there already are formal organizations for issuing statements not that anybody in media listens to anyway.
What we really need is well-organized gloating process once the warmist fantasy crashes and burns for good. A Guy Fawkes type holiday where we burn Hansen, Gore or Mann in effigy, perhaps? The problem with professional gloom forecasters is that they can count on amnesia and keep right on with the next excuse to constrict liberty and hate mankind. How else could a spectacularly wrong, utter buffoon like John Holdgren wind up as a White House science advisor?
So I think the emphasis should not be countering that which will die of its own stupid accord but to make sure that there is permanent public embarrassment attached to public advocacy of this crap. Given the damage these clowns did to science and what they wanted to do to the world political and economic order and the viciousness they directed at those who disagreed there needs to be a scarlet letter applied and a annual celebration of science freed from PC.
Let us, together, promote scientific truth, critical thinking and rational discussion about a politician generated fraud on the people of the world. Politicians in the US and EU hugely support only the CAGW view because it increases their power and fills their purses. Lets vote the rascals out everywhere.
There is truth to #Pointman’s statement on need for a central organization that lends weight to an argument, or at least shows that there is some relatively large number of people who adhere to its’ basic tenets. This extends to all the social alternate media sites.
I have noticed that on #Twitter, especially, many of the more well known ‘names’ will not follow the public which supports their positions. Whatever the reasons for this behavior are, it limits the spread of the message that it’s good for science to allow dissent, and that there are legitimate reasons to doubt #Consensus.
Scottish Sceptic says:
I think he meant social hobby.
What we need to do is take back the organizations that should have been skeptical from the get go: NASA, NOAA, APS, USGS, etc. etc.
For me, nutrition is a historical point of reference. The fear mongering about animal fat, with no scientific basis, started in the 1950s. Congress put its stamp of approval on that Lipid Hypothesis in the 1970s. There might have been a few skeptical protests, but these were quickly silenced. With three million ministers in the public school system, nutrition “scientists” in academics and government, “scientific” organizations like Diabetes and Heart, along with major media backing the Hypothesis, “healthy whole grain” and “unhealthy animal fat” became part of the popular lexicon. Anti-science would actually be a polite term in describing the USDA’s removal of the word “fat” from its recommended diet for the American people (see MyPlate).
The Human Carbon Dioxide Hypothesis (or whatever) uses the same ministers, scientific organizations and media for another round of fear mongering.
I do not know what to think of a skeptic organization taking on the responsibilities of the National Academy of Sciences. It might be best to stick with the present collection of web sites.
Government sponsored religions are tough to fight.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 25, 2014 at 7:08 am
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.
————————————————————
I could care less if people want to organize themselves but, skeptics have been effective without organization. Skeptics have a powerful voice without an organization. Their power and strength comes from science, not head count. The only purpose of an organization is political, as it is a political entity.
@David Ball
Rather than being “left out”, would a position that states something along the lines of:…
“the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere slows the escape of heat to space, without which our world at night would be as cold as the dark side of the moon. But empirical measurements used to calculate estimates of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases have demonstrated that additional GHG’s added to our atmosphere have a measurable, but generally small effect, and that effect is approaching maximum due to nearing saturation”.
…serve your interest?
when this happens you know something is changing,
German tv mocking green energy.
Organize, then disband. Most good ideas live on well past their usefulness. Noble statesmen lose all nobility the longer they stay in office. Movements keep moving way past their original purpose and become corrupt.
There are many good reasons to organize. Most of the ‘nay’ votes seem to be centered around the idea that time destroys all good organizations. The solution is to set a self-destruct for the organization. Specific goals, once achieved, will trigger the self destruct, and any new goals will require a reorganization with a different title and organizers. Or simply set a time limit: ‘The organization will disband on June 1st, 2024’, although that would give our enemies a helping hand in their strategies.
Will those in the organization that have gained power and achieved success be able to walk away? It seems to be a very difficult thing for people to do. Still, too much damage will be done to society by the warmists without an organized opposition. That is all ready happening.
So we should organize and set a goal of disbanding when success is achieved. That goal of disbanding may not happen, but it is a risk that is well worth taking.
Scottish Sceptic, in answer to my post (above), provides some “fact based” reasoning as to the potential benefits of a “climate skeptic organization”. Moreover, the answer provides some concrete “dollars and cents” considerations.
That’s the kind of discussion I was suggesting was needed regarding the utility of a “climate skeptic organization”. Not vague, not platitudes, not ideology. Rather, facts, figures, and logically valid/sound reasoning — along with a “straw man” yet concrete plan of organization and “attack”. Then, follow that with more concrete/logically sound debate comments similar to that of Scottish Sceptic. See where it leads.
If it’s going to happen, here is the place to start. Where do I sign up?
It is very hard to fight the Hockey Team, when they admit to exaggeration and justify it….
http://www.naturalnews.com/044856_global_warming_dishonest_science_climate_myths.html
We skeptics seem to have the momentum, based upon public opinion polls….I voted “no” and believe that organizing is not needed. CAGW grows less convincing the more shrill the other side gets….
One of the most quoted axioms from “The Art of War” is some variant on the theme: “When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, stay out of his way.”
I think it’s a terrible idea. First comes the organization, then comes the dogma, then comes the tribalism. “If you’re not 100% with us, you’re against us” type of nonsense.
Only need to look at the current Republican party (over the past 20 years) for how that can ruin a movement of people.
It’s better to kill the beast with 1,000,000 small paper cuts than one blunt mallet that is susceptible to fracturing.
The book I alluded to earlier: “Systemantics,” by John Gall. –AGF
The issue is that this is a political issue. The issue is not so much a debate about a scientific hypothesis or a series of them. The debate is about what measures are to be taken. When things are at that point, because what is at issue is political action, those who advocate policies have to act politically.
The sceptics differ greatly in their views of the science. But I suspect there is much more unity on what they think policy ought to be.
If you want to influence policy, get organised in a political grouping. So I would vote yes. You do need to keep this separate from the scientific debae, but it needs doing too.
@ur momisugly Joe Public says:
April 25, 2014 at 3:47 am
Being divided, increases susceptibility to being conquered.
—————————————————–
“Decentralized” does not equal “divided”. Otoh, “centralized” is ripe for infiltration and co-option (as others in this thread have noted).
Same for Pointman’s “There’s nicer ways of saying it but if want [sic] to be a force to be reckoned with, you have to get all ganged up.” Being “all ganged up” is why the US won in Vietnam and the Brits put down the American Revolution, and not being properly ganged up is why Gandhi lost India’s bid for independence, yes?
Getting “all ganged up” certainly looks attractive, but the “reasons” for doing so look more like rationalizations from where I sit.
But, by all means, go ahead and organize. By giving the alarmists a clear and obvious target, you can prolong this climate-policy conflict indefinitely! Honestly, what would you do with your time if they threw in the towel?
The thing that bothers me enormously is that less than 3,000 votes were cast. What a small group we seem to be.
I will continue to work to correct the bad science that labels carbon dioxide as a pollutant and claims it is a powerful greenhouse gas that is causing run-away global warming, and if an organization is formed I will join its efforts.
But, I fear such a small group will not have much impact.
“But empirical measurements used to calculate estimates of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases have demonstrated that additional GHG’s added to our atmosphere have a measurable, but generally small effect, and that effect is approaching maximum due to nearing saturation”.
that would be something if you could actually show that conclusively.
The biggest danger to setting out a skeptical “position” on the science is that you actually have to
do science.
and then you have to police folks who say crazy stuff.
A friend of mine once said: “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.”
All the comments on this topic, no matter what side they take, are worthy of due consideration. To add to what others have noted:
I trust Anthony Watts. His passion for truth and fairness in the cause of science and understanding is unmatched. I share, like many here, his wonder at all the fine layers of reality and marvel at their workings and construction.
I don’t think any entity of the type we are considering here means the end of WUWT. Nor is it the end of science. But don’t kid yourselves; science and truth are under attack from many quarters: a lazy media; a “scientific elite” whose prime interest is perks, grants and favors — not science; a political cabal interested in money, control and power, not necessarily in that order.
I observe (my opinion) that many on the Left will accept anything and/or anyone and/or any dogma that promotes in some way their views.
The difficulty that those on the other side of the political aisle have is… they have principles. Some adhere so tightly to those that they have difficulty associating with would-be allies over minor differences.
However, some things ARE black and white:
The country — the world — is spending billions or trillions it doesn’t have to fight a problem (“a trace gas will destroy the planet”) that doesn’t exist.
Taxes are going up as result. Living standards are going down.
In our increasingly-dependent world on electrical power, we are at the point of reducing the availability and dependability of that resource.
I see no harm in an organization of respected individuals from a broad spectrum of backgrounds [ that leaves most of us out. 🙂 ] making the case for science and sensibility to a brain-washed; dumbed-down; don’t care; in-it-for-me; the-people-be-damned factions.
People deserve the truth. That’s why we come here, in a search for that. If we seek it so earnestly; why then would we shy from promoting that which we value so highly?
Oh, it’ll be a bumpy ride alright. Buckle up!
Anthony, I must repeat what I wrote on the poll’s thread comments:
The side of the skeptics is all about independent thinking.
With all due respect, I find myself NOT agreeing with many things written here (well, not many, but for argument’s sake…). So, do I bow my independent view to the “representatives” of skepticism? I don’t think so.
This blog is the best argument against “settling down” to becoming some sort of political organization. What next? WUWT will be the opposing view’s 350.com?
And as for McKibben: his success has nothing to do with being powerful due to politics. It is rather due to him preaching to the choire. I do remind you the people in office now in the States are another form of that McKibbism.
Just look at Australia – I do not see Jo Nova going political there or establishing organization. Do you? And yet the tide has turned there decisively (with amazing outcome!).
Some time the sheer power of reason is enough.
I believe this is one of these times.