Guest essay by Matt Manos
Skepticism has had an amazing impact on climate science given its size and persecution. Yet it still languishes as a social pariah in the green room of society. To grow, skeptics need to find a group of people that can be influenced.
Skeptics have benefited greatly through their association with Conservatives. Unfortunately, skepticism among the Conservative population has been maximized. Future growth has to come from the political middle.
According to 2014 survey by Pew, 61% of Americans believe
“…there is solid evidence that Earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades.”
What’s amazing is that 35% are willing to admit that they don’t believe the Earth has been warming in the past few decades (the remaining 4% don’t take a position). That 35% has resisted more than a decade of bellwether pushing and government campaigns. Skeptics have been out-grouped and Othered by their friends and even family members. And yet they still don’t accept CAGW or possibly even AGW. These are some stubborn people.
Are most of the 35% scientifically literate? Have they researched AGW and come to a contrary conclusion? Many scientists have reluctantly followed a lonely path to skepticism. Others in the 35% have detected a disconnect between the rhetoric of climate change and the reality on the ground. When the sky doesn’t fall for years, skepticism grows all by itself. Still, a majority of the 35% are probably skeptical because of the culture war.
Conservative leaders rally support against climate change not because they’ve done a survey of the scientific literature but because they find the policy outcomes of climate change undesirable. The association is so strong that skepticism has become linked to the Conservative movement by the general public. This linkage drives away many moderate and independent minded people before a discussion about CAGW can ever occur.
I’m not suggesting Conservative leaders temper their views and I am not trying to blame them. What I’m suggesting is that the way to grow skepticism is to engage other segments of the political sphere. Libertarians in the US are a good example. They often partner with Conservatives on policy issues but not so much on climate change. Libertarians have Othered skeptics. One way to change that is through direct lobbying by skeptic experts. Not just with Libertarians but any civic group that will host a debate. Scientific, non-partisan, debate.
That is a good message for all skeptics to have. My first post on WUWT led to some interesting rabbit holes in the comments. When I wrote about rational ignorance, I didn’t expect discussions from Truthers and anti-vaxxers. I’m not trying to pick a fight with those groups. What I am humbling suggesting is that for CAGW to become accepted by moderates and independents, skeptics need to appear above reproach on all other controversial topics. Skeptics are being lumped into a guilt by association with groups that are even more out of the mainstream than they are. Skeptics need to become single issue communicators untarnished by other controversial topics.
Skeptics need to know what they stand for and what they don’t. Skeptics get painted as deniers and conspiracy theorists and changing that perception won’t happen overnight. But it won’t happen at all if it’s not communicated. What skeptics need is a strong spokesperson. Preferably a young, charismatic, non-partisan scientist to go on daytime TV, YouTube and TV news shows. This would be a true skeptic of CAGW who could point to their belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as a defense against being labelled a denier. The skeptic spokesperson would be trying to reach low information viewers. The types of viewers that are most prone to rational ignorance on climate change.
I’m not calling out Conservatives or the other groups I mentioned. I’m addressing the specific topic of how I think skepticism can grow. I don’t claim these are the only ways to grow skepticism or that they’re even original. It’s easy to see what needs to happen and a lot harder to get things done. Personally, I think skepticism could grow if skeptics could get the science presented to more people. The pause is amazing stuff. To effectively communicate the pause requires different skills then influencing the scientific debate. To grow, skepticism needs a playbook and a face.
IPCC’s AR4 unequivocally predicted steady warming at 0.2 deg C per decade if CO2 concentrations continued to increase – which they did.
It is clearly undisputable that the ‘science is settled’ predictions were wrong and that climate scientists don’t have a credible explanation for the failure of the models.
The above facts make it very simple to be skeptical about the CO2 tuning knob while agreeing that there will possibly (likely?) be a continuation of the gentle warming for unexplained reasons that has taken place since the Little Ice Age.
So call me a denier!
I agree. Here are the numbers:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
Denier.
As mentioned before when talking about climate change with those that believe in both AGW and CAGW, I always ask two questions. Theses two questions I’ve found stump most alarmists. Simply ask 1. If the climate has changed, what climate would you go back to? Secondly, if Global Warming has caused the change in climate, in order to return to the desired climate, how cold should that climate be.
Mainstream climate science has benefitted from skepticism. Period. The criticisms from climate skeptics have pushed climate science to improve models and address inconsistencies. You have demanded some accountability. Do not expect any gratitude for this, but be content that your efforts are valuable.
It’s nothing to do with PR, but it’s all to do with telling the truth.
I am not a sceptic – scepticism gives the impression of people who bestow some credence to the original premise – of man made emissions of CO² will [is] cause runaway warming.
Whereas, realists just tell the truth.
And if the public can’t get on board with the science and true correlation: rising CO² is as a consequence of global Temperature increase in a gentle background warming – ie it [up or down CO²] lags warming/cooling.
Furthermore and despite what Obama and Penn State climatology dept may say, mankind will never be able to detect a signal identifying any human fingerprint among the ‘noise’ of said background warming – period………………..
The public must apprise themselves of the facts and if they cannot, then, that’s their [Jo and Joanna Public’s] problem sonny – not mine.
However long it takes though, Jo and Joanna will come round to seeing the truth, trouble is by then, the political cowboys with their corporate pardners with the loot will have long skedaddled to the hills with the rest of the scientist alarmist varmints. Though, dead or alive – it will be some mighty posse.
Follow the data:
It will mean that you will have idealogical problems within the following groups:
1. Modern liberals.
2. Modern conservatives.
3. Sports fans.
4. Religious people.
5. CAGW believers.
6. Environmentalists.
7. Programmers.
8. UFO searchers.
9. Creationists.
The data show that all of the above are wrong in several core beliefs. When the core beliefs are attacked via logic and data – the attacked individual predicatably becomes defensive.
I have lost friends and family in logical debate of each of the above.
Best movie quote ever:
“You can either be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant.”
–Elwood P. Dowd [‘Harvey’ -1950]
“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”
Most people haven’t the interest and/or the intellect to understand the issue. Here’s a simple, verbal judo technique that I have found effective. It’s a little crass but it works.
When the drought in the southwest comes up I just say, “Too much carbon.”
Floods in the southwest; “Too much carbon.”
Hurricane; “Too much carbon.”
Tornado; “Too much carbon.”
Windy day; “Lot’s of carbon blowing around out there.”
Colder than usual; “Carbon.”
Warmer than usual; “Carbon.”
I’ve been known to say the weather is “Carbony.”
Sooner or later someone asks why I keep blaming the weather on carbon.
And isn’t that the real question?
It’s not going to change through mainstream channels as those channels themselves are part of the propoganda. The sad fact is there is a conspiracy out there so not pointing out how that conspiracy is linked to the CAGW rhetoric, frankly does people a great disservice.
All we can do is keep chipping away person to person. It managed to open my eyes and I am a long long way from a Conservstive.
The way to influence people is with facts. What would be v. useful would be a a listing of summarized facts and actual data for all the major climate questions along with with cited sources. Subjects could include: The relatively v. small warming of 0.8 deg.C since 1850 (most people think there has actually been substantial warming.) the 18 yr.”pause” while co2 goes up 105, climate model failures vs actual temps, co2 sensitivity and latest estimates, the high costs of “green” power and its serious problems in Euro countries, the advantage of low cost fossil fuel power in bringing poor countries out of poverty, the salutory effects of co2 on plant growth including food crops, the deconstruction of the 97% faery story, the failure to relate catastrophic weather events to “climate change’, the true Arctic and Antarctic sea ice data, true sea level rise , temperature data fiddling to create ‘warming, . some data on the actual numbers of scientists and engineers who are “skeptics”, the vast amounts the government spends to support their warmist political policies, etc..
This would provide an invaluable tool for skeptics to whip out and answer critics as well as to use for helping to educate reporters, editors, politicians, etc.. Perhaps one or more of the talented and knowledgeable WUWT people and/or its contributors could perform this feat.
Facts have been there.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
All right, I’ve actually lost track of how many times you’ve comment bombed someone with this thing, and the really sad part is I STILL don’t know what your trying to prove with it. You might want to try adding a little more description of your point.
Srsly, I can’t even till if your trying to make a skeptic argument or an alarmist one.
schitzree
The graph shows two things over the same time period. The blue line is a plot of global average temperature with a scale on the left. The red is the CO2 levels with the scale on the right. CO2 has gone up steadily for some 50 years. No acceleration due to increased industrialization, just steady rise despite what humans have been doing, which points to something other than human activity controlling the CO2 levels. At the same time, global temperature has gone through 3 distincts trends (note the grey line showing the phases). The temperature seems to move quite independently of CO2 levels which has a steady slope.
The total disconnect between CO2 levels and human activity, and no relationship between constantly rising CO2 levels and alternating rising/falling temperatures mean the fundamental assumption that underlies the global warming theory is not supported by facts.
Engage the labor unions. For three quarters of a century the Democratic Party has held a lock on labor union support. Funny to see that change in the last election, and for the very first time, among the miner’s unions of West Virginia. That’s a harbinger of things to come. Ah, but the unions have shrunken over the last couple decades? If the economy continues to remain moribund that may very well change. Those student loan burdened, and un or underemployed recently graduated college students are going to start to get restless.
This climate change nonsense truly is a classic case of a program for the big man to kick down the little one. Just look at it. Obscene tax credits going to show offs wealthy enough to afford $75,000-$90,000 electric automobiles. Tax credits for big bucks efficiency enhancements for one’s designer Eco mansion. Multi-billionaire Maurice Strong disparaging the affluent middle class. (And he was talking about mere single family homeowners; many of whom are now being foreclosed on: I’m seeing, just this week, a new wave of unmowed lawns and vacant homes in my neighborhood.)
This climate change crap is what people have attempted since they got up off of all fours and began to walk on two. It’s a classic case of people at the top doing what they can to solidify their position and restrict entrance into their exclusive club by ensuring that those at the bottom and on the lower rungs stay there. That’s really the message people need to hear. That’s the one they’ll listen to.
USW strongly backs the climate scare. It takes plenty of steel infrastructure for renewable energy projects.
Climate change chasing manufacturing jobs to other countries is one big union buster. What will be left of the UAW? Or other unions!
From the OP article:
“This would be a true skeptic of CAGW who could point to their belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as a defense against being labelled a denier. The skeptic spokesperson would be trying to reach low information viewers. The types of viewers that are most prone to rational ignorance on climate change.”
…Good luck with that…
First: the use of the word ‘belief’ is contrary to the scientific understanding of testable, repeatable, and falsifiable material cause and effect relationships.
Second: Low information people just don’t care. There’s a reason why they are low information people.
Third: Rational ignorance is the normal operational mode for most people on most topics most of the time.
Lastly: In order to make a difference, the general public must be seriously injured by CAGW policies. In America, that usually means money. If a carbon tax is listed directly as a ‘carbon tax’ field on 2018’s 1040 form — I can bet that a very large proportion of Americans will suddenly see the data and its meaning.
I suppose the best way to influence people is direct them to PR studies that back up your arguments. Like this Calvo et al study of Holocene temps from SE Australia.
http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/dedeckker_p/pubs/12.pdf
The team found that temps were much higher than today for thousands of years and this was supported by other studies of the Holocene temps from central Oz as well.
I appreciate that this essay is written in good spirit, but I wonder if the author really understands skeptics. The reason there is a strong association of skeptics with conservatism is that the left has made an alarmist opinion on this scientific issue into a doctrine of their political ideology. Therefore, no leftist skeptics; therefore, statistically, a strong correlation exists with conservatism. But there are enough alarmist conservatives to demonstrate that the correlation is not within conservatism, but due to the anti-correlation outside of it.
Even within conservatism, there is a strong push to conform. Our Australian Prime Minister knows full well that CAGW is baloney (he said so long ago, before the focus of high office fell upon him), yet he puts up placating policies like his “planting trees” finance, with remarks like (from memory, not a direct quote): “Well, whatever you think, you can’t object to some more trees.”
In my own case, it was a scientific investigation, pure and simple, that convinced me: the alarm comes, not from the CO2, but from the amplification of its effects to dangerous levels by extra water vapour. Yet we find the predicted water-caused hotspot is missing, there is less upper-troposphere water instead of more, and more radiation into space instead of less. The theory is disproved as clearly as any theory possibly can be. The total hostility of the left to this simple and obvious truth has been one reason (though not the only one) why I have had more sympathy for political conservatism over the past several years. I hope Matt Manos can see that (in my case at least, but I suspect a great many others) he has the arrow of causation the wrong way round.
– from the real Ron House, not the deranged loon who forged my name to some hate-filled garbage recently.
Ron, this is the usual one sided argument that loses the battle. I am a “leftist” skeptic. If you want to be persuasive drop the dogmatism. Conservatives hold many opinions or beliefs that liberals find either looney, or abhorrent or both. Attaching conservative beliefs or value comments to skeptic arguments turns off the target audience before you get to square one. Yes the AGW argument has become politicized, but face the fact that it is just as compulsory for conservatives to be skeptics as for liberals to be warmists. It just happens that even the conservatives who don’t know what they are talking about are lucky to be right on this one. Contributors to discussions on this blog frequently make comments that AGW is a pretext for the UN to effect global government. Idiotic arguments like that ensure that your perfectly valid skeptic arguments will be rejected without consideration. If you want to persuade believers, keep the aspersions and the politics out of the discussion.
THIS IS AN IDENTITY THIEF. NOT THE REAL RON HOUSE.
Murrayv, your comment “it is just as compulsory for conservatives to be skeptics as for liberals to be warmists” is simply false. Counterevidence can be found trivially, on a daily basis. A week ago the Australian Liberal (conservative) environment minister on a conservative tv show (The Bolt Report) simply couldn’t be prodded by Bolt to denounce or even to doubt catastropharianism. It is common knowledge that about half of Liberal members are warmists, including senior cabinet member Malcolm Turnbull, reputed to earn many millions from environmental businesses.
My comment is a simple observation: statistically, an anti-correlation outside a set will positively correlate the members of the set compared to the entire population. Your comment seems to be a combination of not understanding that simple statistical fact, combined with a farcically counterfactual belief about the real world (that conservatives are just as ideologically bound to this issue as leftists).
And yes, in a world of 6 billion people, all general statements are false, so hello there, one of exceedingly few leftist skeptics, you! But insofar as all general statements are intended by the nature of existence to be only approximate, I submit: leftists are bound by ideology to be alarmists. Challenge: name one solitary Australian Labor or Green federal politician who is a skeptic. (As for the obvious counterchallenge, I have just shown you two.)
Another very leftist skeptic here. My only other post about this on this precise subject and it’s something I feel quite strong about.
There are many of us, scientists and otherwise (I studied astronomy at university, for what it’s worth), who hold political and economic opinions which for whatever reason, most of the people on this site disagree with.
Due to this political polarisation, we (CAGW skeptics on the political “left”) are almost completely isolated. I have had some quite vicious arguments whenever I have tried to raise the issue within my social circle before, to the point where I haven’t bothered for years and can’t see myself doing so again at any point in the near future out of the genuine fear of losing close friends.
My issue is simply with the abuse of science. The collossal waste of money, wholesale abuse of the media, hiding of data, etc is completely wrong and goes against everything the Scientific Method stands for.
The fact that “climate skepticism” is commonly held to be the preserve exclusively of Conservatives and religious lunatics does nobody any good at all in the search for truth. If it’s eventually exposed and everything “comes out”, there will still be many people who will still harbour irrational resentment purely because they will feel they have been the victim of a “right wing conspiracy”.
This has no need to get political. It’s about science. I’m comfortable with the fact that I vehemently disagree with much of the rest of what you guys talk about. It’s fine. 😉
I have collaborated on other single-issue causes before with people with whom I would otherwise have very little in common, and our success was partly down to that precise strength – that we could convince everybody.
“to the point where I haven’t bothered for years and can’t see myself doing so again at any point in the near future out of the genuine fear of losing close friends.”
Why is that the case? If friends are worth having, they should be able to accept that people have different opinions, and that it is defending those opinions that constitutes democracy. I am afraid you are witnessing the demise of the very heart of Western Civilisation.
[snip -unsubstantiated rant -mod]
Telling alarmists the facts is the only way. There is a huge hint pictured to the right of this posting. It’s a book called Climate Change The Facts. I have it and it is an easy read. Because so many authors are included, the writing style changes from chapter to chapter as does the approach to stating facts. If you know somebody who is so scientifically illiterate that he or she still believes the alarmism and if he or she can read, buy them a copy, send them to the library or lend them your own copy. It is full of Facts.
Actually, no, that hasn’t been my experience. Demanding that warmists hand over their net worth at some future time in the event they are mistaken causes them to go slack jawed. Educated, engaged, and responsible, people are much better at cognitive thoughts. I’d suggest 2 books by Dr. Thomas Sowell: “The Quest for Cosmic Justice” and “The Vision of the Anointed: Self Congratulation as a Basis of Social Policy”.
Preface to my comment: I thank the lead post’s author, Matt Manos, for stimulating an important discussion.
The lead post ‘How Climate Skeptics Can Win Friends And Influence People’ by Matt Manos begs the question on persuasion from skepticism.
It incorrectly presumes skepticism, per se, is a position on any climate issue that needs selling and does not address that skepticism is only a process. It proceeds from there to present how to sell a proper position considered by the post’s author as being validly skeptical. Then it concludes that more selling is indeed needed for a position it judges as being validly skeptical.
Skepticism is a process. The outcome of the process in not necessarily a scientifically valid position, however, the process outcome is more likely to be scientifically critical of most climate research being favorably utilized / emphasized by various gov’t institutes, NGOs and scientifically focused organizations.
The author should being selling process not position wrt skepticism.
John
influence? the game is fixed and the outcome predetermined – the only influence you have is the money you keep sending these guys to keep doing what you keep fretting over.
you’ll find out just how much you can petition your predator with precious punditry, prayer or votes or burning jah sticks in the temple when you are lying on the dining table about to be served.
it’s all about serving man.
it’s your fault. if you wanted it to stop, you’d make it stop.
There is really only one number that matters, and that number is “one”.
Who honestly will admit to agreement with the claim that “warming” (or “climate change”, either) is the tippy top a-level singular number ONE priority for every nation, corporation, religion, charity and individual to come together, as ONE, to sacrifice choice and resources towards?
Would you put your church, and donations to outreach missions, ahead of paying more tax to mitigate warming? If so, you must be a skeptic.
Would you want other nations to demonstrate the success of a carbon dioxide emissions tax, or a carbon dioxide commodity trading market, or some other emission scheme, before you would support a similar program in your own nation? If so, you must be a skeptic.
Would you demand that your employer and company be entitled to “fair play” and a “level playing field” for energy procurement and sourcing, without undue taxes or subsidy by governments? If so, you must a skeptic.
Belief in “warming” is not about how many degrees of Celcius or tons of carbon dioxide gas or dollars of expense. These aren’t the numbers we’re looking for.
There are those who would say, (whatever they privately believe, or do, or spend their own money upon) that reforming the international processes of “business as usual” to repair the damage done and the risks impending is the greatest, highest, biggest, and FIRST priority of all. It is more important than guarding the coasts, deterring nuclear war, insuring personal health, ensuring just courts and humane prisons, writing truthful journalism, or respecting the integrity of science as an institution.
If you disagree, if you would put fixing warming at priority two, or lower, you must be a skeptic.
Climategate did more for skepticism because it didn’t involve trying to convince anyone what side of the issue you were on, but exposed an ‘echo chamber’ of near conspiratorial behavior in regards to manipulation and censorship of scientific data.
To continue to expose this cesspool of rhetoric, we only grow in numbers from data that CONTRADICTS their echo chamber and the so-called data that’s produced to convince others of this belief of man-made global warming.
In some respects, you could say that Climatology has become more like politics. The topic is polarizing and leaves little room to convince anyone of anything. Yet just like politics, what people want is someone who has the balls to stand up against the establishment. Americans elected Obama not because he had balls, but because his opponent had none.Mccain and/or Romney had the opportunity to show some, but in the end, PAC’S strangled them.
To fall into this trap of mirroring the behavior of your opponent, is suicide. Scientific suicide.
Our strength as a CAGW sceptic lies in our unfettered approach to science. We are not limited or controlled by the established powers. That established power is NASA. Our second most powerful strength is using that established powers data against them.
We must remain mavericks. We must continue to expose their echo chamber of idiocy.
We have already proven that with Climategate.
We must continue to expose them of their false predictions.
Let MSM continue to call us denialists and proclaim every weather event as evidence of CAGW, because it will be their undoing.
I didn’t become skeptical because I was in need of ‘convincing’, but because men like you Anthony were mavericks willing to expose the establishment.
Don’t forget that.
Actually, as a person outside of the world of scientists, I found ClimateGate to be completely unconvincing. I remember how disappointed I was when I read extensively on it and thought, “What is the big deal?”
No…ClimateGate isn’t a good way to try to convince the layman. It requires you to be plugged in to the world of the scientist and its rules and standards.
I wish this were not true. but I believe it is.
Unfortunately, a great amount of actual technical and scientific understanding is required to form even a partially reasoned view of the CAGW issue. It’s nearly impossible to grasp what a given graph, chart, data point means unless you’ve done the analysis work yourself. And that’s why most lay people just toss the problem over the fence…
Well… I suppose the next question is:
As a lay person, what specific events led you to your CAGW Skeptical view?
unknown502756 – In answer to your question about what convinced me…no clue. It was so long ago. My earliest memory was in the winter of 1990 when the east was submerged in a record cold snap there were commercials on the radio that went like this…”Have you noticed? It’s getting warmer.”
As my project team on a printing plant I was building was scouring the country for propane to fuel our temporary heat I couldn’t help laugh at the incompetence of the timing on the ads.
Since then, I have just watched it. Not until I found WUWT did I feel like I had a source that discussed the science. As I said before, the hard science of the model projections way over-running the actual temperatures was the clincher. It was then that I realized that the models are the only proof and they are just plain wrong.
Since then I have come to understand how weak the science is. I could give many examples.
So far no data points have fallen outside the range of known natural variability. AGW is a theory with no real world foundation.
Mr. Manos – you wrote –
“I didn’t expect discussions from Truthers and anti-vaxxers. I’m not trying to pick a fight with those groups.”
You just did though, I mean pick a fight with those people, because you have described their honestly hel beliefs in contempt, by describing them in disparaging terms. This is why folks like you will never “Win Friends and Influence People”, at least not those people whom you profess to acknowledge, yet in the sam breath dismiss as “Truthers and anti-vaxxers”.
Why not go the whole hog, and ask for support from “Doomsday Preppers”, and “Birthers” as well ?
Your whole article is based on some false premise, that it is only “Conservatives” who are “Skeptics” and yet it is EVERY genuine Scientist’s ethos to be skeptical about all claims, unless they can be backed up by repeatable empirical experiment. Such ethos is not restricted by a person’s political allegiance, though you appear to think so. Every person is a “scientist” who holds this ethos, whether or not they have some paper certificate to say so.
Regrettably, you will not succeed in your aims, Mr. Manos, until you see ALL people equitably.
Why is Obama arming local police with tanks, M-16s, Red-Eye Antiaircraft missiles and others? What is the objective of local police fielding howitzers and anthrax bio mutinous against the local populous across the USA? After all Obama only has 19 months left in office.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-mann/president-obama-no-cars-i_b_7472886.html
The last time I checked the Pope of the Church of Rome believes things that are not too far different from you. Apparently, he is not a skeptic of CAGW philosophy.
Unfortunately, and perhaps too judgmentally, I think your post demonstrates precisely the problem of conservatives simply ‘checking the box’ – so to speak – with CAGW.
CAGW is not a conservative ‘value’ it’s a science term to be proved or disproved by evidence based reasoning. If your evangelical Christianity leads you to climate skepticism — that’s fine — but what if your Church begins pointing its believers the other way?? Which will you follow? Will you follow the evidence or the Church?
BTW – From the current data: CAGW seems fully debunked.
> It may come as a surprise to you, but I do think for myself too. My Ph.D. in electrical engineering
It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that people who think for themselves would be led to doubt the severity of the CAGW problem and various other climate change claims.
It does come as a surprise to me that a belief in a specific religion would present you with evidence based reasoning that would lead you to doubt CAGW.
And with your new well written and well reasoned post, it’s clear that your engineering background and your abilities in scientific analysis has led you to your proclaimed position as a CAGW skeptic.
I don’t mean offend… but I probably will…
Religion will not lead you down the path of free inquiry which is required to fully accept the evidence based reasoning behind the analysis of the climate data.
You could argue that ‘god’ gave you the powers of reasoning… but then again didn’t ‘god’ give everyone powers of reasoning? Don’t fool yourself, it’s not ‘god’ nor your religion leading your skepticism. Religion requires a non-skeptical mind.
I’m an EE as well. RF Engineering. But it’s mostly IT work now.
Here’s an idea that I’ve been mulling over for months: A series of short (five- to ten-minute) weekly “climate-change counterpunches” on Fox (say), each critiquing some common claim of warmism. Many warmist quotes asserting each claim, ideally from bigshots, would be presented at the outset. The series would avoid tackling the whole subject, or even large segments of it. Instead, it would “pick its spots” and take potshots at the weakest parts of the warmists’ case.
Only subsets of major topics would be treated, where warmists have blundered. For instance:
Coral bleaching would be dealt with by critiquing specific mistaken claims.
Similarly with glaciers–the case of Kilimanjaro would be featured.
Ditto with:
Polar bears
Butterfly migration
Frog extinctions
Spain as a failed poster-child (failed claims vs results) for renewables
Temperature predictions
Other failed predictions (hurricanes, rainfall, snowfall, humidity, etc.)
Spread of disease
asthma
climate refugees
Himalayan glaciers
lifetime of renewables
output of renewables (nameplate vs. actual)
environmental impact of renewables
cost of renewables (purported vs. hidden)
funding of skeptics
funding of alarmists
salaries of alarmists
other income of alarmists
“false balance” in the media?
motivated reasoning?
beetles
wildfires
droughts
benefits of CO2
predictions of rising oil prices
“warmest-decade” argument
flooded islands
more hurricanes
more tornados
more disaster deaths
more disaster damage
Etc., etc.
This approach aims to diminish our opponents’ credibility by piling up instance after instance of their corner-cutting, half-truths, evasions, data-diddling, arrogance, bad predictions, etc. This will lead to a desirable outcome: the audience will react to future warmist propaganda with dubiousness and reserve (“yeah, maybe”) rather than unthinking acceptance. This is the ultimate Win. Or anyway, it is the only Achievable Win, in a mass media environment, with a mass audience.
There needn’t be one presenter, and they needn’t be professionals. Some skeptical scientists with good presentation skills could tackle topics on which they are experts. But professional media people like Stossel would be good too–although that would add to the cost. Maybe that popular presenter for the BBC who was fired for his skepticism (David Bellamy?) would be willing to do the job for an affordable fee.
These videos would be archived and comments would be allowed under each. (Strong moderation would be desirable, to edit out parts of comments that are off-topic or too heated–and perhaps to include moderator-comments on exceptionally illogical or ill-informed statements. A “borehole” would be a good feature too.)
Some videos already up on YouTube and elsewhere might be incorporated, in whole or in part, or rewritten and re-shot, as part of this series.
Video script-creation might be largely a grass-roots effort, which would cut the cost. E.g., some organization (OAS?) would put out an online list of CACA claims to be countered, with a thread for each, to which members of the contrarian community would post scripts, partial scripts, and graphics. The community, with possible editorial assistance from the organization, would then critique submissions and mash the best parts of these together into something concise and coherent. Lots of time would be allowed for chewing things over, and for having scripts reviewed and re-reviewed by a panel of experts, to eliminate errors and overstatements, to anticipate and forestall objections (very important), to smooth out rough spots, etc.
The great thing is that wonderful text for these scripts already exists in skeptical books and blogs. It need only be “mined.” (I’ve got 15,000 Word pages of quotes I’ve copied from WUWT and other sources, sorted into about 200 categories and sub-categories. Other people probably have larger collections.)
If video-creation is done in public, there could/should be a parallel thread where warmists could critique “our” thread as it is being put together. Most of their input would be silly, but the parts that aren’t would be very helpful–they would illustrate where our script is liable to misinterpretation (and needs clarification or bolstering), and where it is in error. Warmists are much more likely to spot these errors or overstatements than we are. It is vital to our credibility not to be “caught out.”
We would need to have at least a dozen videos “in the can,” and a dozen more scripts fully developed, before approaching a network like Fox. (Say–if the series is successful, Fox might fund the development of future episodes.)
This series could lead to a second video series, in which one or more warmists would rebut a particular counterpunch, and then someone from our side would rebut the rebuttal, etc. In effect, the counterpunch series would be a way to lure warmists into debating the topic. Eventually, high-level scientific debates might occur, on a par with the stuff on the Climate Dialogue site. These wouldn’t likely be broadcast, being too arcane for the general public, but they could be archived under the original Counterpunch video, where everyone interested in the topic could access them.
I’ve written this online off the top of my head. I hope Anthony likes it and elevates it to a thread–where the idea can be fleshed out (and/or shredded!).
AFTERTHOUGHTS:
OTHER VIDEO TOPICS:
Specific examples of temperature fudging
USCHN network vs. USCRN
Consensus mistakes in the past (e.g., diet)
97% of doctors’ fallacy (non-experts can judge experts by their track record)
The focus should be on finding indefensible prominent warmist claims and mangling them. The newsletters of greenie foundations would be a good source.
The average viewer has absorbed scores of beliefs about the climate-change debate. What we want to do is disabuse them of those that can easily be disabused, making him more open to the possibility that the rest of his pro-warmist beliefs are wrong too. We don’t want to get bogged down debating points where warmists can easily muddy the waters with half-baked, superficially convincing responses.
We should sometimes (depending on topic and person) let our targets preview our videos and offer rebuttals, which we could in turn rebut as part of the video. (Occasionally their rebuttal would be correct, which would spare us the embarrassment of making a public flub.) Perhaps targets should be offered the opportunity to be interviewed and defend their claims.
To avoid making Fox feel it would need to host a warmist series for balance, their side could set up a similar series on CNN or MSNBC where they attack our side’s flubs and over-statements. Then both sides could set up another seires consisting of rebuttals to episodes in the first series. Etc.
You asked.
Incorrect assumption.
Skepticism is unwelcome at gatherings of extremists only. At all other discussions when the subject turns to the science behind CAGW, the alarmists lose, catastrophically.
Skepticism has grown steadily every year since CAGW alarmism began and is rapidly gaining momentum.
Improper assumption and generalizations.
Alarmists have repeatedly linked skepticism with conservatives from the beginning of CAGW. Many skeptics are not conservatives by any stretch of imagination
Incorrect assumptions.
A) Pew is not a reliable source. Pew has been deep into the eco-nonsense movements for decades.
B) Surprisingly, most people do not need alarmists to tell them that temperatures are more moderate the last few decades. Not surprising, is how many are noticing that seasons are getting colder now.
A) Not a clue what is meant by ‘othered’.
B) Bad assumptions.
C) Absurd notions about stubborn people. Keep to science!
An insult under the guise of a question.
Incorrect assumption.
You need to read WUWT historical files.
Absurd and incorrect assumption!
“…Conservative leaders rally support against climate change not because they’ve done a survey of the scientific literature but because they find the policy outcomes of climate change undesirable…”
Incorrect assumptions.
Conservative leaders did engage in discussion with experts. All they needed to see what a long term temperature graph to be convinced.
Policy is what conservative leaders do!
“…The association is so strong that skepticism has become linked to the Conservative movement by the general public…”
Thanks to the ongoing insistence that only conservatives are skeptics.
Again, absurd assumptions.
ATheoK on May 31, 2015 at 7:28 pm
– – – – – – –
ATheoK,
Razor sharp.
John
My apologies. I missed a closing slash blockquote at the end of this sentence.
“…The association is so strong that skepticism has become linked to the Conservative movement by the general public…”