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.
deanfromohio,
You said; ” Here’s my two cents: when people reject Truth with a capital T (that God exists and as my creator has a claim on my life), they are easy prey for any lie, sine such a world via so at odds with reality of creation and human nature leads to putting other things in God’s place, such as Money, Government, the Earth, Sex, Equality and a host of other cheap substitutes.”
I can’t imagine who put a value of two cents on that garbled, ungrammatical nonsense, but I’d advise you to take the money and run!
Your comment speaks more of your hatred of GOD then it does to anything wrong with the comment your were replying to.
“skeptics need to appear above reproach on all other controversial topics”. I’m not saying you’re wrong, or that you have double standards, but I’m p’d off with the double standards. A CAGWer can say anything they like about anything and remain untouched. A rationalist can’t move without being attacked on issues unconnected to climate. The venom with which I have repeatedly been told that I have no right to speak is mindboggling. Some of the most absurd came when I was involved in arranging for two climate scientists with different views to appear on the same stage. But I have noticed a change. I am finding many people are now prepared to voice agreement, or express their own anti-CAGW take. I really do think the tide has turned. Some will never listen, but many people are listening, we just need to maintain the message and know who we are talking to.
I’ve found it hopeless. Any link at all to this site is quickly dismissed. I have had people claim CSIRO (concerning sea ice) must be a denier website and that NOAA data (concerning historic tornado activity) must be presented wrong or misleadingly in the charts I provide.
It’s bad enough to tell someone their ideology is wrong. When you actually present evidence to show them they’re wrong…well, then they really go ballistic.
I disagree that moderates and independents need to be brought into skepticism of (C)AGW. Most skeptics I know are both moderates and independents. So am I. Few, very, very few are conservatives.
It would be more appropriate to say that progressives need to be brought into skepticism of (C)AGW. However, progressives are neither moderate nor independent and, consequently, the chances that they will listen to reason or evidence are as small as conservatives doing the same. They will talk as scripted by their overlords out of fear of ostracism.
We are going through a period of pseudo-ideological violence and people are afraid to speak up. Thankfully, suffrage laws ensure that the right to vote is carried out by means of a secret ballot. As the population continues witnessing alternation of governance, fear of green-mongers gradually lessens.
It is hard to beat something with nothing. Skeptics spend a lot of time discussing the IPCC methods and showing that the GCM projections on which the whole UNFCCC juggernaut depends are wrong or inadequate. For several years I have been trying to persuade readers to abandon the meaningless reductionist model approach entirely and move to a discussion of forecasts based on the natural periodicities ,especially the 60 year and quasi-millennial cycles so obvious in the temperature data and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful measure of solar “activity”. For a discussion of this approach and forecasts of the amplitude and timing of the coming cooling see:
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Here is Freeman Dyson’s comment on this blog-post.
“E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,
Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.
Email 4/9/15
Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
> Best Regards Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
for asking. Yours, Freeman Dyson.”
Readers who think that this natural cycle approach has merit might like to spread the word by posting a link to this comment on twitter.
I wish I had your optimism Dr, Page.
I do have a question though. You mention that you want readers to ” abandon the meaningless reductionist model approach” and have them discuss a theory you’ve written.
Im at a loss here.
Do you mean skeptics here should:
A) quit challenging/debunking the GCM’s of the warmistas
or
B) challenge other scientists that read this post to abandon a particular systems theory model for your emergence model?
Its difficult to tell, because you start off writing that we spend too much time pointing out the flaws of GCM’s, and then your verbiage seems to redirect in discussing solar drivers, etc.
It has been my understanding that a part of the scientific method is falsifying a hypothesis to determine its validity. And considering that the warmistas have but all debunked solar drivers from the effects of Climate Change, I don’t see how we can further the science until we can falsify their method or replicate empirical data with a systems theory, or both.
I do not know if the latter is possible while the empirical data is in the hands of those that wish to manipulate it, And how do we choose which data to use. Surface station records? Altimetry records? And which versions and from which time?
When I start to think about the condition of historical data. I wonder if it’s possible to determine if any of it is actual anymore. I guess we got Phil Jones to thank for that one.
Unless you can replicate historical records using your emergent theory, I am afraid the only way to actually be effective in making the makers of CAGW ineffective is to destroy them from within.
ClimateForAll . Challenging the GCMs is like discussing details of the Emperors non existent clothes when it is clear beyond doubt that they do not exist.
I do not have to replicate the historical records via some complicated theory because the basis of my approach is to use the actual historical records themselves- see the periodicities and project them forward in a transparent and rational way.
Climate forecasting is not terribly complex – the key question is very simple – where are we with regard to the millennial cycle. The data from the Oulu neutron count can very reasonably be interpreted as showing a solar activity peak in 1991 see Fig 14 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
There is plenty of room for discussing the various lag times in the various climate metrics in different regions before this peak appears in the climate response.
The RSS data suggests a 12 year lag between the driver peak and the Millennial Global Temperature Peak in 2003.
See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
I suggest that instead of Earth Day skeptics should have an annual global 4th July Celebration of Peak Millennial Heat Day ( actually about 4pm.) This July 4th would mark the 12th anniversary.
The lead post misses the point. The ‘Climate Change’ (née ‘Global Warming’) ideology was never really about science. It was seized upon as a considered means for Western activist intellectuals on the far Left to promote global Marxism. They were able to throw up enough of a scare to get the UN to create an organization to put scientific frosting on the Marxist cake, called the IPCC. From then on it was a production-line bakery, enlisting thousands of eager academics, bureaucrats, faux scientists, politicians, media hacks (‘journalists’) and millions of young, easily-led Useful-Idiot muffins, willing to march, squat, and fawn for the Climate Cause.
You aren’t going to win them over. They don’t know anything about climatology, nor care about satellite temperatures. They want to Change the World, Destroy Capitalism, and establish the Socialist Paradise. To do this they will march, and parade, and throw money and adulation to their political saviors, all in the name of Social Justice, which for the nonce is currently ‘Climate Justice’.
If you are a ‘skeptic’, you are really a ‘D____’, an enemy of Climate Justice. If you want to win them over, you have to join The Movement; otherwise, be prepared to fend off stones and excrement.
There is a positive side, at least here in the USA: The Movement has captured large numbers of the political, academic, and media Ruling Class, but it has not endeared itself to the average American, who remains skeptical, not just of ‘Climate Justice’, whatever the hell that might mean, but of all such movements and their noisy adherents. That even the President seems to have been captured by such nonsense will not sway the guy who goes to work every day just to keep a roof over his head and feed his family. And this is the guy we have to talk to. He will laugh at the “three feet of global warming” on his lawn this last winter, and wonder what in the world President could be talking about. And “if the Good Lord’s willin’, and the creeks don’t rise,” he will save us from the insanity of the ‘elites’.
/Mr Lynn
L.E., I am sorry to break the news to you, but climate change is not a communist plot. It is a far more broad-based phenomenon than that. For every possible Marxist trying to subvert Western Civilization, there are ten capitalists making a mint on it.
Hate to break it to you but yeah its classical collectivism… and for every ten capitalists making a mint on it millions of commies are filling mints with stolen goods as well… and then plotting to steal the mints the capitalist made. The goal of any form of socialism is complete greed and control of everything. Plus very very few capitalists left on this planet….
L. E. Joiner
Sorry, but you are plain wrong.
The global warming scare was deliberately started by (right wing) Margaret Thatcher for reasons of her own personal political advantage. My analysis of this (which was made before the scare started and predicted why the scare would occur) can be read http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/.
Richard
Like that famous quote from Hillary Clinton: “What difference, at this point, does it make”- who started the whole mess? Who throws the most fuel on the fire? In the US, we have our own POTUS and his coterie of fellow travelers spread throughout the bureaucracy, but while they are all very much akin to a bunch of Commie Socialist Pinkos in hidden drag with their not so hidden agendas, calling them what they are still does not get to the problem. This is not and never has been a left/right issue. The CAGW issue is at its deepest core, continuously perpetrated by a comparative handful of people who would enslave and even destroy everyone else if they could get away with it. Their aspirations to tyranny might at times fit this or that political label, but they are all statists merely because the state has the most guns. They are the same ones who’ve made humanity suffer throughout history and they will not stop until we stop them. They are the tyrants- the sociopaths and psychopaths and those without remorse or moral fiber, the ones who manipulate the feelings of the concerned and the useful idiot and titillate the greed of the shallow opportunist who would sell them the rope…
Richard, we have discussed this a couple of times before. I greatly respect your expertise and experience, but suspect they are a bit hampered by UK blinkers. Here’s how I responded back in 2012:
[That’s from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/why-we-need-debate-not-consensus-on-climate-change/#comment-1057657 ]
/Mr Lynn
Alan Robertson and L. E. Joiner:
I reply to both of you in one post for clarity and not as insult to anyone.
This dispute goes to the crux of the issue raised by the above essay from Matt Manos. He says of opposition to the global warming scare in the US
Assuming he is correct about that, then it is an error for “skeptics” to promote falsehoods that appeal to the right but not to the left.
Alan you say
I completely and wholeheartedly agree that “This is not and never has been a left/right issue.” But your rant portrays it as that.
Saying, “all very much akin to a bunch of Commie Socialist Pinkos in hidden drag with their not so hidden agendas” is not likely to gain support from any except the extreme right.
And, me being a socialist, I am very opposed to communism but I helped the communist Chinese to ensure failure of the Copenhagen COP that attempted to impose a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. We need all the allies we can get at the Paris COP to be held in December.
Who started the global warming scare and why is very important. It goes to the hub of the fact that as you say, “This is not and never has been a left/right issue.”
Mr Lyn,
I put to you that gaining supporters from other than the right requires adherence to the truth and needs to acknowledge the fact that “This is not and never has been a left/right issue.”
Margaret Thatcher started the global warming scare for political reasons that had nothing to do with science. The scare is a political issue and from its start it always has been. But the scare is not and never has been a left/right issue except in the US.
The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis had existed for a century and many people had tried to use it for their own ends before Margaret Thatcher succeeded in using it as a tool to start the global warming scare for her own ends.
You are simply wrong when you assert
Margaret Thatcher created the global warming scare for her own ends and, thus, she was typical of all who have since promoted the scare from all parts of the political spectrum because they all do it for their own ends.
And that truth needs to be proclaimed if opposition to the scare is to extend beyond the political right in the US.
Richard
Preferably a young, charismatic, non-partisan scientist to go on daytime TV, YouTube and TV news shows
Yes, that’s what we need. Someone charismatic. Form over substance you know, that’s how science works. A real slick talking head and suddenly the mainstream media will be tripping over themselves to interview them. Right.
dmh, Matt has a point. You NEED someone to reduce cognitive friction when the message is presented. I have watched for instance Richard Linzen in action, and he simply lacks the public speaking skills to drive the points home. You could counter that he is “too honest,” but that is not the point. Outer space didn’t have many friends until Carl Sagan came along; now we have people like Neil De Grasse Tyson carrying the torch for space science. Atheists had a rough go until Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins came along (perhaps Ricky Gervais should be mentioned too). As a result, atheism is becoming more acceptable.
Climate skeptics? Lord Monckton is probably the closest to a charismatic spokesperson, and I enjoy his presence a great deal. Unfortunately, his mainstream reach is probably a little limited for a variety of reasons.
You miss my point entirely. How did CNN deal with Roy Spencer? By not letting him finish a single sentence and then cutting the interview off before he had a chance to even make a point. The notion that a single person could represent “the skeptics” is as preposterous as a single person representing (for example) all of Christendom. That they would get fair airtime is just as silly.
The first and most important course of action is to label global warming alarmism correctly. It is not a conspiracy, it is a scare. It has much more in common with the Pitted Windshield Phenomenon of the early 1950s than anything sinister.
Second: I think the best way to help people turn the corner on climate science is to give them an out. An example, figuratively speaking: instead of “you are wrong!”, perhaps the argument is “we have been looking at data from a period that is too narrow to give relevant results.”
Giving people an opportunity to save face may go a long way towards moving the opinions of many lukewarmers.
I think facts presented such as what follows would be great talking points to mention:
“Plants evolved in an atmosphere with an order of magnitude more CO2 than currently obtains. It is amazing that they could still grow at all. But somewhere in the 150ppm range, growth stops and plants die.
Isn’t it odd to think of a substance as a “pollutant” where, if two-thirds of it were removed, it would effectively end most life on the planet? This would be the case if our current 400ppm were cut to 133ppm.”
And… “Since the LIA, the planet has warmed a mere 1.5C, half of which occurred before the onset of significant human CO2 emissions. In addition, according to satellite and weather balloon data, the most accurate way to measure the earths average temperature, there has been no additional warming at all so far this century. The minor increase in temperature and CO2 concentration is without question, been very beneficial for the earth and it’s inhabitants. The earth is 15% greener and crop yields have increased enormously thanks to CO2.”
May also want to mention “Surface temperature measurements seem to require corrections a couple of times a year because they appear to keep finding new errors in old data. These corrections always tend to increase the discrepancy between the satellite measurements and increase the observed warming rate over the past century. Either the satellite measured temperatures must be horribly wrong or the corrections to the surface record are suspect. Given that falls are starting earlier and winters lasting longer with increased snowfall, and the climate around the country is practically mimicking the climate of the 1970s when there was the global cooling scare, a good bet is the continual corrections to the surface record are the problem.”
“The pause is amazing stuff. To effectively communicate the pause requires different skills then influencing the scientific debate”
Better hurry!
Matt Manos says:
“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.”
Really ?? And why would a skeptical scientist want [quote] “CAGW to become accepted by moderates and independents”? Possibly you didn’t really mean this?
wayne
You wrote
The above essay by Matt Manos’ was “humbling suggesting” a prerequisite for “CAGW to become accepted by moderates and independents”.
The essay is about the US general public and the point you quoted from it did not mention “scientists”, you did. And all scientists are “skeptical”. So what?
Richard
For me, the convincing argument is the data. I would like to see people looking at the plots of model projections and measured temperature over the past 50 years, showing that the pro-AGW crowd are the deniers of actual data. Second, I would like to show CO2 concentration over millions of year, showing that the present values are not unprecedented.
Since arguing about data is the best science, how about a visual campaign by printing the above graphs as tee-shirts. Maybe this can reach the “low information crowd”.
I think it is easiest to get these points across when you look at the actual data. It is then totally reasonable to be skeptical about AGW.
#climategate = #gamergate.
wattsupwithat.com = deepfreeze.it
Ive debated many on this, the main thing that worked for me was showing people the “pause” (or lack of temps rising as fast as predicted) is in fact real. Showing people charts of it never helped. Instead linking 2 dozen papers by some of their favorite alarmist heroes mentioning it in the abstracts of their papers as they attempt to explain it in various ways, along with showing published works on feedbacks not working as once thought have proven to be semi effective.
Also there are two papers on deep ocean temps, one from NASA which makes the case for a stable deep ocean temp and another that makes the case it is dropping a little.
“What skeptics need is a strong spokesperson. Preferably a young, charismatic, non-partisan scientist to go on daytime TV, YouTube and TV news shows.”
Disagree with the second part. What is needed is the voice of one of the gods. Just supposing one of the following were to become publicly known to be unconvinced of the CAGW issue:
Bill Gates
Warren Buffett
George Soros
I would bet there would be a paradigm shift quite rapidly…
“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.”
This is both an outright lie and well proven propaganda… right-wingers do research for their position sure the dirty centrists aka conservative tend to tag along but they bother to do a little research as well. Anyone who knows anything about sciences knows “scientific literature” is a joke. No scientist needs to conduct a survey to see the complete and utter BS that is global warming “science”.
” Libertarians have Othered skeptics.”…. No libertarians are the backbone of the denialest movement. They are the ones dragging everyone to the truth only if you consider skeptic to be skeptical of insanely doomsdayish propaganda thats completely on its face fake but still believe that milder doomsday predictions are real would skeptic fit.
“Preferably a young, charismatic, non-partisan scientist to go on daytime TV, YouTube and TV news shows.” Sir put the propaganda down….
“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.”
The only playbook it needs it to get the info in people face.
Collectivist little in bubbles and in order to get non-collectivist approved info in the bubble you need to either break in or force them out.
Forcing them out has been a successful tactic for awhile now… ppl like watts are a prime display of this. Demanding they do real research and prove themselves right can work for more moderate collectivists… however the reminding 61% are not even close to moderate, centrists or anything near the middle ground.
The only way to get info to them is to pierce the bubble. That means you need to find a weak point… and that weak point is pretty universal for collectivists… pride in their collective. People need to get up and call these racist doomsday cultists, racist doomsday cultists… this wounds their pride… makes them angry. Then they want to fight. Once they want to fight you can argue and force feed them info that they would completely ignore because they now want to prove you wrong… and they can only prove you wrong by learning the info…
Never in history is their any scientific evidence to support the belief that a collectivist can be rationally dealt with. They ignore everything until they are forced to deal with it. Even then how many collectivists walked into ovens, gulags and mass graves… all while singing along “this can’t be happening”…. hundreds of millions.
After reading Nick’s comments above I was reminded at how supporters of AGW can get away with simply saying “It just isn’t true.” on things like the Pause.
This is a remarkable psychological phenomenon that should be factored into the thinking of anyone who thinks a skeptic can win this debate.
Also, having NASA and NOAA on one’s side is a powerful weapon. Why would they lie? After all…these are the best scientists in the world, right? Go ahead…give me an answer that doesn’t make you sound like a tin foil hat conspiracy nut.
The question “why would they lie?” is itself a logical fallacy, and a trap. It’s an Argument from Authority with a twist, that of putting the onus on us to ascribe motive. What they are really asking is “How did we get here?”, and that is far too complex a question, requiring giving a history lesson. Indeed, an entire university-level course could be given on it, and maybe it will someday. It is best to side-step traps like that, because the question itself isn’t an honest one. It is meant to trip you up.
Exactly. And the tactic is working. President Obama is using exactly this tactic to successfully push the agenda.
I have been following this issue for a very long time. To be honest…even ten years ago the skeptic’s argument was pretty weak. Since then, however, climate science and the models have proven themselves to be wildly inaccurate in their predictions. No rational person has ever successfully challenged the so called “Pause”. Instead, there have been explanations…about 60 of them…as to why it is happening (the key point here being “it is happening”.)
With all that, most people still believe for some reason that the science is settled.
This is a tough fight, huh?
“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”.
Ok so far we have a reasonable statement made… I dont recognise that anybody claims the world didn’t get a little warmer in the past 35 years myself, but we will let that pass..
“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.”
And then sudden;ly we have the outrageous implication that skeptics are in fact people who dont believe that any warming has occurred…Nor even that a proportion of it is down to human activity.
This is pure straw man concern troll stuff and I dont understand why it is even allowed to be a post.
For the record, skeptics do not deny global warming. Not one, not ever. They do not even deny that mankind has almost certainly had some effect on cliamte – after all what doesn’t? They do not even deny the possibility that CAGW might exists.
What they deny vehemently is that the models that are used to map human activity into massive cliamte change have validity, or that such climate changes as has been noted cannot be explained by other causes – such as innate variability – than pumping a very small fraction of a fairly harmless gas into an atmosphere that already has enough of it in to do nearly all the global warning it can ever achieve.
And most of all they deny that curve fitting a minor effect or radiation absorption and multiplying it by a large and scary positive feed back factor from still as yet unspecified mechanisms to give scary predictions is a valid way to do science, when all the indications are that the existence of such a destabilising mechanism that amplifies temperature change from ANY cause, not just CO2, would have lead to a wildly unstable climate in the past.
I really am not interested in crossing swords on a jousting field alreday mined by someone to give them victory.
I am a skeptic, but I do not match your criteria, and the reason why I am a skeptic, is because first and foremost I am a rational person with a very great deal of experience in modelling, science and mathematics, and whereas the skeptics case makes sense, and is rational, the CAGW an AGW case does not, except as a profound example of political power and emotional narrative construction.
Why am I stubborn? Because despite the fact it costs me friends, and all sorts of other things, in the end the truth has to be told, because even if they do not believe me, people need to be warned that a far far greater danger faces them than the hypothetical AGW, and that is the complete political takeover of science by political and commercial forces.
AGW the global warming fact, is far fare less a threat to humanity than AGW the global warming myth, that will in the end destroy all credibility in science and allow the takeover of human affairs by people ill qualified to deal with reality, only the manipulation of public opinion.
Unfortunately whilst it may appear – and certainly to today’s urbanised society it seems to be the case – that humanity rules the planet, and that anything can be done of enough of someone else’s money is diverted into research and development to make it happen, innate experience of technological development leads me to the utter conviction that this is a dangerously false perspective.
AGW has become the excuse for rent seeking on a global scale never before seen, except perhaps in the arms races of the 60s and 70s..
It is a monumental diversion of human effort and public money way from areas that it is desperately needed in.
Nick Stojkes:
I know the data. What you said just isn’t true. Surface temperatures are not flat of falling. If you want to claim that they are, you need to quote numbers and sources.
A true denier in every sense..
The alarmist machine has been tuned in to the PR strategies for many moons. See, e.g., C-Span 2 for 5/29 1 hr.21 minutes presentation: “Anti-Science: Denial in the Face of Facts” a panel of the 67th annual Conference on World Affairs, hosted by the University of Colorado at Boulder, April 6-10, 2015.
C-Span2 description of event reads: “Scientists, authors and journalists examined the phenomenon known as “science denialism.” Topics included the religious and corporate roots of those beliefs. They talked about how to get “science deniers” to believe scientific facts about issues such as climate change, space exploration and vaccinations.”
Tom Blumenthal, Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at UC-Boulder, introduced Richard B. Alley, Evan Pew Professor of Geo Sciences at Penn State U, as the educator who “taught me that for what man has done to the atmosphere NOT to have caused global warming, the laws of physics would have to be wrong.”
Other panelists included Chip Berlet – “long term activist in the cause of human rights. A democratic socialist and absolutist, author of new book, Too Close for Comfort: Forget the Tea Party Movement..”
Leonard Pitts, Jr., Columnist, The Miami Herald
Michelle Thaller, Assistant Director, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Science Communication and Higher Education.
Ms. Thaller at about the 1 hr. 7 minute mark talks about meeting at NASA HQ regarding their advertising strategies in which helpful ad execs from the MARS candy company schooled on designing an ad campaign … the way they design their campaign has nothing to do with candy: we are selling SELF-ESTEEM. [In the same way, Alarmism has nothing to do with science, we are selling being in the smart set – not Other] All the facts are not helping in the debate — so we are drawing into our skills as storytellers [and then there’s a story targeting Fox News, to be followed with references to Koch Brothers]
Ms. Thaller: ” As a federal official I cannot comment on what we should do about … carbon cap and trade, about whether we should, you know, NOT use fossil fuels. That is not my right, my right as a federal official; I take that very seriously . … I will give you the best information NASA has … [but] Are we not allowed to be human? Am I not allowed to go on television and say, “I’M SCARED.” [Be afraid. Be very afraid.]
As Professor Blumenthal opined in opening remarks and panel demonstrated throughout, “This isn’t a scientific issue; it’s a political one.” QED
the US has Marc Morano. a brilliant communicator who should be a household name. the MSM won’t allow it.
Australia has Joanne Nova, ditto.
the occasional MSM appearance is not sufficient to impress on the public the failure of the scientific predictions, the impossibility of solar & wind replacing fossil fuels, even in the long-term, or the tyranny of replacing the present financial system which a brand-new system based on energy, specifically carbon dioxide emissions.
when MSM can have a NASA “climate scientist” forecast a “Godzilla El Nino” or an “El Wimpo” in the same breath and still not arouse scepticism about CAGW predictions on the part of the reporter or, in this case, CBS, then you know the MSM still has no intention questioning the “consensus”:
29 May: CBS News: Ben Tracy: Is an El Nino next in pattern of treacherous weather?
Scientists say the floods could be a sign the weather-pattern known as El Nino is gaining strength in the Pacific. If so, California could finally get the drought-busting storms it desperately needs…
Josh Willis, a NASA climate scientist, tells CBS News that in the past two years, scientists have seen a change in the jet stream that could be attributed to climate change. It often takes on a wavy pattern, causing more extreme weather – such as all that snow in Boston this past winter. Now, scientists are watching an El Nino rapidly grow in the Pacific Ocean…
Willis tells CBS News that while it’s a bit early to say for sure, “this El Niño has all the markings of a big one.”
“The cycle will continue throughout the year and peak sometime in the winter.
***So it could be Godzilla El Nino, but it could also be El Wimpo,” he says…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-an-el-nino-next-in-pattern-of-treacherous-weather/
We can all try and spread the message in everyday life – so long as we avoid becoming a ‘climate change bore’ ! There are many opportunities …….
I try and use any suitable opportunity to make some short, simple and memorable relevant points on climate change in conversation to engage interest, questioning and thought.
Short and simple to be memorable and to avoid hijacking a conversation but relevant to the conversation or the person or group’s interests. But always have facts to quote to confirm the point if someone raises any objection to it – and objections are the time when, if handled carefully, someone’s blinkers (I think ‘blinders’ in the US) can be lifted if not removed.
I find one simple way is to compare global temperatures in Roman and Medievil times to those of today which are still cooler than they were then…… easy for someone to appreciate and non-technical and seriously questions man-made global warming / climate change.
Wine is a great subject of conversation as large amounts are drunk in the UK and our wine industry has grown significantly since it was re-established in the between-war years (but properly since the 1950s). Apart from the obvious of drinking wine in company it often crops up on tv as British sparkling wines now often beat Champagne in blind tastings !
Very simple to point out that it is a shame that Britain isn’t as hot as it was in Roman times when grapes were grown up as far north as Hadrian’s wall, or in medievil times when also grown across Britain.
A follow-up along the lines of ‘I had hoped that climate change would help the UK wine industry grow but it is still too cold to grow vines further north than parts of the midlands and after nearly 20 years of no increase in global temperatures it doesn’t look as if we are going to get back to the temperatures we had here in Roman and Medievil times.’ can take the conversation forwards.
Depending on the reaction that either opens the conversation up to discussing how early temperature records have been reduced which makes it appear hotter now; or the satellie temperature records etc. etc or a throw-away line that I am now convinced the whole climate change ‘thing’ is a scam. (Amazing how many people agree with that)
‘Flu – a standard topic of conversation in winter time. Simple to talk of the similarity of flu symptoms to Ague or The Ague which was common in medievil times but was actually malaria in a time when it was hot enough for malaria-carrying mosquitoes to flourish in Britain – but not hot enough today despite ‘climate change’.
Another simple one is the topic of rising sea levels ever comes up is mention of the villages in England and France which were seaports in Medievil times, when global temperatures were higher than today, but are now inland away from the coast as sea levels have dropped since then as it is colder now – despite ‘so-called’ global warming.
Current political discussion and activism in the UK has highlighted ‘austerity’ and with that poverty – an ideal chance to raise fuel-povery which not only hits the poorest hardest but forces the elderly to choose between heat and food and kills tens of thousands annually, far more than hot weather does. A direct result of the price hikes in energy to pay for windmills and solar panels which don’t even reduce CO2 because they are so intermittent that conventional gas and coal has to be kept running on standby. That begs the question – if the back-up of conventional power generation means that CO2 is not reduced then why are the politicians (who all know this) forcing us to pay for windmills ? Is it because they know that there is no reason to be afraid of CO2 emissions ??
And with the British weather, which by its very nature is a routine topic of conversation, there is always the throwaway line “I wish global warming was real rather than a scam, we could do with some decent warm weather.”
There are a myriad opportunities to make short, simple and telling points in everyday life and the more that simple points like the above are made the more people will think and hopefully share those doubts with others.
Anyway, that is what I do.
Interesting post. It reminds me of the an-cap (radical libertarians) view of trying to make allies with conservatives once upon a time. Turns out the conservatives will give the libertarians some rhetoric during election season and then pretend there was never an alliance afterwards.
What the skeptics need to do is continue to hammer home the facts on the ground. Expose the lies and propaganda of this delusion. Show that the king is truly naked. Heck, it might be time to take an honest look at how CO2 is supposed to warm the surface of the planet by “back radiation”. (no, seriously; perhaps it is time to look at the physics of it all)
The best line is to show that CO2 is skyrocketing while temperatures are flat despite all the “scientific consensus” that says CO2 is the control knob of the planet. And it is time to take an honest look at the motivations of the alarmists and the luke-warmers. But the author is correct in saying we need to reach out to the “great middle”. There may be a hundred million people sitting “on the fence” — let us give them some facts to support a skeptical view. We don’t have to win them over: we only have to show them that there is great doubt that the “CO2 will destroy us” meme.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable identifying as a “climate skeptic”. I prefer the more general descriptor “sane educated person.”
All the empirical data in the world, and clever presentations by people like Dyson won’t sway The True Believers (TTBs) one iota. They have found a new religion and paying carbon taxes is the new indulgence to assuage their feelings of environmental guilt.
Two things will need to happen to turn the TTBs. Global temperature will need to maintain a significant downward trend long enough for TTBs to experience/suffer increased cold over extended time. Secondly, the Climate Scientists advocating the CAGW/Climate Change/Climate Disruption agenda will need to become immensely unpopular in the public eye. This can only be achieved by being publicly mocked and humiliated – by any means possible!
Aye its gonna be a long row to hoe – indeed.
Here are two things that could stall the CAGW bandwagon:
1. A second financial crisis.
2. A collapse of the economies and/or grids in the warmist pioneers UK and Germany, mirroring the collapse of the same in poster-child Spain a few years ago as a result of its headlong rush into renewables.