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.
I have just been given a copy of ‘Bad Science’ by Ben Goldacre. He of the guardian newspaper in the UK.
His book is a useful weapon against disbelief, His book rails against poor science in nutrition, health care and the poor performance of the media in educating the public in science, he stalwartly refuses to take a stand against climate science.
A case of a metropolitan London luvvie not backing his own opinion, just to stay on the gravy train.
Don’t buy the book….borrow it somehow.
Dear Matt (Manos),
Your “post” is reasonable enough and I must agree that “skepticism” may well need a “play-book and a face” as you put it, however; there will be a number of very highly paid persons reading ALL of this website’s posts and whose duties are to constantly “flag up” any potential hazards which threaten the Great Global Warming Gravy Train (GGWGTrain): yours is probably not one of them.
It is good to read your post but it is also good to know how people are reacting to it.
The subject(s) of your post are indeed very important, otherwise they would not be here.
My point is:- the “problem” is NOT just in the U.S.A..
Although the GGWGTrain was built in North America it has been developed into a financial belief-system which has gripped people like a vice (worldwide).
In thinking back to my own inadvertent entry onto this “battlefield” about. five and half years ago (i.e. approx 10 days BC [Before Climategate]) one of the first things that made me sit up and take notice was when I learned that the dreaded CO2 constituted a mere 3 percent of our atmosphere – and that’s the total, so it’s not even all human-generated!
My mind positively boggled!
To this day, I have found that during “real life” conversations with the oh-so-dedicated (well, at least partially … none of my friends and acquaintances have gone the Tesla or Prius route, although they do their part to line Al Gore’s pockets by dutifully separating their household waste) when I ask them ‘how much C02 do you think there is in our atmosphere?’ they haven’t a clue!
So I give them a Helpful Hint from Hilary – and gently point out that it is a mere 3 or 4%. Then I suggest that they might want to take a look at a few videos, demonstrating (Saint David) Suzuki’s lack of knowledge and introducing them to Topher Field’s (IMHO) excellent video and series of interviews: Saturday night at the movies: Suzuki 0, Ezra 10; IPCC’s Stocker brigade 0, Topher 10.
I ask them to let me know if they’d like any pointers to sites of the more nitty-gritty scientific kind. To the best of my recollection, so far, the above seems to have worked quite well.
And I also mention that not too long ago, I inadvertently discovered that:
Amazing, eh?!
Hilary Ostrov
You say
I don’t know who told you that but they were wrong by a factor of 100.
CO2 constitutes a mere 0.04 percent of our atmosphere.
Richard
OMG! It’s worse than I thought;-) Actually, I really do know this, Richard! My excuse is that I have a new kbd – and my proof-reading skills aren’t up to par, today. And I see that I made the same error twice. Aaaargh and Thanks!
“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.” My first reaction to this article is “try to catch up” / “Keen sense of the obvious, Champ.” Also, for more than a decade, every skeptic source I read has pointed out that it’s mainly the emeritus types that are independent enough to buck the system.
Any individual can be “othered.” A public spokesperson or two is a bad idea as a strategy. They even “otherize” Lomborg. But when and if one does emerge, it will be a signal that CAGW has been rejected politically – not the cause of it.
Keep in mind the political strategy of the liberal progressives in America. They have bundled several issues together and campaign and demagogue on these. For example, Gay rights and climate change is often used together in progressive arguments. If you are a skeptic of human caused catastrophic climate change then you get labeled as a cruel person who denies human rights to Gay people. See how that works, one progressive issue protects the other.
For people who love science and would like to see the return of good science and communication about Earth’s climate, it’s critical to disassemble the lefts platform of connected issues. If you are a supporter of Gay rights, say so clearly and then voice your skepticism on the climate debate. Doing this is purely a political exercise but necessary to drive the charlatans out of science and away from the impressionable voting public.
“Q) How long with flat or falling temperatures and rising CO2 before you admit that CO2 does not control the climate?”
Since AGW does not assert that C02 controls the climate its a pretty stupid question,
C02 is one of MANY forcings identified in the literature. read harder
Steven,
What part of “control” don’t you get?
The IPCC is more than 90% sure that 90% of the alleged warming since 1950 (or so) is due to man-made GHGs. Hence, CACCA advocates claim that CO2 is the “control knob” on climate change.
Steven,
“Since AGW does not assert that C02 controls the climate its a pretty stupid question”
Disagree: IPCC use CO2 as the main forcing agent in most all their climate models, which certainly states that they consider CO2 as the Control Knob.
“AGW does not assert that C02 controls the climate” – Steven Mosher
Great. Can we cancel all the expensive research now, and roll back the policies to control CO2? No need for carbon credits. No need for the EPA to try to control it as a “pollutant”. Let’s fire up the coal plants and get cheap energy back on track.
Mr Mosher perhaps have another take on the definition of “largely” LOL. To quote the IPCC for Policymakers. “Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond.”
Steven Mosher: “Since AGW does not assert that C02 controls the climate its a pretty stupid question,”
Steven, if there was an Olympic medal for disingenuousness, you would win it hands down.
Er, hang on, make that a Nobel Prize!
Steven Mosher says: June 1, 2015 at 7:25 am
Since AGW does not assert that C02 controls the climate its a pretty stupid question,
C02 is one of MANY forcings identified in the literature. read harder
———————————————-
So then Steven, why all the focus on reducing CO2? Why isn’t the focus on all those other forcing to anything appraoching the same extent as it is on CO2?
[snip – Mr. Mosher that was unnecessary insult, broad brush, you know better than that. Try again with some professionalism please -Anthony]
While I understand the general message of the post, there is something about it that I find a bit uneasy. The sceptical approach should always be about promoting the facts and truth.
”To grow, skeptics need to find a group of people that can be influenced.”
And
” 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 sure it’s not what the author means, but it sounds like, let’s get some suckers and reel them in. Ultimately the message has to come from relevant scientists who are not politically influenced or in receipt of suspect pay outs. Difficult to find in this day and age as everyone has to pay their bills and mortgages etc. We have seen how alarmists capitalised on the Willie Soon paper and their disgraceful conduct towards him. I say the biggest obsticle is the alarmist’s reluctance to debate. In any other field this would be seen as a huge weakness in an argument. The usual excuses of the ”settled science” brigade have worn thin, and I think are no longer readily accepted. The honest way forward is to encourage open debate and those not willing to engage will be left behind.
Eamon.
”Obstacle”
“Since AGW does not assert that C02 controls the climate its a pretty stupid question,”
Not as stupid as trying to control C02, to control human caused warming, that is not occurring……
The madness will only end when governments stop paying for the convenient lies.
Australia and Canada have ostensibly skeptical leaders. Add the US to that august company and the spigot just might get turned off.
I’ve donated the maximum allowable to every announced presidential candidate who is unequivocally opposed to CACCA.
Dean,
One of the biggest obstacles to wider acceptance of skepticism is precisely because so many skeptics object to CACCA on religious rather than scientific grounds. Alarmists find it easy to attack skeptical climatologists and lay their supporters because so many of them have religious objections to real science, ie evolution, as well as to bogus “science”, ie CACCA.
One of the Warmunistas’ most effective lines of attack is that conservatives, especially fundamentalists, are “anti-science”, when in fact it’s the alarmists who trash genuine science.
So please try to keep your conception of God out of the discussion.
“To grow, skeptics need to find a group of people that can be influenced.”
Skeptical groupthink? To what end?
The people who need to be influenced are political representatives and media opinionators. And for that you need dedicated individuals armed with facts, not a passel of anti-parrot parrots. One good letter to a congressman or local newspaper is more effective than 100 more echoes in an echo chamber.
Those working to prevent an irreversible power grab based on unfounded fear-mongering do not need to be “above reproach” on other topics (whatever that means). They need to be capable of reasoned ridicule of catastrophist claims and willing to take the time to engage in it.
The alarmists have a US President who parrots the message.
He knows nothing about Earth’s climate, but can read a teleprompter.
One third of the US population will believe everything he says.
.
Skeptics need a leader who is already well known — not necessarily a scientist.
.
That person needs to speak in clear, concise sentences, so a good public speaker would be best.
.
But he or she will face severe ridicule from leftists, and character attacks, for merely stating that more CO2 in the air is good news for green plants, and if CO2 causes slight warming, that’s good news for humans.
.
That communication task is almost impossible without using unusually clear climate charts (sadly, few charts presented at this website would quality). such as the one at the link below:
.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Secular opiates. It works for liberals, progressives, and moderates, too. Material incentives and secular reprobation are a consensus’s best friend. Perhaps the Earth is flat.
The Earth is flat from peculiar frames of reference… and human life is the product of spontaneous conception that may occur at any time between conception/fertilization and around birth.
Well, RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC
For the 36 years all datasets above are overlapping, between 1979 and 2014, their respective trends are
Please note the last three trends (surface temperatures) are substantially higher than the first two (bulk of troposphere).
It is absolutely curious, for according to simple theory (no complicated computational general circulation model is needed), it should be the other way around.
As surface temperature increases, you get more evaporation, which makes more humid air. Moist lapse rate is smaller than dry one, therefore average lapse rate decreases. Consequently the bulk of troposphere warms faster than the surface (by some 20% faster globally, according to simple calculations).
That’s not what is observed.
There are only three possibilities and no more.
1. Satellite data are flawed
2. Surface data are flawed
3. Even simple theory is flawed
No one ever suggested a way satellite data can be substantially flawed, but that’s possible. Surface data is much more likely to be flawed, because it was never figured out, how to eliminate temporal UHI on the one hand, and there is way too much ad-hoc adjustment in the final datasets on the other hand. Last but not least, it can well be the case, that even simple theory fails. If rate of precipitation increases even faster than evaporation with increasing temperatures, average atmospheric humidity may decrease. However, it is a great no-no for computational climate modellers, because it would imply a strong negative feedback, which falsifies the basic assumptions all such model is based on.
In any case, a huge inconsistency is lurking somewhere, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that climate science is not settled.
”
1. Satellite data are flawed
2. Surface data are flawed
3. Even simple theory is flawed”
Well, the original claim here was
“all 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 15 and over 18 years”
Different period, but yours are all rising trends.
As to what is flawed, you have UAH closer to HADCRUT than to RSS, and about the same from the others. So satellites hardly speak with one voice. And the UAH voice is a bit quavery lately.
Don’t be so wishy-washy, please.
1. False propositions like “you have UAH closer to HADCRUT than to RSS” do not promote understanding.
2. All datasets above, except UAH, have a strong decelerating trend over the past 36 years.
3. If the claim of water vapor amplification stands, actual rate of surface warming should not be more than 0.116 K/decade for the same timespan, even according to UAH, an outlier.
4.No truth value can be assigned to ill-defined statements like “UAH voice is a bit quavery lately”.
Nick Stokes,
No temperature data set agrees exactly. There are good reasons for that, including calibration regimes, different equipment vendors, differences in design, and many other factors. But the important thing is that both global temperature satellites, and thousands of balloon radiosonde measurements, all agree to within about a tenth of a degree. That is amazingly good accuracy considering the different data sources. They all agree that there has been no global warming to speak of for almost twenty years.
Trying to argue that a tiny, tenth of a degree difference negates the measurements only shows that you have run out of credible arguments. Why do you keep going? The real world is falsifying your position, and it has been for many years.
Finally, you say that RSS and UAH “hardly speak with one voice”. But in fact, they do. The satellite data has been steadily converging, and as stated, it is matched by radiosonde data: many thousands of temperature recording balloons that are continually launched, and which cover the globe from the ground, up to twenty miles altitude. They all agree!
So your basic premise was wrong. I challenge you to admit there is no good evidence showing that dangerous man-made global warming is occurring. That was a false alarm, Nick, and it’s time you admitted as much.
Well, turns out that was UAH 5.6. The improved UAH 6.0 beta dataset shows a substantially lower trend for the 36 years mentioned above, 0.113 K/decade. Neither it is an outlier any more in that it shows deceleration just like all others. It is also much closer to RSS than UAH 5.6 was.
However, the enigma only gets more profound by that. If theory is taken at face value in that global average tropospheric warming should be 20% faster than that of the surface, it implies a surface warming rate of less than 0.1 K/decade (0.098 K/decade), which is absolutely inconsistent with the three surface datasets, because it is well outside their claimed error bounds.
Therefore either the lapse rate amplification do not exist, but some lapse rate attenuation instead, which sends all computational climate models into the trash bin, or rate of warming in surface datasets is greatly exaggerated (by some 50-60%), which makes them utterly unreliable and really, useless.
Make your bet.
O just a side note on those evil anti-vaxxor who you know do basic science….
https://sharylattkisson.com/government-wipes-recent-vaccine-injury-data-from-website/
no adjustments going on there either…
The first problem is you need to change the form of the argument/discussion. You can’t do numbers with folks who do not do numbers. Most of the committed believers in AGW have a different thinking and analysis style than the majority of the skeptics. You show them charts and numbers and their eyes glaze over.
You need to a capture the concept you are trying to communicate in a emotionally charged visual image not data.
They got hooked by pictures of drowning polar bears, and lonely bears sitting on an isolated ice flow.
Use visual images like the snake oil salesman who puts his thumb on the scale to communicate the concept then explain that the way they are rigging the scales is by cooking the the numbers. First like any salesmen you need to find a way to get them to say yes to some question first. That opens the door to investigation. If their very first exposure is something that they deny happened the harder you push with data the harder they will dig in their heels.
When they pitch consensus as the proof, point out that the consensus in 1692 Winston Salem was that there were witches, that the consensus in the 1960’s was that continents don’t drift, that the consensus in the 1830’s was the malaria was caused by bad air, that the consensus in the 1300’s was that the black plague was a curse from an angry god, that the consensus was in the 1940’s was that Japan could not attack Pearl Harbor because it was too shallow, that the consensus in 1952 was that the wings would not fall off the De Havilland Comet airliner in flight, That the consensus was in 1912 that the Titanic was unsinkable, that the consensus was in 1775 that the American Colonies would not take up arms against the strongest military in the world, that the consensus was in 1930’s that Fascism was a marvelous system of government and everyone was talking about Mussolini and what he was doing in Italy.
It is the form of the message which is important, as well as the content.
I don’t believe a true signal of anything can be found in the data. Looking at real actual, adjusted GISTEMP data for a station at random (Parkersburg, WV Wood County United), with records going from 1880 to 2004, is an eye-opener. First off, the natural variation in annual mean temps is from 10.2C to 13.3C., and that’s from 1919 to 1921. No AGW then, I don’t believe. If you then add the +/- 0.08C error bar, you’ve got a range from 9.4C to 14.1C of pure natural variability. And we are supposed to see an AGW signal in increases of tenths of a degree? In case you’re curious, that particular station shows zero warming since 1880.
The author makes various good points.
Many skeptics needlessly preach that the CAGW agenda is communist, naively assuming that the entire establishment is on board with the supposed shift to “socialism.” (note that just because you abandon market economics you are not necessarily switching to socialism)
Other skeptics promote the proven disaster, nuclear energy. Why? What could possibly put skeptics in a worse light? Recklessly indifferent to environmental calamity and economic devastation.
Still others childishly claim that CAGW is about transferring wealth from the powerful first world to the powerless in the third world. Could they make themselves seem more greedy or fear-driven with any other silly assertion? In fact the opposite is the case, the CAGW agenda is about depriving the world of access to the energy needed to elevate itself to the economic level of the first world. Take a look at the actual amounts that the climate funds have received, most of which goes to GE or Siemens in the end anyhow.
Since climate scientists have a poor grasp of political science they should stick to their field and skip the theories.
Spouts aletho:
Then what the hell else might it be? Government controls to limit as “carbon pollution” a product of the complete combustion of organic materials, the better to exert political command over the basis of industrial civilization.
The political left is not contemptible and hateful only because they’re pushing the CAGW fraud. They’re a bunch of thieving, murderous, arrogant sociopaths who’ve merely taken the anthropogenic “global climate change” hokum as their latest and most effective opportunity to perpetrate pillage upon their neighbors, and to hell with them.
Tucci78,
Love the von Mise quote.
John
“Many skeptics needlessly preach that the CAGW agenda is communist, naively assuming that the entire establishment is on board with the supposed shift to “socialism.” (note that just because you abandon market economics you are not necessarily switching to socialism)”
Must admit i’m very confused by this statement… socialism is the attempt(which always fails) to deny reality that the real world exists. Sure you have forms of socialism that can work somewhat like fascism or corporatism. These however will end up failing as well just more slowly. “Market economics” is most commonly associated with free market economics aka capitalism… so moving away from capitalism you can only move toward socialism… since you know capitalism is the most extreme form on the right/individualist scale and communism is the most extreme form on the left/collectivist scale.
“Still others childishly claim that CAGW is about transferring wealth from the powerful first world to the powerless in the third world.” Didn’t know genocidal third world dictators were powerless… they seem to have alot of power based on history and science.
” Could they make themselves seem more greedy or fear-driven with any other silly assertion? In fact the opposite is the case,”
You seem to have a very very odd definition of greed and fear driven… being most of this money is being forcible taken often at the point of a gun or the threat of jail…. I don’t see any greed in wanting to keep what people worked for… and fearing these threats.
“the CAGW agenda is about depriving the world of access to the energy needed to elevate itself to the economic level of the first world.”
Yeah so why are you supporting third world dictators by giving them money to further oppress their people and prevent economic growth?
” Take a look at the actual amounts that the climate funds have received, most of which goes to GE or Siemens in the end anyhow.”
Really greenpeace and the WWF get over 1 billion dollars per year… the EU has spent a good 100 billion dollars almost every year for the last 20 years…
Destroying wealth is destroying energy and you fulling believe in destroying wealth.
A little late to the party, but correct me if I’m wrong.
From “hot” to “cold” over the last twenty years the datasets are:
GSS
NCDC
HadCRUT4
RSS
UAH-6
“Ownership” of those sets, in the same order, are:
Government agency
Government agency
University
Private company
University
The only group touting “warmest ever”: government agency
I don’t know about elsewhere (though what I’ve read about the UK, things are the same there), in the US, government agencies are hitting rock-bottom in respect, with the suspicion that corrupt political influence is running rampant, and that growing incompetence not far behind. Both the FBI and the CIA were held in relatively high esteem until lately. Even the IRS, though hated, was once respected. No more. Add to that scandals in the State Department, Veterans Affairs, the GSA, the EPA, and others, and you have a citizenry ready to reject anything from the government.
I think merely stating that the “hotter than ever” junk (euphamism for the correct word) is only coming from government agencies, would create immediate climate skeptism in a broad-spectrum of the population.
If a person says, but it’s NASA, I would respond, yes, I wonder how their Muslim outreach program is doing. The clear political meddling even with NASA will likely not be missed.
Yes, Matt Manos –
we needed the spokes person Marilyn Monroe plus Einsteins obstinate outlashed tongue plagued by Mick Jagger.
We’d win.
____
Don’t think so.
____
Why not stay earnest.
Just say you have no clue confronted to mass psychosys.
Hans
plagued, plaginated:
plain Status question.
Holloring SUV’s -Hans
[Or plainly plagiarized poorly plagued plaided status question? .mod]
America lost it’s charmes since working for McDonalds, Coca Cola is deminiorazing.
Ever thought of – Hans
[??? .mod]
mod,
it’s a way of live to work for Mc.Donalds. Or Coca Cola.
Why diminuishing?
Thx for reply. Hans
easy now.
its just Matts advices on cheer leader ship.
To: Dean From Ohio
You said earlier today … “with the help of wikepedia”.
Question
Is the “wikepedia” source RELIABLE ?
I ask this because I have never used it but more to the point, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley once referred to it as “wicke-bloody-pedia” in the address he gave in St. Louis, Missouri.
I am given to understand (correct me if I’m wrong) that ANYONE is able to edit the entries on wikepedia. Perhaps you would assist in this regard; thank you.
WL