How this Movement Began and Why 

The genesis of the movement I am about to outline was the meeting at Joe Bast’s home in Wisconsin in early June 2019.   The gathering was intended in broad strokes to discuss, perhaps reexamine, the skeptical communication strategy, build something to address the shortcomings, and even perhaps walkaway with a plan.  There was a strong sentiment that what had been done was not enough or well targeted. In other words was simply not working.  Since most who were there fell into the category of scientists, the notion of discussing broad communication strategies was not something that was familiar to them, a lot of time was spent coming to a familiar set of conclusions.   The responsibility to organized and do fell to a few, and all left with a sense that this was a nice try but would not be enough.

Here is a sample of the discussion:

We are up against an overwhelming force in the alarmist camp.  There is little incentive for think tanks to work together to carry and push a national campaign to promote the skeptical view, what I will refer to here as the Open Climate Science viewpoint, or for this email openS.      We are grossly under resourced in all regards, and there is a general view that one cannot fight effectively for good science or debate or whatever point you wish in support of openS without a massive resource infusion. To be an effective a strategy it must attack various audiences and even select politicians and media leaders to largely educate them but also to inform them.   To do so requires a distributed set of resources. In other words there is a great gap between the science and what the general public learns and is exposed to.  And there has been a lack of an effective approach to close that gap, being so limited in fund raising. And that pursuing any approach in a traditional manner (orgs and budgets, etc.) is highly problematic.  In other words impossible given the time urgency prompted by the coming election.

All of these realizations make sense and should not be news to any in attendance before the meeting.  Traditional approaches take time and money.  So going beyond this process is there anything that can be done?  What is the form of any path forward that would make sense?  Some thought has been given to these and other questions, and this is an intro to the movement that is being proposed here.  There were a number of ideas identified in a unrestrained mode of discussion, the only approach possible in a group with no prework.  See the diagram below for a quick overview of what was arrived at.

 It was clear then and more clear now that all of these segments were not possible to pursue, as there are simply no resources.   Many of them required dedicated expenditures and an org to be able to achieve the tasks.   Needless to say there was also a lack of commitment as to achieving any of these projects.   In this website we will explore an aspect that cuts across and is involved in all of these segments:  presenting solid online materials to educate the masses such that it is possible to present resistance to the alarmist views from within the greater public.   

Some elements of a workable solution:

Must have a distributed org with a good contribution model.   It must be self-organizing, and grow because it adds value.  Build a communication framework (as detailed outlines of several websites) that is the basis of the movement.  Builds momentum in the eyes of the skeptical community and attract more contributors to generate these materials.  Begins to attract attention in the various audiences and the media.   In other words gains some traction and influence.  That some see this as an opportunity to build on the quality of the messages and carry various educational activities into leadership groups. Build influence through a viral approach to developing curiosity to providing solid non-partisan answers.

So what is the role of this proposal Group?   The simple answer is to add your two cents in detailing the communication framework and the proposed means to achieve.   I have sent most of you some emails delving into various topics in this framework.  I would hope that we can scrub and detail these ideas, and as a result I will build the pages on a website for use in gaining support from notable skeptics.   The steps to progress into larger and larger groups is to gain their input and to see the practical nature of using a distributed org approach, which is one of the details to define, convince and proliferate. 

I have to conclude with the question:  does this have a chance of success?   We need to find out for the climate change AGW forces are becoming more bold in their policy proposals.   There is good evidence out there that the skeptical community wants to do something to right the ship of climate science. 

What is lacking in the skeptical community that we all need to take up?   Where is the fighting force and why is it not focused in this manner?    A hard question to answer.  The simplest answer is that to the public, facts do not matter, obvious flaws are not recognized, climate is too complicated, politics driven by evil intent is dominating the media, and so on.   And yet the public still does not see AGW as crucial or dangerous.  There are more complicated answers in the sense of being worn out, of not asking the right questions, of misplaced attempts to fight back, and more.   Also AGW provided a set of simple options to the guilt that the public generally feels about the environment.  It has been an easy purchase for some to accept AGW as the credible view, requiring immediate action by someone else.  For the assumption is that it cannot be me that is affected but the other people.

 There are a great many holes in all of this, given that the science, facts, methodology, and even realization of what is best for humanity is on our side.  

 So I am asking you all to add what ideas you can as this framework flushes out and takes shape.    I also ask that you give us any questions or concerns you can think of.    If you just want to watch this take shape that is fine.   I would appreciate as much input as possible.   Something I realized in my fight is that I need to be part of a team to be energized.   I am hoping that you also will find this rewarding.

My goal is in Sept to have this framework detailed and sent out as a challenge to many of the leading skeptics we know well like Willie, and then in turn to others.   Once we show some good materials, strategy and tonality in what others see it, we will gain momentum.

Let’s see what we can do, as it seems this is a key part of the effective fight going forward, which in a nutshell is to educate, explain and where appropriate to challenge the public.  Others will see and support this effort.