Content Teams
Response teams: a set of folks volunteering for a topic to watch, analyze, and respond to. Take CMIP6 using “worse than we thought” in its prediction of ECS. Computer modelling is especially important both due to the allegiance to the model god for so many who have no idea as to how good or bad the models are, and to the relevance for the AGW argument.
The basic idea of going it alone or in random fashion is in the end unworkable in the resistance to DAGW.
There are several layers to this organized response. Each could be separate individuals or even groups.
• First the scout finding the ideas being floated or even published on that topic. Might have one expert and others watching
• Second the integrating layer that builds the outline with references. Best if this is a small group.
• Third the write the final pieces or pieces for a website or op ed. Short pages that capture the essence.
• Fourth publicize with videos or media attention. Form the more general messaging for the public.
This would also encourage community relationships at least online, and a distributed work load.
However, we see massive spontaneous organization of the resistance to climate alarmism every day. The herd is already turning. There is a response in some form to every bit of nonsensical climate alarmism. Or so it seems.
How many people do you see as being required for the "Response Teams"?
How do we enlist and organize the people required?
Why would the required number of right-leaning, naturally independent thinkers, agree to be organized in this way?
I see the alarmist teams as top down righteous religious groups, which do have energy and lots of emotional energy. I mentioned that I ran into a Sunrise member a week ago or so. What I found revealing is the lack of any understanding. This can make for good demonstrations but not good message making. Of course other orgs have paid millennials for that purpose.
There is no way of knowing what is likely, just what is possible. I think that there is a untapped resource out there of skeptics that a few of which would add value if they had the chance to be a part of something, and that it fit within their time schedule. I look upon the Peter Ridd Gofundme effort to fund his legal fees. The response to an appeal that Willie and WUWT publicized was quite rapid and large. In the end he received nearly $500K and won his case. We have no idea if this is important or a onetime event. It just has to be put forth in a rational manner that seems doable. If we have some make an appeal and we achieve a micro-commitment we can use that to sell the idea to others.
To your point why would anyone join such a campaign? It would be because the strategy makes sense, therefore the ideas we construct have to be good enough to appear worthy and compelling. That should not be too hard given the disjointed nature of the skeptical message. We would appeal to science folks who want to present the science even of both sides (voice 2) and then lead them to stronger skeptical arguments over time (voices 3 and 4).
As to what number? To begin with it could be a small number of 3-10 on several topics. Any number of things are possible after that. It might mean a tutorial flow to expose them of certain aspects of the AGW science. Even my long pdf might come in handy.
In any event if we can show progress, they will either come because the challenge is worthy or not. The question is what other options do we have?
(title)