What Can We do and What is Being Proposed here?

There is a great opportunity here, given how badly the climate science has been explained to the general public.    There are a variety of audiences at various levels of science that can be reached which can sway the awareness of how the climate works and how claims being made are to be examined more carefully.   The lack of a suitable response to the DAGW campaign is most apparent.  The substance is overall there, but not in a manner that the public can use it.   The desire to simplify in our society and take on positions that appear to be responsible affects the political thought process in most areas.    What makes climate the hardest nut for the public to crack is the amount of technical information to gather, make sense of and then form an opinion or even a set of questions.  It just takes too much effort.  Taking short cuts the public can be lead to believe that mankind is affecting the environment in a negative manner.  The concept of climate in the form of DAGW theories is conceivable and therefore until the impact of the GND or other DAGW policies becomes apparent.  The mere fact that these policies do little to the earth’s climate but do affect society in a very destructive manner.  Skeptics have also done a reasonable job of talking to each other and not to the larger audiences.   It is also not the intent here to shout back at the opponent.   The focus is on the exhausted majority. 

Basic construct: build a grass roots movement within the skeptical community, with a crowd funding with time not money, that enables a strong effort to sufficiently close the gap in the minds of the general public on understanding climate science.   The outcomes of this effort are intended to have more science understood by many, such that more questions can be asked in order to thwart both the bad science and the bad politics.  It must begin somewhere, and seeing no resistance against alarmist political views is compelling.  This movement can have widespread impact for there is sufficient curiosity and concern to fuel engagement.   There are no doubt some serious questions.   The FAQ's gives an outline and brief answers.

The approach will be to generate a series of website experiences with an engaging non-polemic voice to further develop the curiosity of the readers. The level of science will be self-guided by the reader.  Using a highly structured approach to content generation across response or topic teams, this can hopefully develop resources across the world.  This can be achieved if the latent desire to resist the AGW/DAGW movement is as large as it appears and is encouraged via networks and leading skeptics.   Having a non-traditional self-organized body of contributors is possible as it has been done before.  There is a vision for how this organization might work.   However the marketing and selling of this concept is a critical first step.   And the earliest step in this process is to close on a Brand name and early excitement and approval from the leaders of the skeptical movement.   The mgmt. effort has to be flexible and respond well if the response to the request for action is large or small.

Backdrop:  we find ourselves in a culture war that encompasses climate, race, class, and everything that could possibly involve suppression, oppression or its elusion.  This movement pushing the Marxist cultural has defined an intersectionality of oppressive concerns in our society, real or imagined. They are clearly mobilized with a clear goal with any proclaimed solution involving large government control.   We even see mention of environmental racism as regards climate change and such activities as eating meat or having kids as proof positive.   All of this is in plain sight for all to see.  The highly toxic circumstances even promote the use of violence and defend its use as righteous.   See antifa as a case in point.  Redefining reason, selecting facts of interest while ignoring others leads to hypocrisy of the greatest order which is defended as allowed in the struggle for the higher social good that the leaders of this movement define.    This is a massive power play, and the current democratic campaigns in the Presidential race make no bones about wanting socialism as the way forward.  This is not socialism in defining support systems for citizens.  It is the ownership of the economy, the classic definition of socialism.   For more on the background of how this proposal took shape see this Link.

Realization:  We are good at talking to other educated skeptics.  We think that graphs and data will win, as the nearby diagram indicates.  But can we be good at explaining to the public what climate science is and what we believe to be true?  This is a real challenge as the public has a variable understanding of even basic science?   We should also be able to have a wide variety of learning paths to address these needs, to engage with a wide audience. The website methodology has to allow for reader defined paths versus the serial process of a written article.   The content can draw all levels into a web of learning.  Using linked material (an even use embedded links in an infographic) at the various levels such a wide audience can be reached.  For some finding the crack is in the art of engagement to not build a wall but unleash concerns about alarmism.

What happened and how did we get here, both strategically and objectively?   And what to do about it now, given that as Joe Bast puts it well, we are out spent 1000 to 1,and the believers are at many times more energetic than skeptics?  True believers in AGW can be religious zealots.   What are our options?   Where does one find the resources to fight back?   We must reach the general public in a meaningful way as they see the concerns above but are being told there is no alternative.  A key:  we need to energize the skeptical community to apply a different approach and for them to gain some sense of activism that they can be a part of.  They need to believe it is possible and to see a means as to how. 

A possible timeline for how this might occur is at this Link.

  There may come a time in every movement when new direction need to be explored.   Is this the time for such a new direction in the discussions on climate change?   We all know that the heavily funded and organized AGW movement is winning on many levels, and the forces behind what we can call OpenS is not gathering steam or momentum.   It can best be described as a band of individuals fighting in their own way.  Think tanks have largely discarded the fight against AGW, signally that the debate on science is over.  This can be argued is a fatal flaw in our strategy. 

There are three basic advantages that we as skeptics have in this battle. 

1. The first is a belief in good science leading to understanding that DAGW ideas are not valid.  
2. The second is that openS is not a political movement but a reasoned one. 
3. The third is our policies are a great deal more sane and defendable than theirs.

Plenty of information exists out there as to how complex climate science can be explained, and how little is known, and what is known does not support AGW and clearly not DAGW.  There has not been a case made that is strong enough to the general public to argue against DAGW being real.   The pro-DAGW arguments on the other hand, can be questioned and refuted easily.  The public has not seen this nor understands it.  Also politics as a strong component of DAGW science is easily seen as not credible, and no doubt has lead the public to be concerned.   Therefore the opportunity to ague well and fill this gap does exist.

Focus: tackle a wide range of science and political topics well. The mission is achievable.  Generate a series of websites with different voices, proceeding down paths to higher levels of detail on any topic.   It is therefore suitable for a beginner and a more experienced science trained person.

Success can be achieved how:  The basic idea is to bridge the gap between good science, openS, and the targeted audiences with the use of the appropriate voice(s).  The ”how” has to be generating content, in a structured flow, with a well outlined communication framework with adequate participation of the large skeptical community.  This self-selected group can come to see that this movement can use them well and can succeed.  There are large unknowns as to how this might go viral, but there are instances of this actually working.  And there are barriers to achieving these goals, see some answers to how to overcome.

Using this distributed resource, the model is low cost and far reaching.  How fast this might occur or if at all depends a great deal on how the leaders within the skeptical community see this proposal and make it their own.  Various voices are needed in order to reach a wide range of audiences.   To construct a set of message that effectively counter the messages they hear every week on climate change is a daunting challenge.  Is there a tipping point?  Given that the vast billions that have been spent have moved the needle quite slowly is encouraging.   Given more rational demeanor and perspectives and information, many of the public will begin to ask more questions.  

The success can come also because the general public is growing concerned about the policies being proposed and the associated politics of highly centralized government.    There is a thirst for another outlet, another answer that say that good environmentalist is to go in a different direction than the doomsday GND.  A fresh one that is not easily cataloged as politically biased is also a challenge, and will require a high degree of discipline and diligence.  The generous use of websites and even videos with ease of use access to knowledge on various topics can propel some to gain a more curious outlook, and question the messages they hear.  Seeing a growing number that can even debate the alarmist messages will be another good sign.   Success depends on having first the skeptics rally in a positive manner, to support with small content contributions and large skills.  Skeptics are poised to rally to a measure that is hard to predict, but optimistically if properly proposed and structured it can be achieved.   One can make s case that the skeptical community wants to do more.   

Right now:  What we are asking you to do is to suggest ideas and to raise questions.  See what makes sense here and what needs more detail or even selling points.  Can you support these concepts and call for all to jump onto a topic, or even outline websites.  There are variety of ways such contributions of time can be made, small and large.  If our troops in this war are awaiting for some new opportunities, then are not there great possibilities here?   Can we not educate, challenge the general public to see all that is happening?

In other words is the war not worth fighting, and are we not the warriors?  With the right request to join from the right leaders, the response could be better than most might expect.

Maybe as a result:  become an org that takes on promoting presentations at the local and large stages.  Presentation material gathered and organized, and as well various training programs.  This movement could also lead to a more effective social media presence, local demonstrations, answering claims in a more visible manner, and so on.