Not only is there a broad range of scientific positions from lukewarmer to skydragon slayer, but a disparate assortment of personalities, nationalities and approaches, in keeping with primarily internet-based crowd sourcing. The level of concern about CO2 mitigation policy is clearly very high amongst ordinary people, who have found a voice to a large extent outside mainstream media, not having much choice. There is however minimal funding and organization, unlike the warmist side which has massive governmental, institutional and media support. A few establishment figures like Richard Betts have shown interest in our views and a willingness to listen, but are we kidding ourselves that the lumbering climate change policy juggernaut can be stopped?

Can a vast but unstructured popular movement succeed without formally organizing? Maybe the internet as a new and unprecedented paradigm will prove sufficient; I would like to think so.

What does 'success' mean to you? Proving that AGW does not exist? That is beyond your power. Convincing climate science that there is no problem. Ditto. Convincing politicians that although climate science tells them there is a problem, they should ignore it, nevertheless? That might be doable. In fact, my feeling is that this is the current position. Governments might pay lip service to greenery but the scale of what is involved in fully decarbonising an economy is beyond their grasp, both conceptually and practically.

My feeling, for what it is worth is that Lomborg is right; the 'solution' to AGW wont come until solar is cheaper than all other sources of power and it becomes stupid to consider using fossil fuels. At that point, which might not be so long away, all argument about AGW becomes academic.

I could ask you a counter-question BB. What would you say if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that AGW does not exist, e.g. due to negative atmospheric feedbacks? It is beyond my power to prove that, but not beyond the power of scientific research. The trouble with followers of the green religion, as I see it, is that they are never satisfied with a reasonable balance between people and the environment, but always want more and more, to the extent that total 'decarbonisation' has become a holy grail divorced from reality.

Western cities are cleaner and greener than they have ever been, with no horse or human excrement in the streets, good sanitation, power stations usually at a remove with good pollution controls, and vehicle pollution kept to a minimum. And as for CO2 emissions there is next to nothing we can do about that due to China's ongoing industrialization, so I think it is rational to do nothing at this point, apart from funding further climate and energy research and development devoid of political overtones.

Success to me is basic rationality. Energy sources should be efficient, fit for purpose, pollution-controlled if necessary, and cost-effective, i.e. cheap enough to maintain prosperity. It does not matter to me what energy mix we have, as long as those criteria are met. Lomborg and Pielke Jr are rational in their thinking about AGW, which they accept. Why can't rationality prevail in policy, and back to the point of my post how can we get that message across most effectively?

Thanks for your comments Laurie. My view is much the same as yours in that we probably don't need to formally organize, if the present informal arrangements will do just as well. But we definitely do need people inside politics and government, people like Peter Lilley, to speak on our behalf and advocate for policy change.

Achieving a critical mass of supportive MPs is crucial. Somehow a political and social environment needs to be developed in which it is quite acceptable to oppose current policy across party lines. That may already be happening, but politicians' own views are sometimes obscure if they don't want to rock the boat, which I suppose is most of them. In Australia there are still a lot of pious platitudes about emissions targets, even though the opposition has given a commitment to abolish the carbon tax once elected.

....are we kidding ourselves that the lumbering climate change policy juggernaut can be stopped?

Yes, without a doubt.

In 1000 years from now, prayers will still be being said to St Mike and St Phil to protect us from Seeohtoo and his devils. The whole thing is a religion with a generation of indoctrinated schoolchildren: "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". There is now a generation of indoctrinated schoolteachers to perpetuate it.

100 years from now, the fact that Catastrophic Climate Change has not happened will simply be taken as proof of the effectiveness of the measures taken and the continued need for 85% carbon tax on income and the continued outlawing of private consumption of fossil fuel. The latter will be rigorously enforced by the Climate Justice Police, empowered to administer instant on-the-spot justice for climate crimes. Their responsibilities will also include the hunting down and inquisition (and execution) of Deniers - the latter who may be denounced by their children in the morning Climate Prayers at school.

There are now too many people in influential positions [the Civil Service - from the DECC to the Diplomatic Service, the BBC, Government, industry - even light bulb manufacturers] whose careers and comfortable living depend in the maintenance of the belief for the whole thing to simply fade away.

The only thing that could bring it to an end is some major cataclysm - hyperinflation and the resulting social collapse as the West maxes out its last credit card, maybe.

Chris M

What would you say if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that AGW does not exist,... It is beyond my power to prove that, but not beyond the power of scientific research.

That is a strange statement. If AGW does not exist then, yes, that fact would probably demonstrable through scientific research. If it does exist, then how ever much scientists research, they cannot truly demonstrate that it does not exist.

Shub, why not? The amount of money and expertise going into research on renewables is large. Admittedly, money alone can bring about the necessary technology. But incentives matter and the incentives to design/invent efficient renewable tech are huge.

To me this is the real 'purpose' (wrong word, but a better word escapes me at the moment) of the government drive to greenery; it incentivises invention. Sceptics sometimes say that because we can't be sure about AGW we should do nothing until we are (sure) and that in the meantime the tech will get better. But that, to me, is a fallacy. It assumes that the current effort towards finding sustainable energy sources would exist without the green drive. It would not - the money would be missing.

Doing nothing would of course suit those parts of the sceptic community with vested interests in fossil fuels (and no, I'm not referring to BH). Denying that such interests exist is naïve.

No, a conglomeration of sceptics won't change a thing. Since the issue is less to do with science than politics it will require a POLITICAL change to make the differences we need. Whether or not even *that* is achievable is a separate subject but the likes of Dr North and efforts to bring about change through the efforts of the Harrogate agenda are the most practical way forward.

Such change won't happen overnight - it's not even expected to - but change WILL happen, it always does.

Dung

I seem to remember that you, like almost everyone else on BH could not provide or devise an experiment that could prove the existence of the greenhouse effect and I did provide an experiment that proved it did not exist.

If everyone else on BH has read your views on space travel and on the rights and wrongs of giving racial minorities the vote, my guess is they wont have taken much notice of your views on greenhouse gas experiments...

@bitbucket

'Doing nothing would of course suit those parts of the sceptic community with vested interests in fossil fuels (and no, I'm not referring to BH). Denying that such interests exist is naïve.'

It is very easy to identify - both by affiliation and by name - members of the alarmist community who have vested interests in the continuation of the climate change scare. But although I've been around the sceptic community for a while now, I've yet to see identified - in either way - ' those parts of the sceptic community with vested interests in fossil fuels'

So come on Bitbucket...you say you know who they are...name names! And give some evidence to justify your claims.

This is meant as a direct challenge in case you are under any illusions. Put up or shut up.

BitBucket

A sine qua non of honest debate is to stick to obvious, incontrovertible facts. You cannot say that fossil fuel interests are influential in climate change skepticism when current funding, to the extent that it may still exist, is pathetically small and past funding was very modest. Exxon have apparently donated to climate change skeptic entities in the past, but I think not recently. The Koch brothers seem to have been very up-front about their contributions.

In fact Big Oil has for the most part fallen into line behind the AGW bandwagon and won't say boo. If they can make a buck out of subsidized renewable energy schemes they may include it in their business model, but otherwise they keep their heads down; they know they are selling an essential product. The small conservative think-tank The Heartland Institute doesn't derive its modest income from Big Oil, as Gleick discovered to his chagrin. The Koch brothers have contributed to the Cato Institute and similar entities, funded some of Willie Soon's research and were part-sponsors of Richard Muller's surface temperature research project, the latter hardly a den of 'deniers'.

So all up, maybe some millions in total from Big Oil to skeptic interests over the years, in contrast to the many billions of dollars available to promoters of AGW and state-subsidised renewable energy development. Hardly an equal contest!

It is with a sense of great frustration that we see alarmists keep trotting out the Big Lie about Big Oil funding of skeptics. People like Steve McIntyre volunteer their expertise gratis simply because they value the truth. If you can allow yourself to acknowledge the obvious fact that climate change skepticism is very largely unfunded, people will think better of you, BB.

yup, but humouring him for now ;)

Phew that was a close one. I'm glad my friends here were able to cover for us again. They've been so thorough listing all donations to sceptics that it makes it hard for for BB. I mean, he could talk about Naomi Oreskis' work on documenting our merchants of doubt, or even Mann's work (haha, that's bring our troops to peak fury), but my guess is that our friends will contest the whole thing and will deny that the people described have anything to do with scepticism. And probably they will say it is old history, no longer relevant. That should be good cover against a loser like BB.

But let's see, it is a good idea, this blocking climate related action. Where would be the best place to do it? The America Congress, perhaps? How could we do it then? I guess we could in some sneaky way, so that it couldn't be seen, channel large amounts of money to our oily friends. Republicans probably - they are batty as fruitcakes and politicians don't care they are being bought. I wonder if that could work without anyone noticing...

Laurie Childs, woof! I like it! Deny any connection; that's the way to go if the lily-livered, yellow-bellied socialists start sniffing round how our crazy folk get elected. We deny any connection between us and the wackos. Full stop! Nice strategy, although I'm a little sceptical at the use of the word 'deny'. I mean they might call us 'deniers' which has unfortunate overtones... hey that's it, "sceptical". We are sceptical of any link between political halfwits and the essential carbon based industries. We are sceptics! Gentlemen, I think we've got ourselves a convoy!