Sceptics winning the climate debate through power of blogging! WUWT the case study.

That sceptics are winning the climate debate are admitted both directly and indirectly by leading climate alarmist scientists. There's an interesting article in Nature written by Chris Rapley of University College London. Here is just some of the "best" bits:

-  Climate scientists should learn from the naysayers [read as: sceptics are winning]
-  His parting shot was triumphalist: “Among key political power-brokers your case has been lost!” [read as: sceptics are winning]
-  Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, has now suggested that the widely adopted 2 °C limit on global warming may have to be abandoned (see go.nature.com/q7gmvo). [read as: sceptics are winning]
-  Evidently, the voices of dismissal are trumping the messages of science. [Read as: the science backs sceptics]
 - A significant factor in their success is an effective communications strategy, which the climate-science community has yet to learn or use. [Read as: by pure dumb luck, sceptics are ... winning]
-  An initiative to redress the balance is crucial if policy-making is to be based on evidence, [Read as: ... otherwise policy making will be based on the evidence supporting sceptics]
-  A first step is to understand how the dismissal of climate change is tenable when the evidence to the contrary is so extensive and compelling. [What evidence? Why would Trenberth want to "reverse the null hypothesis" if they had evidence?]
 - Much has been published on this by social scientists and psychologists, [we know ... sceptics are all conspiracy theorist and this psycho-babble is going to make us tremble ... oh look a flying saucer, followed by a teacup!]
-  As former director of London’s Science Museum, the British Antarctic Survey and the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme  [read as: I'm very important, they should just believe me! Why are they asking to see the evidence?]
-  Part of the problem is that researchers are busy and overwhelmed by information. [Read as: those researchers who have any credibility left are too busy doing science to engage in propaganda]
 -  A lead author on one section of the upcoming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told me that more than 800 papers had been published on her subject in a single year, leaving little time to read more broadly.   [Read as: We are rolling in the loot, money is pouring into this subject, yet still they can't find any evidence]
 -  But to be of value to society, climate scientists need to master ways to communicate their results effectively (see go.nature.com/euzzf7). [Read as: modern "science" = propaganda and PR]
-   There are also some uncomfortable truths to confront. [Sceptics are winning!]
-   The unauthorized release of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, in November 2009 — known as ‘Climategate’ — has left an aftermath that still needs to be cleared up. [read as: The public still need to be forced to believe the stitched up PR exercise that "vindicated" the climategate team.]
 -   The climate-science leadership, fixated on delivering more of the same research and seemingly oblivious to changing realities, has lost its way [Sceptics are winning]
-     We climate scientists — from disciplines both natural and social — need to align our purpose, re-establish our legitimacy, identify and understand our target audiences and decide how best to express our message. [Note: Climate "science" is a social science!]
-      Above all, we need to develop a new, coherent initiative to engage collectively and actively in the political and public discourse.  [Forget science, forget evidence, let's be politicians and then everyone will trust us?]
-  WHY DON’T THEY GET IT?  [Yes! We don't get any of the funding that pours your way]
-   A great deal is known about why people reject the messages of climate science. [Sceptics are .... winning]
 -  According to Daniel Kahneman in his 2012 book Thinking Fast and Slow (Penguin), the human mind can believe almost anything.     [Read as: there's still hope people could believe climate-social-science]
-    We are influenced by the views of those with whom we identify, and whose esteem we seek. [Why do sceptics ask to see the evidence?]
-     Once a mindset is established, dissonant facts are met with resistance. Pot, Kettle, Black.]
-     However, anxiety alone does not account for the fervour of those who are dismissive. An association between climate-dismissive attitudes and people with an individualistic outlook and libertarian politics suggests an ideological root to such beliefs. [Read as: they should just accept what I say and stop asking to see the evidence]
-      When faced with implacable disagreement, non-experts must decide who to believe. The issue of trust is therefore paramount. And therein lies a problem.  [Read as: The public do not trust us.]
 -      I propose that, as a public statement of our ideals, climate scientists should agree and commit to principles of professional conduct [The world saw the professional standards of climate-social-scientists in climategate. They have been judged by their actions and those show what type of standards they apply to their "professional" conduct (as in profiteering)]
 -      The climate-dismissive think tanks and organizations have been effective  [Sceptics are ... still winning!]
-       They deliver simple messages that are crafted to agree with specific value sets and world views. [Read as: Sceptics value good science and it's hard to easily counter this with PR]
    ... In contrast, the climate-science community delivers messages to policy-makers and the public that are often highly technical and detailed. [Read as: we've tried inventing longer and longer words, but it doesn't hide the lack of evidence.
 -      Note, he more or less admits that sceptics are denied access to policy makers, but still he wishes to exclude us from the few avenues that a democratic society allows us to put our case]
-        We need to appreciate that the things we climate scientists don’t agree on — nuanced disputes at the frontier of our field — are not relevant to policy-making [Read as: we must stop telling the truth about the huge uncertainties and lack of evidence]
 -       A CALL TO ACTION - Who could organize such an initiative? Climate science extends across many disciplines,  [Note: more proof it's not science, but social science, marketing, profiteering, etc.]
-        Similarly, I believe that the Internet provides the forum for like-minded and motivated climate scientists from all disciplines to mobilize and transform the impact of climate science on the public and politics. [Read as: Having control of all the academic journals, an inside line to policy makers, and a string of journalists ready to print any garbage we like, still isn't enough to make people believe our non-science]
-        The warning signals from the planet are clear. [Read as: let's pretend it hasn't stopped warming]
-  Now is the moment for our community to adopt the rallying cry of sea kayakers confronted with conditions too challenging to handle alone: “Time to raft up!”.  [Read as: Climate-social-science is up the creek without a paddle]

Financially, it was an unequal battle with the odds stacked highly against sceptics. The sceptics used no-cost social media, particularly blogs as their communication weapon. The rest was history. Leading the charge was the blog WUWT administered by Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist. In 5 years, the blog received a whopping 124,746,322 hits. This made WUWT not only the world's most viewed climate science blog but also the worlds most popular science blog.

Acknowledging the power of climate sceptics, the University of Colorado is holding a Communications Seminar using WUWT as a case study.

Read more: http://cires.colorado.edu/calendar/events/index.php?com=detail&eID=605