This comment was sent to me in case it was not posted at all or in it’s entirety over at Climate Progress. It wasn’t, so I’m repeating it here because I think it is relevant to the discussion that Dr. Judith Curry started. From my perspective, the best way to begin to foster understanding is to stop using labels that degrade, and that goes for both sides of the debate.
– Anthony
Kate says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Judith Curry wrote “I reserve the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing this issue…”
I reserve the word “deniers” for people that explicitly reject the history of Jewish extermination in wartime Germany.
When I see anyone legitimize the term “denier” in the context of this debate, an alarm bell goes off – “this is not a serious person”.
To do so is to commit an unforgivable devaluation of the historical relevance of the word “denier. It’s a rhetorical tactic unworthy of anyone who wants their scientific credibility to remain above reproach.
When the word “denier” first crawled out of the political slime, I fully expected those in science and media alike to reject it, vocally and without qualification.
Instead, it has become mainstream.
Small wonder that a great percentage of ordinary observers such as I begin to question that we haven’t been fed one big, fat lie after all. For the people propagating it have seemingly lost all sense of historical proportion.
Not to mention, curious double standard.
Outrageous buffoons like Al Gore zoom about the planet in private jets in the name of your “science”. The WWF travel agency zooms multi-millionaires around the world in private chartered jets in the name of your “science”.
When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.
You may know a lot about science. You understand precious little about public perception.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.”
Wouldn’t this be more understandable if it were:
When those who support the AGW position categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, categorically reject activist scams, categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.
Harsh but fair.
I think the author did not mean to use “fail to” in this.
“””””When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.”””””‘
Anthony,
I believe the letter would be more understandable if it were edited as follows:
“When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.”
When those who support the AGW position categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, categorically reject activist scams, categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.
And, most of these deniers do not deny global warming or AGW. They only question catastrophic global warming [CAGW]. Where is the “denier” in that?
“I reserve the word “deniers” for people that explicitly reject the history of Jewish extermination in wartime Germany.”
A ridiculous taboo. I thought you had more sense.
Judith Curry,
the word ‘deniers’ is older than you and your great grandfathers were, now if some word reminds you of your horrible nightmares when you were a child and putting people that use them into such categories makes you look stupid…
Zurgel,
The reference to reserving “denier” to the holocaust may be a rhetorical one. It’s obvious that one can use “denier” in many contexts. What the writer appears to be saying is that “denier” should be reserved for those situations where the facts are without doubt. To disagree is to be a “denier” of the truth.
IMHO ‘denier’ is simply a very pejorative term.
It’s been used by all manner of controlling regimes that didn’t like the truth – whether is was the first flat-Earthers, N4zi apologists, the Inquisition – and now a branch of science in the 21st century.
What a very sad state of affairs we have reached.
It’s like the inference of a reporter saying Mr X ‘claimed’ – denier is a deliberate twisting of language to suit those who want to shut down and smear nay-sayers.
I really hope this will soon be gone.
[snip if I’m rambling OT]
The word “denier” is no longer used by the true believers, we’re now denialists.
Thanks, kuhnkat
You’re absolutely correct, and the edit is appropriate.
Deniers©
Butcher, you might want to go back and look at who is saying what. You have it wrong.
Deniers™
Deniers®
l would agree deniers needs to be reserved for the Holocost deniers.
The word fascist now is reserved for the Nazis, no one thinks of Musiline or the Spanish when this word is used. It no longer means a political/economic system where the private section owns the business but the government sets the rules. You hear fascist you think Hitler. You hear deniers you think KKK, skin heads, Akmudenajad (sorry about the spelling).
The use of the word deniers by the AWG crowd is intentional, it is meant to link the people who question AWG to those who deny the holocost.
I like the word “denialist.” It sounds so much more professional 🙂
It has been theorized before that the new generation of climate scientists (spurred by all the grants) will have to break new ground if they want to be noticed. It was also assumed that some of them will take on the establishment. I think the recent exposure to the insider dealings of the cabal will just further spur the Team’s future rival researchers.
The widespread use of the term “denier” with respect to AGW, IIRC, originated with Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
To understand the true depth of hatred the left has for those who they class as “deniers” you only need to understand that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad (a true holocaust denier) gets more respect from the leftists, the media and select climate scientists then Steve McIntyre. From my point of view that alone precludes the possibility of redemption.
Excellent comment. However, the second to last paragraph unfortunately says the opposite of what was intended, I believe.
The Jewish virtual library documents Holocaust Denial
“Deniers” can expect serious legal consequences:
Emory University in Atlanta documents Holocaust Denial on Trial Holocaust Denial on Trial: Using History to Confront Distortions.
In the Holocaust Encyclopedia, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum documents HOLOCAUST DENIERS AND PUBLIC MISINFORMATION
In discussions or debate over climate science, “denier” is a pejorative term ambiguously accusing a person of denying:
* 1) that “global warming” is occurring,
* 2) that “anthropogenic global warming” is occurring, or
* 3) that “global warming” is unquestionably caused by anthropogenic causes.
This is an illogical ad hominem attack rather than addressing the substance of the argument.
Long term global warming: I and all scientists and literate persons I know of, recognize, and do not “deny”, that long term “global warming” has been occurring for about 11,000 years since the last ice age.
Anthropogenic global warming: Similarly, I do not “deny” generic anthropogenic causes to “global warming” or “climate change”. Anyone having a basic understanding of solar energy and “albedo” recognizes that converting a forest to a field or ploughing the prairie is decreasing the albedo and increasing absorption of solar radiation. The consequent US “dust bowl” caused significant climate effects. Burning coal generates sulfate aerosols that cool the planet while “clean air” legislation reducing sulfate emissions will reduce this cooling.
Thus, to accuse a person of being a “global warming denier” per se is a knowingly false libelous accusation inferring moral and scientific perfidy.
The key scientific issue is whether “anthropogenic” causes dominate natural causes for the “global warming” of the latter half of the 20th century.
The Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 AR4 Summary for Policy Makers Sect. 2 p 5 concludes
(The IPCC
defines “very likely” as at least 90 percent certain.)
Conversely, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered in the Excutive Summary cites other evidence and concludes the opposite:
Whether the global warming from the mid-20th century to the end of the 20th century is caused primarily by anthropogenic causes is thus a scientific issue that is subject to scientific contention and evaluation.
The environmental movement has made “anthropogenic global warming” a major political issue. Heated political advocates try to use “denier” pejoratively as meaning ignorantly denying the scientific evidence. Emotions run high from beliefs that opponents are “destroying Mother Earth” and killing millions of people in Bangladesh etc.
Any scientist using “denier” is in effect making a pejorative political ad hominem attack rather than objectively addressing the substance of the scientific facts hypotheses, models, and theories. It also demeans the incredible suffering and atrocities committed during World War II.
I endorse Kate’s email and strongly recommend avoiding calling any person a “denier” in this and other forums, and explicitly challenging each person who does so.
Ok how about Heretic, Apostate, Witch, all would be used by the AGW crowd if they
acknowledged their true religion…
One of the more surprising aspects of the Climategate Papers has been the extent to which the elite climate scientist (the Team) use intimidation to control the debate. To me, its gotten quite chilling. We’ve seen this sort of ‘consensus by intimidation’ several times before in human history, and in each case, its not ended well. I wrote this at CA:
——–
“At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.”
The three options proffered so far have been:
(a) Strangle them as they sleep at night (Joe Galliani)
(b) Beat the crap out of them (Ben Santer)
(c) Subject them to Nuremberg-style trials (David Roberts)
Dr Curry, I hope that you might offer some additional options that are more in keeping with civil discourse. I would also hope that you would completely cease using linguistic devices meant to liken your opponents to Holocaust deniers.
For all of Dr Curry’s courtesy her refusal to condemn the use of labels makes it obvious that she still sees the world of science through the eyes of political activism.