We’ve known for sometime that there’s an underlying, sometimes overt display of hatred towards climate skeptics. However, it generally never made it into science publications. Unfortunately, the editors of the journal Nature Climate Change just made one of the ugliest decisions ever with the publication of the Bain et al letter. One wonders though, if this were a study about… say, attitudes about racism, would the Nature Publishing Group allow things like the “n-word” in the graph and text? I think not.
Lest you think this is just one entry, read on:
Nature Climate Change | Letter
Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers
A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change1, 2. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally3, 4. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions5, 6. An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important. People have strong interests in the welfare of their society, so deniers may act in ways supporting mitigation efforts where they believe these efforts will have positive societal effects. In Study 1, climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development. Study 2 (N=347) replicated this experimentally, showing that framing climate change action as increasing consideration for others, or improving economic/technological development, led to greater pro-environmental action intentions than a frame emphasizing avoiding the risks of climate change. To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.
According to wordcounter.com “denier” is used 41 times in the full letter, seen here.
Here are your results…
| Word | Frequency |
| climate | 92 |
| change | 88 |
| denier | 41 |
| action | 32 |
| study | 21 |
Further down in the list, “believer” was used only 12 times, about a 3.5 to 1 bias.
One wonders if any of the peer reviewers or even the editors of Nature Climate Change raised any questions about the use of the term? I wonder if any of them even broached the subject at all, or if they just accepted the word without thought? Did any of them suggest “skeptic” as a more acceptable replacement? Clearly the authors of this study didn’t think twice about the word. I’d love to see the peer review notes for this one.
In case anyone thinks the word isn’t rooted in offensiveness, I’ll remind you of the syndicated column that gave the use of the word the big push:
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate” on the Wayback Machine here
Comically, one of the worst offenders of use of the word, Sacramento environmental advocate Dana Nuccitelli, doesn’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot:
dana1981 Submitted on 2011/09/24 at 5:42 pmPlease, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”
REPLY: On this we agree, folks please stop using it. Now Dana, would you agree to stop referring to people here and elsewhere using that other distasteful WWII phrase “deniers”. You’ll get major props if you announce that. – Anthony
Of course, we’ve stopped using “SS” (another well known reference to Nazi Germany) to refer to the website Skeptical Science, but proving himself a hypocrite, Skeptical Science contributor and editor Dana Nuccitelli has not returned the favor, and continues to be snipped here at WUWT for using the word. The word also continues use at Skeptical Science on a daily basis. It seems this is a common problem with AGW advocates, they have no sense of fair play, only dogma and thinly veiled hatred for people who disagree with their position.
Bishop Hill tipped me off to this story and has decided to send a letter to the editor of Nature, Dr. Rory Howlett, which I’m reproducing below:
Dear Dr Howlett
I have written a blog post on the Bain et al paper you have recently published. I found it quite surprising that a reputable journal would publish an article that contained so much offensive language.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/18/potty-mouthed-nature.html
I was wondering if you would care to comment on your decision to publish the article in this form. Did the editorial team consider asking the authors to use less incendiary language? Do you view your journal as having a role in encouraging civilised debate? Do you have policies on offensive language?
Thanks for your attention.
I think writing to the editor of Nature Climate Change to ask why he found the use of the offensive word that describes about half the population today (according to polls) acceptable, is an excellent idea. Here’s the details, from:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/about-eds/index.html
Chief Editor: Rory Howlett
Rory graduated in zoology from the University of Oxford and was awarded his PhD in ecological genetics from the University of Cambridge. Rory joined Nature in 1987 and was for 20 years an editor with the journal, where he developed wide-ranging interests in the biological and physical sciences and their interfaces. Between leaving Nature in 2008 and rejoining the Nature Publishing Group, Rory spent three years as Media and Communications Officer the United Kingdom’s National Oceanography Centre in Southampton.
The Nature Climate Change team is headquartered in the London editorial office:
Nature Climate Change Editorial Team
Nature Publishing Group
The Macmillan Building
4 Crinan Street
London
N1 9XW
UK
e-mail: nclimate@nature.com
When sending email, please be respectful and to the point.
Here is the letter I have sent:
=============================================================
Dr. Rory Howlett
Chief Editor
Nature Climate Change
Nature Publishing Group
The Macmillan Building
4 Crinan Street
London, N1 9XW, UK
Subject: Bain et al paper
Dear Dr. Howlett,
I was shocked to learn that Nature has apparently endorsed the use of the word “denier” which is deemed offensive by many people in the climate debate due to it being associated with Holocaust denial thanks to a widely syndicated opinion column in 2007:
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate” on the Wayback Machine here
I run the most viewed blog on climate change and global warming in the world, and have written an essay questioning Nature’s apparent endorsement of the use of the word in scientific literature, seen at: http://wp.me/p7y4l-h7K
I question whether the peer review process even broached the subject of the use of this word. We know from experience that Nature does not allow other offensive words describing groups of people or minorities in their scientific literature, so I and many others wonder why this exception was made?
I would hope that Nature would realize that this word is offensive to many people, and ask the authors of this paper to substitute a less offensive term, such as “skeptic” or “contrarian”.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Best regards,
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Chico, CA USA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You misspelled the guy’s name…it’s “Roaring Howler”.
Something is missing in line three of the text of your posting:
“…publication of the ____ One…”
REPLY: Fixed, thanks – Anthony
Anthony’s letter is a wonderful model.
Concern for others is at the heart of my own climate change skepticism, cold-weather mortality owing to energy poverty being a piece of that.
I just attended my 25th college reunion, where several people who had read my book were actively introducing it to others. And many conversations took place about climate change. One woman who clearly felt as I did for so long and as Al Gore does still, got upset after I asked a question. This was what I asked: “What is Earth’s global mean temperature?”
To her credit, she did suddenly realize that her knowledge of facts about climate change was as she said “very superficial.” She said she looked forward to reading my book, and I hope she does..
I’ll be on “Red Eye” tonight and I hope to discuss the reconstruction of Reykjavik’s temperature record this year by NASA, among other things… Midnight PDT, 3 am (Tuesday) EDT.
My springer spaniel’s name is Rory and I suspect that I’d get more response from her (in the form of a few barks) than you’ll get from the esteemable Dr. Howlett.
While I agree that some sort of rubicon has been crossed in the publishing of this paper, I think there’s something else that’s more revealing.
For me, perhaps more important is the implication of the paper that us “deniers” can in some way be cajoled into doing “good stuff” if there’s some wider moral good or the true purpose can in some way be masked. It seems that they see us as Neanderthals who need to be led gently into their enlightened uplands rather than holders of a legitimate scientific position. Their condescension is repulsive.
‘Carbon Trader’ Al Gore reportedly invented the term ‘denier’ to place ‘sceptics’ alongside ‘Holocaust Deniers’.
What appears to be happening now is a desperate attempt to elevate ‘deniers’ to the position, apparently always planned for them, of ‘untermenschen’..
This apparently coincides with Eugenicist Paul Erlich being made a FRS.
That makes the present period economically and politically about 1933.
P.S. Skeptic (or sceptic) is the only acceptable term out of those susggested.
Contrarian sounds like “denier lite.” As you correctly point out, any derivative of deny (e.g., “denialist” or “denier”) is both in poor taste regarding Holocaust victims & their families and it shows a lack of respect for the intellect of those in disagreement. Perhaps dissenter or dissident might more accurately represent the attitude of those rejecting myriad government schemes to “save the planet” or to ensure “sustainability” for future generations. BTW, someone forgot to mention that sustainability must apply to the finances (otherwise it will be a self-fulfilling UNSUSTAINABLE scheme).
Excellent letter, btw. You should send a copy to MSM outlets as well.
Kurt in Switzerland
As I have always said, I find political correctness deeply offensive. But no one cares about me. I know why – it is because I am a member of the wrong minority.
SS is perfectly acceptable for prefixes for ships, with SS standing for the type of propulsion (steamship), so using SS for that misnamed web site seems appropriate as it reminds me of a steaming pile of …
Affiliations
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia Queensland 4072, Australia
Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries
Heh. I guess the only way this would have been better is if it would have come from a School of Political Science.
Offensive for offesnive in line 2, as well as the construction “climate debate to it being….” in same line
REPLY: Fixed thanks, too early in the morning here for me. – Anthony
The use of the word “believer” is extremely revealing! They have now confirmed for all to see that CAGW is a religion, not science.
[fixed thanks]
I look forward to reading the reply…
“A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change”
-who this group consists of needs to be carefully defined:
a)those who dispute CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as verifiable in a lab?
b)those who are paid by Big Oil to spread misinformation about Catastrophic Climate Change which will kill millions of people?
c)those who question the wisdom of Kyoto-style emissions reduction treaties?
d)those who accept man-made carbon emissions are likely having a warming influence, but feel the actual effects of this remain highly uncertain, and possible to mitigate against?
e)those who dont care?
f)all of the above?
I agree with Peter Ward. This is all about communications and persuasion, not about the basic science. Skeptics don’t buy into the science, so we must be persuaded that there is some greater good out there. Its always been about the communications and always been condescending.
Peter Ward says:
June 18, 2012 at 6:46 am
“Their condescension is repulsive.”
That’s it in a nutshell. The “politically correct” are those who think they are better than everyone else and who talk about the rest of us in repulsively condescending terms – basically because they think we are too thick to understand.
As time goes by every politically correct term will be replaced by another more abstract one as we thockos eventually work out what they mean…
We’re going to be seeing a lot more of these campaigns based on “polls”, not least because after the Shakun mauling and a few others like it more recently, it’d take a brave climate scientist to come up with a suitably alarming paper, which was so bullet proof, it couldn’t be torn to pieces in public. Apart from the usual headline seeking celebrity scientists, the rest are keeping their head down. The alarmists, being gradually stripped of any bogus scientific authority, will increasingly turn to pure propaganda.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/lies-damn-lies-and-polls/
Gergis joins Shakun, just to underscore the lesson that junk alarmist science, will get torn to pieces by the skeptic blogosphere. They now have to resort to rigged polls and psychobabble to keep up some sort of forward momentum.
Pointman
It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions
Talk about psychological projection!
A case of: ‘We’re losing the debate on the science, so we’d better turn up the ad hominems to full-blast, and see if that scores some points.’
To all policy-making officials reading this: You will be judged based on which side you come down on with this issue. The people are not nearly as stupid as these scientists seem to think we are. Not by a long shot.
RTF
More drivel. These people haven’t a shred of smarts (a.k.a. intellect) left to bandy around; instead, they just engage in mental masturbation. If you snip that, I understand. But therein is the nutshell: these people are the result of an education system that forsook critical thought about a generation ago…and now they themselves forge ahead, empty-headed…engaged in pal review and divorced entirely from reality: Sheeple.
Or a political ideology that relies on beliefs and emotions instead of logic and reason. Primacy of ideology produced Lysenko and mass starvations. This will be no better as the future is to be built around social relationships and a return to labor-intensive technology and self-sufficiency.
As I wrote over the weekend the bureaucrats are deceitfully putting these measures in place through the Belmont Forum and the Future Earth Alliance. These sound silly and in need of a caped crusader or 2 but they are anything but in the hands of unaccountable officials with access to public money. All these measures are going operational quietly through backdoors like education and public policy treaty or no treaty. They have to ratchet up the rhetoric against anyone with pesky facts that undermine ideology.
They cannot send us to the gulag yet so they use ugly words that shut down scrutiny. They cannot survive scrutiny and they know it. It’s the precise same motivation for limiting access to facts and trying to keep literacy now at a functional level. No better. We see it in the worldwide emphasis of UNESCO, OECD, and the World Bank to push emotional development and life skills as the purpose of education. In the developed West.
“Deniers” is no better than any other emotional term meant to close off rational inquiry. And that pursuit has quite a long and tragic history. Accuse the other side of what you, yourself, are up to is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Sooooo what. “Big Bang” was a term to ridicule the now famous idea – and see what a long way it has come.
I would say the use of “believer” is almost as damning in the Bain paper, and it should be offensive to AGW proponents who come to their scientific conclusions sincerely. If climate science were proceeding as it should, anyone involved in furthering its study would be considered a skeptic to one degree or another, and there would be no need for terms such as “alarmist”, “warmist”, “contrarian” and the like. “Denier”, though, is a downright dangerous term to use, even on blogs, and no good will come of its inclusion in mainstream journals.
Anthony, do not waste your time trying to reason with zealots like Dana from the cartoonists website,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
They have no intention of seeking any sort of honest discourse.
Alarmists have a long history of trying to label climate skeptics as associated with Holocaust deniers,
“But refusal to recognize global warming or evidence of man’s role has become, …a 21st century equivalent of Holocaust denial.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2005
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Views-on-warming-hard-to-thaw-1181144.php
“These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers – like Holocaust deniers.” – Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog, 2005
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2010/01/holocaust-climate-denial-desmogblog.html
“An Inconvenient Truth is so convincing that it makes opposers of the argument as credible as Holocaust deniers.” – Jon Niccum, Lawrence Journal-World, 2006
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jun/23/global_warming_peril_exposed_truth/?arts&_r=true
“It’s about the climate-change “denial industry”, …We should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” – David Roberts, Grist Magazine, 2006
http://newsbusters.org/node/8249
“If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” – Scott Pelley, CBS, 2006
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/01/21/cbs-airs-conspiratorial-global-warming-special-hosted-reporter-who-likene
“There are now proposals that ‘global warming deniers’ be treated the same as ‘Holocaust deniers: professional ostracism, belittlement, ridicule and, even, jail.” – Paul JJ Payack, Global Language Monitor, 2006
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/12/19/oukoe-uk-words-idUKN1516924620061219
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007
http://newsbusters.org/node/10730
“Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Deniers-of-global-warming-harm-us-1243264.php
“Global-warming skeptics make more excuses than Holocaust deniers.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Evidence-of-global-warming-surrounds-a-skeptic-1250041.php
“At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency.” – David Fiderer, The Huffington Post, 2009
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/holocaust-deniers-global-warming-deniers-chris-wallace-any-difference/blog-220255/
“Some people don’t believe in climate warning – like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.” – Paul McCartney, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/24/paul-mccartney-global-warming-holocaust-deniers/
I don’t deny the climate changes. Nobody does. So what is it exactly we are denying?