Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature

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

Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries Affiliations Contributions Corresponding author
Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1532Received 03 October 2011 Accepted 16 April 2012 Published online 17 June 2012

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 pm

Please, 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,

Anthony Watts
www.wattsupwiththat.com

Chico, CA USA

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

226 Responses to Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature

  1. omnologos says:

    You misspelled the guy’s name…it’s “Roaring Howler”.

  2. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    Something is missing in line three of the text of your posting:

    “…publication of the ____ One…”

    REPLY: Fixed, thanks – Anthony

  3. Harold Ambler says:

    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.

  4. Dave says:

    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.

  5. Peter Ward says:

    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.

  6. mydogsgotnonose says:

    ‘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.

  7. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    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

  8. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    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.

  9. garymount says:

    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 …

  10. Todd says:

    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.

  11. Keith says:

    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

  12. Ed Caryl says:

    The use of the word “believer” is extremely revealing! They have now confirmed for all to see that CAGW is a religion, not science.

  13. Sarah says:

    [fixed thanks]

    I look forward to reading the reply…

  14. Graham says:

    “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?

  15. starzmom says:

    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.

  16. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    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…

  17. Pointman says:

    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

  18. Steve Keohane says:

    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!

  19. Richard T. Fowler says:

    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

  20. 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.

  21. Robin says:

    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.

  22. Matt says:

    Sooooo what. “Big Bang” was a term to ridicule the now famous idea – and see what a long way it has come.

  23. Mertonian Norm says:

    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.

  24. Poptech says:

    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/

  25. I don’t deny the climate changes. Nobody does. So what is it exactly we are denying?

  26. Les Johnson says:

    Once again, the so-called experts have it wrong.

    I doubt very much if a majority of skeptics deny the existence of AGW. Most just question the future extent, the future consequences, and the expected costs. Plus, of course, the models used to get to those so-called forecasts.

  27. P. Solar says:

    “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.”

    That’s a good plan, since they seem to have serous problems dealing with the _reality_ of climate change themselves.

    If they “focus” on something else we’ll all feel better.

  28. Bob Ryan says:

    ‘Denier’ in this context is very offensive, skeptic is OK but ‘critic’ is much better. Many here take a critical perspective, challenging the nonsense on both sides of the debate. Good, robust criticism which is constructive and tolerant is the lifeblood of science – I am quite happy to be called a Global Warming Critic – does that go for anyone else?

  29. Keith says:

    Steve Keohane says:
    June 18, 2012 at 6:59 am
    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!

    Exactly. For whom is the issue of and approach CO2-forced global warming a matter of dogma, rather than evidence?

    AR5 will be the last IPCC report, not because the UN accept that it’s a busted flush, but because they have passed the stage where hard-science arguments are of any benefit to them. This kind of article, and others of a similar ilk of recent months, are the future of the pro-AGW ‘debate’. As we were told, the science is settled. Now is the time for the politics to take centre stage and mentally deficient amongst us to be cajoled into doing what’s right, by whatever means necessary…

  30. John F. Hultquist says:

    Those using the d-term are encumbered by the failure to recognize the existence of scientific and societal (inefficiencies, waste, corruption) reasons for not supporting their solutions to the perceived danger of tipping points and catastrophic warming. Note they use the term “climate change” when, in fact, it is warming from CO2 that is on their minds. Either way, they deliberately twist the issue to fit their belief (as in “believer”) so that the shoddiness of their “climate science” does not have to be confronted. I will introduce you to a mentally sound person that does not accept that the climate changes as soon as I find one.
    ~~~~~
    On a different level, these names . . .
    Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries

    . . . should be carved into a wall of shame.

  31. Urederra says:

    Nature misanthropy, more likely.

    You cannot deny that.

  32. Wagathon says:

    That’s the thing about Climatism and all of the liberal fascists, English has become a liars language and we cannot use the language of science because the global warming fearmongers kicked morality and the scientific method to the curb. And they did that because the weather and by extension the climate is reality but in the hands of the Left it is a political tool to centralize credit and energy into the hands of the state. The ideology of the Left impels them to accomplish these ends by any means available, even if truth is a innocent victim.

    http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/liberal-fascism/

  33. Anna Puma says:

    So climate change has become a religion with articles of faith that must be believed without physical proof. Definitely has become the antithesis of what science is supposed to be.

  34. Jeremy says:

    I would think that being called a believer in a magazine purporting to be about science, would be a far worse fate.

  35. Keith says:

    Poptech says:
    June 18, 2012 at 7:14 am

    “An Inconvenient Truth is so convincing that it makes opposers of the argument as credible as Holocaust deniers.” – Jon Niccum, Lawrence Journal-World, 2006

    And Jon Niccum about as credible as Christina Aguilera going undercover in al-Qaeda

  36. TomRude says:

    However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions…
    ==
    1) suppose they’ll use other means at one point
    2) insult our intelligence

    Welcome to the new totalitarian green world!
    Nature indeed is nothing more than a propaganda journal. Shame!

  37. Greg House says:

    …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,
    Anthony Watts
    =========================================================
    Anthony, I understand your feelings, being called a “denier” might be unpleasant, because it has an insulting component, but I think the overall effect of them calling us “deniers” is positive for us. Insulting us they will lose more than they will win in public opinion.

    The term “skeptic” is a bad choice. According to the WordWeb dictionary “skeptic” means “someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs”. Your calling yourself a skeptic implies, that you do not have a strong position but just a habit to doubt things.

  38. scarletmacaw says:

    Ed Caryl says:
    June 18, 2012 at 6:51 am
    The use of the word “believer” is extremely revealing! They have now confirmed for all to see that CAGW is a religion, not science.

    I agree. The use of the term ‘believer’ in the most preeminent publication of their religion is a huge admission. To get that admission, it’s well worth putting up with another usage of the term ‘denier’. People are defined by what they call themselves, not what others call them. The church of cAGW is now officially established, although most of us knew it was a religion for some time now.

    In light of that, I prefer to be called a ‘heretic’.

  39. Greg Roane says:

    HA: I am a “Climate Contrarian!”

    ….Or is it “Climate Change Contrarian?”

  40. DJ says:

    I’m sorry Anthony, but I fear you’ve erred here, because we are neither “deniers”, “skeptics” or “contrarians”. We are, I’m sure, overwhelmingly pro-environment, and pro-science.
    If it’s claimed that there’s $1,000 in the account and I find by audit that there’s only $800, that does not make ME a denier, skeptic, or contrarian. If it’s claimed that the temperatures have been steadily rising and, again by audit, I find they have not and I find incorrectly manipulated data to show they have, it does not make me a denier, skeptic or contrarian to bring it to the light of day.

    It is insidious and patently offensive the insinuation that those who bring to light the incorrect “facts” are against the environment. Why is wanting a fully open scientific discourse using factual data contrarian? It is not. That’s all I ask for, it’s all you and most who read and comment here have ever wanted. Open, honest science. The truth, with the chips falling where they may. Right?

  41. Robin says:

    Wagathon-the terms math education and science education are ambiguous enough in English that they fail to pick up significant shifts in purpose and methods. They get picked up, however, in Romantic languages like French, Portuguese, and Spanish. That’s one of the reasons the international ed agencies prefer English and say so in their publications.

    English hides the shift from conveying a body of knowledge and methods to a means of using the coursework to socialize the child and promote generic real world problem solving. Preferably nonlinear problems with no fixed answer. Helps persuade the impressionable little darlings that this is a world in transition that needs dramatic changes.

    Just needs better designs this time.

  42. I’m not too exercised about it. All the talk of ‘denier’ and ‘believer’ (who would have thought they would use that term in publication?) is going to backfire with egg on their faces.

    I guess ‘skeptic’ is OK, but didn’t Richard Lindzen say he doesn’t think that term is appropriate? Bob Ryan’s suggestion of ‘critic’ is better. Personally, I think you should have asked them to use the term ‘realist’! :)

  43. hunter says:

    AGW extremism is very destructive. Nature magazine is one of the many casualties.

  44. DaveF says:

    Jimmy Haigh 6:50:
    “…..I’m in the wrong minority.”
    Jimmy, you’re in the tiny minority of Scotsmen of Yorkshire extraction. No wonder you’re feeling persecuted. Dave.

  45. Stacey says:

    Why don’t we all boycott Macmillan Publishing Group?

  46. mosomoso says:

    The word I question is “believer”. If one considers all the measures proposed and taken to reduce CO2 emissions, and if one looks at the lifestyles of all “believers”, great and small, it becomes clear that nobody truly believes in the threat posed by human generated GHGs. Nobody ever proposes direct action to reduce emissions.

    Coal and uranium rich Australia wastes a fortune on toy “alternatives” which have to be manufactured, imported, implemented (and, ultimately dismantled), all to no end. We have no nukes, and our coal power facilities, upon which we will continue to rely, are aging clunkers. To generate cash for this nonsense, we export 75% of our enormous coal output. This expatriated coal is not used as installation art. It is combusted into the exact same atmosphere as the one I am breathing now. Much of it is used to manufacture neo-medieval junk to be used for power generation – back in Oz!

    In short, every Australian “reduction” measure is calculated to be as indirect and ineffective.as possible. Clearly, climate alarmism is adherence to faction, not to belief.

    This begs two further questions:

    1. If CAGW resulting from human activity was real, what would you do about it, right now?
    2. Who are the absolute last people you would consult or trust to take appropriate measures?

    Well?

    Exactly!

  47. A fan of *MORE* discourse says:

    WUWT‘s too-common use of terms like ‘warmista’ unfortunately yielded WUWT‘s high-ground in climate-change debate. If WUWT‘s editors, essayists, and posters were to embrace a policy foreswearing pejorative language, this would be a substantial step in a good direction.

    REPLY: “Too common”? it was used once in a headline. Go do a word count on “denier” at other websites and get back to us. Or, have a look at how I’m portrayed as having sex with farm animals (see the “corrections” at the end: http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl ) for daring to ask for a technical correction. As for you, my fine feathered fake friend, despite your handle, based on your writings here, I think you’d be quite happy if WUWT disappeared. Yet, you seem perfectly OK with that things greens say that turned that poor man into a criminally insane person. You seem to have no qualms with any of that, and that’s the true tragedy here.

    And you seem to forget, that I went down the path of “foreswearing pejorative language” with the people at Skeptical Science, making an offer, and they refused.
    See: A modest proposal to Skeptical Science

    Aren’t your really “A physicist” under yet another fake name trying to get around the conditions for the question that was refused?

    I’m really not very impressed with your “concerns”. Put your name to them, and I’ll pay attention. Otherwise its just noise.- Anthony

  48. ChE says:

    In a religious context, “believer” makes sense, but the alternative should be “unbeliever”, as in “stone the unbeliever”.

    These alarmists would make Mohammed proud.

  49. JaneHM says:

    Everyone so far is commenting on the use of language. Let’s now look at the content of the Nature Climate Change letter and ask the corrollary question:

    “HOW TO WE GET AGW’ers TO TAKE PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION” !!!
    Queue the photos of private jets, Al Gore’s electric bill etc………..

  50. JaneHM says:

    Everyone so far is commenting on the use of language. Let’s now look at the content of the Nature Climate Change letter and ask the corrollary question:

    “HOW DO WE GET AGW’ers TO TAKE PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION” !!!
    Queue the photos of private jets, Al Gore’s electric bill etc………..

  51. James Ard says:

    I like Climate Realist. But Scarlet’s Climate Heritic may be nore appropriate.

  52. Jean Parisot says:

    Why is a letter pertaining to perceptions and public affairs in a science journal, aren’t there a plethora of mass psychology, marketing, and public affairs publications?

  53. DesertYote says:

    Reads like something written by Marxist propagandists. I wonder why?

  54. more soylent green! says:

    Anthony,

    If I had the time (and I don’t) I would give you a blog post on the downfall of Popular Science magazine. It’s gone the route of Scientific American and Discover and has fully embraced the alarmist AGW position and goes as far as to use the term “deniers” repeatedly and prominently.

  55. P.F. says:

    From the abstract: “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. . . . 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.”

    Whose definition of “a better society”? That’s Maurice Strong’s entire premise in creating the IPCC — get governments and the people behind the movement’s prescribed mitigation efforts so they can achieve the kind of progressive collectivist utopia the likes of him envision.

    I am a staunch environmentalist and have the credentials to prove it. I have always questioned what Maurice Strong was up to. Just because I am critical of the sloppy science of Hansen, Mann, Briffa, and the others does not mean I am anti-environment or opposed to “a better society.” My notion of a better society does not include centralized bureaucratic control and redistribution of wealth.

    Paul Bain, et al, should be resoundingly criticized — even ridiculed — for such propaganda masquerading as science.

  56. burnside says:

    I note the advocates are styled ‘believers’. As this implies an act of faith, there may even be some of their number who take umbrage, even as we do.

  57. Gary says:

    “A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change”

    “deniers” = “deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change”

    Unlike the work “nigger” “deniers” has a real meaning in the English language. It is silly to get upset about a word being used in proper context because someone used it somewhere else as a label. In the study it is specified as to “what” is being “denied”.

    If asked “do you deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change?”

    I reply: “Hell yes!”

    If that makes me a “denier” I gladly and proudly wear that badge.

  58. Pittzer says:

    I love it when somebody says, “you mean your don’t believe in Global Warming?” I always say, ” I already have a religion. Don’t need another one.”

  59. suissebob says:

    Any ideas on what’s happened to Jo Nova?

  60. John R. Walker says:

    I’m quite happy to be called a CAGW denier. If the shoe fits, wear it!

  61. Gary says:

    However, the use of “climate change deniers” as the adopted and widely offensive label in the letter is a significant issue showing real bias etc on the author’s part.

    And kind of revokes my objection to getting bent out of shape over this.

  62. P.F. says:

    The Bain, et al, paper has the eery spectre of the Eugenics argument a hundred years ago — you want a better society, don’t you?

  63. Richard T. Fowler says:

    Will this be the lasting impression of this debacle in the minds of future generations? A broad-shouldered “Uebermensch”, wearing Underoos of all things, brandishing a hockey stick and, with a stern scowl, shouting at us:

    “Deniers! DENIERS!! Submit to my scientific authoritah!”

    How can academics remain silently accepting of all this? Surely they must have limits? What will it take for them to finally tell their colleagues “Enough”?

    RTF

  64. Brady says:

    Nature has been using the D-word since at least 2009, here in an editorial:
    “:To these denialists … “; “Denialists often maintain … ” ; “…the denialists’ conspiracy theories.”; “… but a word that denialists have used …”; “…and denialists use every means …”.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
    So ramping up the rhetoric, just before Rio+20, into a letter, appears to be in “character”.

  65. Owen says:

    I’m a Denier and they are Liars. Their name calling is an attempt to dehumanize their opposition. I’ll wear the yellow star of denialism proudly !

  66. Skiphil says:

    denier = heretic

    That’s the starting point for understanding this new religion of CAGW. I’m cross-posting this comment of mine from BH if mods permit.

    Papers like this one are part of the campaign, trying to figure out the best tactical ways to squeeze out or overwhelm heresy wherever it is found. “Climate communications” is the new rage, to try to get around the inconvenient fact (to “believers”) that not enough people and governments are rushing off the cliff.

    The activities of “climate communications” research and continual “re-framing” of terms are integral to the pseudo-science of CAGW. The fact that in terms of democratic politics they sometimes have to make nice, or simply lie about what they are doing, does not alter the fact that this new “climate communications” paradigm is designed to alter, re-educate, modify all these pesky heretics. If they can’t do it directly they will first try to “channel” us into what they view as environment-appropriate activities.

    Perhaps an antidote to the poison is in order:

    Matt Ridley’s “Scientific Heresy” Angus Millar RSA lecture

    [I don't agree with all details and terms of discussion but I do think that Ridley has done a powerful "re-framing" of the controversies to counter the usual CAGW terms of debate.]

    interesting BH thread on the Ridley lecture

  67. RobertInAz says:

    I proudly embrace the term “the science is settled denier”.

  68. Ed Barbar says:

    I have had a very heated debate with a high school friend of mine (who has a doctorate in evolutionary genetics) regarding “Climate Change.” Ironically, his view is that those who do not agree with the strong tenets of AGW have religious “belief based” systems. How odd. So I point out to him a few things.

    First, it is not I who believes nor disbelieves anything, except more evidence is required for catastrophic global warming. I have an open mind. It is his mind that is closed, based on the assertions of a relatively small number of people, who have come down from the mountain with tomes of learning, but who are not willing to share how the tomes were written. In other words, “Believe us.”

    Second, I tell him a small number of things could persuade me.

    The models could have error bars, and falsifiable conditions. Such as, if the mid tropospheric hot spot doesn’t show up, we have to discard the model because it’s really far off what we thought, If the models and their prediction of climate sensitivity are wrong, and climate sensitivity is low, we can call off doomsday. So the models must have predictive value, and falsifiable conditions.

    And I also mentioned that the reconstructions have to have all the data present, and all the methods present. That’s in the sense of Steve McIntyre, in which series filtered out by an algorithm must be present, the filtering algorithm present, useable code present, etc., so the reconstructions can be properly examined, and verified as using proper statistical methods. The same holds true for the thermometer records.

    I realize the complaints of the AGW alarmists is that presenting the information could compromise future research (that is, climate scientists might get scooped). So sorry. Either the end of the world by the slow fry is something we need to address immediately, in which case a few individuals being scooped is of no consequence, or it isn’t. Sorry, science is a subset of humanity, not the other way around.

    Until Climate Scientists start acting like real scientists, I’m not going to take their word that the entire human race has to spend $36T to convert to solar (what about nuclear, folks), or wind, or whatever is acceptable to them. Nor am I willing to “set an example,” by damaging the US economy with massive energy costs, encouraging more industry to go to China, the main C02 generator on the planet.

    All I want is arguments that make sense. When they don’t make sense, how can I possibly agree with them?

  69. Nerd says:

    Does anyone know what happened to Jo Nova’s website? I went there and it says the account has been suspended??? Did it get taken down by Australia gov’t?

  70. James Ard says:

    If Nature wanted to get it right, they’d call skeptics private investigators, doing the work that should have been done by journals and law enforcement.

  71. mkelly says:

    OT. Jo Nova’s blog appears to be suspended. I’ve gotten that alert 4 times using different ways of trying to get there. Can you verify?

  72. David L. says:

    As a scientist I actually find the term “believer” slightly more offensive than the offensive term “denier”. It makes it sound like a faith-based religion and not a pursuit of knowledge. It makes it sound like you are a member of a cult: Jim Jones had believers, David Koresh had believers, and on and on. People believe in all sorts of crazy stuff. But science isn’t about belief. How odd does it sound if you ask people “Do you believe in chemsitry, do you believe in gravity, do you believe in genetics, etc.” or “I believe in gravity, but you are a gravity denier”.

    If I were an AGW “Believer” I definitely wouldn’t want to be labelled a “believer”. But since it is a cult, not based on scientific principles, and the believers expose their religion by labelling themselves “believers” then I’m okay to be labelled a “denier”. Just like some people deny the existance of God; It’s based on faith…you either believe or deny. There’s no place for either of these terms in science.

  73. Mark Bofill says:

    I hope the scientific arguments presented pertaining to social engineering are more robust than the arguments presented for CAGW. /sarc
    This is wrong in too many ways for me to get my head around right this minute. Maybe I’ll get back to it after I get out of engineer mode later.

  74. “…..would the Nature Publishing Group allow things like the “n-word?”

    Maybe not the Nature Publishing Group, but….

    I have a friend by the name of Greg Parker who is running for Railroad Commissioner here in Texas.

    (For those Unfortunates who do not live in Texas, the Railroad Commission regulates natural resource production and transportation. They have nothing to do with railroads. It’s a long story)

    Greg understands that AGW is a hoax. His platform includes rational resource exploitation, transparency in regulations and permitting, and creating a “level playing field” for producers big and small alike. He is an “outsider” so he is running a grass roots campaign supported by people like me. He has the support of the “tea party” organizations which includes most of the Republican grass-roots activists here in Texas.

    http://parkerfortexas.com/

    It is unfortunate, but the CAGW opposition have openly referred to him as that “uppity tea party n____r”.

    So, yes, the Warmistas DO use the N word in the CAGW debate. In public. When they can’t win the debate with facts.

    (By the way, there is a run-off election here in Texas on July 31. Greg’s opponent was on the Public Utilities Commission and was a party to spending billions of dollars on wind farm subsidies. The Wall Street Journal reports that Texas is facing rolling blackouts. As does WUWT. The choice is clear to me.)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/we-spent-billions-on-wind-power-and-all-i-got-was-a-rolling-blackout/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303506404577444571241195192.html?KEYWORDS=texas+rolling+blackouts

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  75. polistra says:

    It’s always better when tyrants express their intentions openly. They’re vastly more dangerous when they sound nice.

  76. Roger Sowell says:

    @DJ, June 18 at 7:51,

    Well-said. I agree completely.

    “Deny” has many uses, a “denier” is merely one who denies that an assertion is true.

    Children deny taking a cookie. Criminal defendants deny the charges against them.

    In this context, though, Anthony has an excellent point, when “denier” is linked to those who the Holocaust.

    My suggestion is to adopt the term “climate realists” for those, like me, who understand that some gaseous molecules absorb radiant energy under some conditions, but that overwhelming evidence shows that man-produced CO2 has not and does not measurably increase the world’s average temperature. Nor will it in the future, either.

  77. Dr. Science says:

    Epiphany: The leftward drift of “hard” scientists over the last 50 years might be due to an increase in levels of environmental estrogens.

  78. more soylent green! says:

    Unlike the work “nigger” “deniers” has a real meaning in the English language. It is silly to get upset about a word being used in proper context because someone used it somewhere else as a label. In the study it is specified as to “what” is being “denied”.

    That n-word has a real meaning in English, too, and a proper context for using it.

  79. oeman50 says:

    Bob Ryan says:
    June 18, 2012 at 7:25 am
    ‘Denier’ in this context is very offensive, skeptic is OK but ‘critic’ is much better. Many here take a critical perspective, challenging the nonsense on both sides of the debate. Good, robust criticism which is constructive and tolerant is the lifeblood of science – I am quite happy to be called a Global Warming Critic – does that go for anyone else?
    ==========================================
    I like it. A critic must have a healthy sense of skepticism to do his/her job. It also implies a lack of acceptance of the status quo. I like it.

  80. Ian M. says:

    Again the “feelings vs facts” meme: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/108143-how-much-is-nature-worth-green-accounting-movement-gains-traction …about the unveiling of “green accounting” at this weeks Rio conference. Maybe with this one the average person might detect that the UN crowd has finally jumped the shark.
    A quote at the end says “It is much more important to come up with a methodology that people find intuitively acceptable rather than looking for hard commercial truths. If at a gut level people find it fair, then I think we can run with the idea.”

  81. Chuck Nolan says:

    Mertonian Norm says:
    June 18, 2012 at 7:13 am
    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.
    ——————-
    Every real scientist who agrees “believer” is an insult to their scientific knowledge and skills has screamed at the top of his lungs about how they feel slighted………..listen…….chirp
    I don’t think but a few scientists honestly subscribe to the “C” AGW of James Hansen.
    And they all know AL Gore’s just BS. (I still believe it’s just his revenge against America).
    The sheeple may not know the difference but the real scientists do.
    The only people who would take so little corrupt data and purposefully deny billions of living human beings their right to life would have to be insane.
    The scientists know they’re killing more people than they will save.
    If the temperature world wide went up 5 degrees and we lost all the ice in the world man, flora and fauna would survive. We’d open up great amounts of rich new land.
    The only logical answer just isn’t logical. Do they really want to destroy mankind?
    Only the rich, intelligent and strong will survive. I guess that’s how you eliminate the weak and stupid. Oh noes they’re coming after me.

  82. JD Ohio says:

    Whenever one wishes to claim that the opposition is being irrational and avoid the innuendo associated with the term “denier”, I would suggest using the term rejectionist. It gives full force to the claim of irrationality, but avoids inaccurate allusions to Nazis.

    JD

  83. Interstellar Bill says:

    I use ‘Warmista’ all the time, as a sarcastic label for Global Warming Totalitarians such as Graham, who asks if ‘deniers’ are:
    a: those who dispute CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as verifiable in a lab?
    What’s verifiable in the lab, Graham, is the CO2 absorption spectrum. What’s not verifiable is any change in the Earth’s observable IR spectrum due to higher CO2. Sorry, Graham, it’s been the same for 30 years so far.

    b) those who are paid by Big Oil to spread misinformation about Catastrophic Climate Change which will kill millions of people?
    Who is paid what by whom? The very idea of ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’ is 100% misinformation and 0% science. And who is ‘Big Oil’ anyway?
    As for millions of people, how about the thousands dispossessed by biofuel plantations?
    How about the millions of birds killed by windmills?

    c) those who question the wisdom of Kyoto-style emissions reduction treaties?
    The best word to describe Kyoto is ‘folly’.

    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?
    Your wording is as prolix as Obama’s teleprompter. Take an English class.

    Graham obviously yearns for a carbon-control dictatorship to save the world, and that is the very definition of a ‘Warmista’. The Warmista vocabulary includes
    1. ‘denier’
    2. ‘carbon’ without the ‘dioxide’
    3. ‘catastrophic’
    4. ‘unprecedented’
    5. ‘tipping point’
    6. sustainability’
    7. ‘Big Oil’

    Sorry folks, moral equivalence no more works with Warmistas than with Commies.
    Our labels are accurately descriptive while theirs are insulting lies.

  84. Nerd says:

    Steamboat Jack says:
    June 18, 2012 at 8:51 am

    —-

    Thanks for the info about Greg Parker. I live in Texas as well.

  85. Coach Springer says:

    A graph of social science – the science of lables and social persuasion – in a magazine on Nature. That’s precious.

  86. Greg House says:

    Owen says:
    June 18, 2012 at 8:34 am
    I’m a Denier and they are Liars.
    ==========================================================
    Not all of them are liars, some are mislead and do not apply the critical thinking.

    I prefer more neutral terms like “AGW people” or “warmists”. There are, of course, different types of warmists. Radical ones know, that AGW has no basis in real science but use it to promote certain political agenda. Moderate ones refuse to critically look into the core AGW issues but do not agree with the political agenda of the radicals.

    The third group are people who do apply critical thinking and know, what the AGW concept really is. I do not think there is a need of a special term for this group.

  87. Bill Tuttle says:

    dana1981 Submitted on 2011/09/24 at 5:42 pm
    Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”

    That’s the correct acronym — if you happen to be a semiautomatic Kalashnikov carbine.

    Sorry, Dana. The Rooskies have dibs on that one…

  88. Pamela Gray says:

    hmmmm. What were the methods used in this survey? The questions? The analysis? Sampling error? Survey studies are fraught with pitfalls and bias supremely difficult to overcome. But more importantly, the numbers may not meet the ceiling for validity or reliability. Maybe that’s why this “study” was reported in a letter versus a full-blown research article. I am guessing here but I wonder if it was initially presented as an article, couldn’t pass peer review, and was then sent back to the authors with the suggestion that they submit it as a letter.

  89. NickB. says:

    This, unfortunately, seems to be par for the course when it comes to political discourse these days… pick the most extreme argument you can find from your opposition, argue against *that* and ignore that there are less extreme, and well reasoned opposing arguments.

    It’s the rhetorical equivalent to using the Westboro Baptist Church as representative of all non-aetheists.

    I would argue that it is, in effect, a strawman. At the very least it allows the one doing the arguing to focus on the fantastic – and often imaginary – arguments of their cartoonish, boogeymen adversaries and ignore more prevalent, more reasoned contrary thinking. Since these fantastical opponents – if they even exist – are obviously unhinged, it also carries little consequence to prescribe whatever horrible, evil motivations one can think of, no matter how ridiculous they might really be.

    It’s just a shame that we can’t be a little more grown up about it in politics, but for this to infect “science” (if one can properly call the current state of climate “science” a science) is really disheartening. Science is supposed to be about reason… this is something else all together.

  90. techgm says:

    The opposite of “Believers” is “Non-Believers.” These two terms are appropriate to describe people who are on opposite sides of a debate regarding something that is not accepted as fact nor been proven to be true. “Deniers” is a term that would be used to describe those who do not accept a proven fact as being true. That NCC has labeled their side as “Believers” is tacit admission that they accept that “climate change” and “global warming” are NOT fact nor proven (although they probably did not intend it).

  91. lgp says:

    You’re missing the good news, by promulgating the word “believers” Nature is reinforcing that Global Warming is faith based science, not rational science :-)

  92. Mike Bryant says:

    I like “rationalist”

    rationalist – someone who emphasizes observable facts and excludes metaphysical speculation about origins or ultimate causes

    or perhaps:

    logical positivist – someone who maintains that any statement that cannot be verified empirically is meaningless

    Of course, “logical positivist” just doesn’t “sing”,

    I find it very sad that anyone would want to be called a “believer” in any scientific hypothesis.

  93. Bill Tuttle says:

    Interstellar Bill says:
    June 18, 2012 at 9:04 am
    I use ‘Warmista’ all the time, as a sarcastic label for Global Warming Totalitarians….Our labels are accurately descriptive while theirs are insulting lies.

    Particularly so since we don’t deny that the climate is changing — we’re merely dubious that it’s changing the way the Tantrumistas claim it is…

  94. n.n says:

    The consensus is in. The Earth is flat.

    It’s just like the good old days when deniers suffered redistributive and retributive change.

  95. Phil C says:

    I doubt very much if a majority of skeptics deny the existence of AGW. Most just question the future extent, the future consequences, and the expected costs. Plus, of course, the models used to get to those so-called forecasts.

    On that note, it would greatly help if Anthony did a series of articles here on where he does accept the existence of AGW. He’s a reviewer now, so start with the most recently published IPCC Working Group I findings.

  96. Ian says:

    I wonder if the, undoubtedly objectionable,term denier really has that much impact as since 2007 the number of those sceptical of CAGW has increased substantially. I think there re more sceptics now than the are non-sceptics. The superciliousness of those that write on and post to the various pro-AGW sites could have far more impact as no one likes being talked down to or treated in a very contemptuous manner.

  97. Bob Ryan says:
    June 18, 2012 at 7:25 am

    I’m with you so far! I’m wondering if we share the same Alma Mater as well….

  98. Jenn Oates says:

    We don’t deny scientific evidence, we reject hypotheses that lack it.

  99. timetochooseagain says:

    There is something else that should never have passed peer review: Blatant policy advocacy.

    Since when is it the objective of an ostensibly scientific journal to promote as a good and desirable goal, convincing people to support a particular position on the policy their government should take? Is not science supposed to an apolitical undertaking? Then why is it that “science” journals increasingly, openly promote ideological or even partisan political agendas?

    One can only conclude that either science is not ideologically neutral, or that these journals are not scientific. The latter is the least abominable alternative.

  100. Steve C says:

    Well, they’re not going to call us “climate realists”, are they – although that’s what most people here seem de facto to be – for the obvious reason that they’d automatically undermine their own position every time they said it. With the real world undermining their position every day for years now, that would rather hasten their inevitable demise. Let ‘em play – or as we used to say, “let them damn themselves out of their own mouths”. It makes a big, soft target for us every time they substitute invective for the reasoned arguments they lack.

    (NB The reference to ‘their inevitable demise’ is not a death threat. Better add that, these people are delusional after all.)

  101. John Whitman says:

    The CAGW alarmists have their intellectual leaders who are the strategists and it is obvious that leadersip excludes the one dimensional person we know as Sacramento environmental advocate Dana Nuccitelli (dana1981).  

    Nuccitelli is incapable of realizing that every time he refers to those critical of IPCC centric CAGWism as ‘deniers’ he increases skeptic energy and motivation to bring balanced scientific processes in opposition to the IPCC’s biased, myopic, policy informed assessments.

    Nuccitelli is one of his movement’s Achilles heels.

    John

  102. R Barker says:

    It appears that the study in question has established the environmental movement as a religion and as such needs to be treated as one. Anyone who questions their beliefs are implied to be lower class citizens and prone to criminal activity. The sociologists suggest that deniers are victims of deception, ignorance, misunderstanding.
    In any case, IAW the U S Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…….” So those people are free to believe what they want but the government must stop funding them because it is unconstitutional.

  103. R Barker says:

    Soryy. disregard my previous comment about funding. Those people are from Australia so hopefully the US is not funding them.

  104. NickB. says:

    @Phil C says:
    June 18, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Have you ever read an article here that argues against the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?

    The most prevalent debate here is about feedbacks – i.e. if the overall system will significantly magnify (which is what the believers believe) or (i.e. what the vast majority of non-believers “believe” needs to first be disproven) that the system will not amplify (no feedback), or may even minimize (negative feedback) the effect of increasing CO2.

    Furthermore, it has yet to be proven – as far as I’m concerned at least – that the micro-scale phenomenon of CO2 in a lab, means increasing atmospheric CO2 will yield anything other than noise in the grand (macro) scheme of things. It is an absolutely reasonable theory, don’t get me wrong, but the GCMs have proven useless for forecasting on any timescale – it is absolutely an article of faith IMHO that “[we have it mostly right this time around]” or that “[CO2 is the thermostat switch for our climate]“

  105. Ian W says:

    Everyone should note the bait and switch

    “A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally.

    There are actually 3 issues here:
    1. Most people accept that human activity has some effects on climate – the Urban Heat Island effect for example and razing forests. So the initial statement is not correct.
    2. What people do not believe is the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. A grow line a few hundred miles poleward and a warmer wetter climate with more CO2 to increase plant growth and resistance to heat stress and drought are good things. The catastrophe hypothesis has not been proven indeed the huge perturbations in the past of CO2 and other effects without any catastrophe falsify the CAGW hypothesis,
    3. It is not ‘deniers’ [sic] that do not believe in climate change it is the AGW proponents that use the straight hockey stick shaft to show that climate only changed recently and in an exceptional way. Thus the AGW proponents are the deniers of climate change attempting to claim against all the evidence that climate only changes due to anthropogenic inputs and that current changes are ‘exceptional’.

    The device of accusing your debate opponent of what you yourself are doing is a common one – many of these approaches follow the Saul Alinsky rules. “”The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”. Do not respond to the goading from Nature they need the response.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

  106. Pat Frank says:

    There is no reference list. None of the citations appear after the paper. In the HTML version of the paper on the Nature website, clicking on the in-text citation links go nowhere. One therefore cannot check their references. This is very strange and probably a mistake by Nature.

    In any case, the affiliations of the authors: “School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia Queensland 4072, Australia Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries“, show that these people are almost certainly unable to themselves determine whether AGW skeptics have a scientific case.

    Therefore, P. G. Bain, et al., literally do not know what they’re studying, and their entire study is a tendentious argument from authority.

    [REPLY: the citations are in the .pdf version. -REP]

  107. D. J. Hawkins says:

    ,

    A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
    June 18, 2012 at 7:57 am
    WUWT‘s too-common use of terms like ‘warmista’ unfortunately yielded WUWT‘s high-ground in climate-change debate. If WUWT‘s editors, essayists, and posters were to embrace a policy foreswearing pejorative language, this would be a substantial step in a good direction.

    You clowns first, viz Poptech above. (See, at least I didn’t use “warmist”!)

  108. Ben of Houston says:

    The tone is reminiscent of articles about how to get your children to eat their vegetables. I’ll agree that the entirety of the article is offensive. A discussion about whether “African Americans” are intellectually less than “Caucasians” is no less offensive than one that uses the dog-Latin form of the word “Black”.

  109. Big D in TX says:

    Are you f—— kidding me? A “denier” conversion propaganda article?
    And this is published in NATURE [climate change], not a behavioral/social sciences journal?
    (I guess that really says it all, climate change is not about nature, it’s about social engineering, and I will henceforth view this publication as such.)

    Don’t they realize that by identifying ‘denial’ as an ideological position, they are, all on their own, making it an issue of belief and faith?

    We say:
    Disagree with your facts. Your methods are bad, your data is skewed, your conclusions are false and have been disproved time and again.

    They say:
    People don’t ‘believe’, ‘trust’; they ‘deny’ our contention.

    The difference is abject and obvious.

    I don’t even know what else to say.

  110. gnomish says:

    i am happy to be referred to as a klimate kaffir.
    it means so much to anybody who is perceptive.

  111. Reed Coray says:

    As I read Bain’s letter to Nature Climate Change, two thoughts came to mind. First, I thought I was reading a ‘marketing presentation’ on how to sell toothpaste while avoiding any discussion of the properties of the toothpaste. Second, the paper seemed to be addressing the question:

    If doing “X” increases your perception that you are a “good guy”, would you do “X”?

    Duh! Maybe people who sell toothpaste should get paid for this kind of research, university professors shouldn’t.

  112. Frank K. says:

    A fan of *MORE* discourteousness says:
    June 18, 2012 at 7:57 am
    “WUWTs too-common use of terms like warmista unfortunately yielded WUWTs high-ground in climate-change debate.”

    For great examples of highly paid, supposedly intelligent scientists yielding the high ground on the use of pejoratives in the climate debate, please see the climategate e-mails…

  113. Gary says:

    Without recognizing that they don’t have any scientific proof (unlikely ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because of “ideological positions”) they propose “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.”

    So lacking proof of Man-made catastrophic global warming they propose to convince people to act as they want by convincing them that these same actions are beneficial in other ways.

    So lets examine the basis of global warming alarmism. If any ONE of these is untrue then the theory that man must act to prevent global warming fails:
    1. The earth’s average temperature is rising. (True – has been for hundreds of years)
    2. The correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and the rise in temperature, is causative (and/or amplifies the effects many times) – both NO
    3. Carbon dioxide levels are rising as a result of human industrial activity. NO
    4. the effects of warming temperatures are catastrophically negative. NO (actually likely to be generally positive)
    5. by altering human activity to lessen the production of carbon dioxide, global warming may be mitigated. NO

    With the old argument torn to shreds they are attempting a new approach:

    The new argument:
    would create a society where people are more considerate and caring
    AND/OR
    where there is greater economic/technological development

    Well, we sure haven’t seen an increase in politeness from the global warming movement with associating skeptics with holocaust deniers, exploding their heads in TV commercials and threatening to burn down their houses. And if they are insisting that by just giving up and accepting the lie the greens would become less offensive it might be true but it is not appealing or acceptable.

    On the subject of economic development: the green/global warming movement is harmful to economic development. Even green jobs “created” by government fiat spending destroys more jobs than it creates for a net negative.

    On technological development: it may be true that taxing more of everyone’s money and getting to decide where it is spent they can promote technological development in their chosen area but it prevents people from spending money in a more productive fashion and once again is a net negative.

    Almost anyone given the choice of spending their money where they choose or to have the government take it and spend it where someone else chooses will choose to spend it themselves. It is only when the idea is for the government to take OTHER peoples’ money so the greens get to decide where and how it is spent that the idea even makes sense.

    So if it comes to promoting a society where people are more considerate and caring or where there is greater economic/technological development.

    It doesn’t and it won’t.

  114. Kitefreak says:

    Ed Caryl says:
    June 18, 2012 at 6:51 am

    The use of the word “believer” is extremely revealing! They have now confirmed for all to see that CAGW is a religion, not science.
    ——————————————————————
    I thought that as well and thought the balanced approach would be to call the other group non-believers. As you say – if it require’s belief it is surely not science.

  115. Paul Matthews says:

    [REPLY: the citations are in the .pdf version. -REP]

    But where is the pdf version?

    Pat Frank is right – it makes no sense to blue-link the refs in the html version if they don’t go anywhere. If you go on to the next article, about seagrass, the ref links work.

    [REPLY: Yeah, the lack of active links is a bummer. On the HTML page here is a box that gives options for print, email, pdf... click on the pdf option. -REP]

  116. Paul Matthews says:

    OK, found the pdf link now – don’t think it was there before though!

  117. Chuck Nolan says:

    These people make no sense. What could they be thinking?
    What are we stopping them from doing?
    They already gather and publish worldwide whatever data they want.
    They already pollute our sky line with windmills
    They already blanket our lands with solar panels
    They already shut down our power plants
    They already sequester our resources
    They already destroy manufacturing jobs
    They already control our schools
    They already stop development
    They already tax us to the hilt
    They already give away our money to their cronies.

    Just what are we stopping them from doing?
    Or is it, they want to continue to do all these things and they just want to provide enough propaganda to stop us from bitching about it.

  118. DR says:

    @harold ambler

    Can you get the segment you’ll be on Red Eye put on Youtube?

  119. Phil C says:

    NickB. says:Have you ever read an article here that argues against the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?

    I can’t recall reading any article — for or against — basic physics, but that’s not what I asked about.

    There must be a lot of scientific findings in the IPCC techincal report (WG I) that that the authors of this website agree with, and those are the articles I’ve never read here. Absent any references to what they do agree with, it’s easy for someone to use the “D” word instead of the “S” word because skeptics accept some of what they read, while deniers dismiss everything. I think that’s the critical difference and it would be a wise move to publish some posts on points of agreement with the IPCC technical findings.

  120. James Sexton says:

    Poptech says:
    June 18, 2012 at 7:14 am

    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.
    ====================================================
    I wouldn’t waste my time with Nature, either. For the very same reason. Civil discourse is a fantasy of the skeptics. The thought that this was about science is a fantasy of skeptics.

    This is, and always was, an attack on liberties and energy use by a bunch of freakish watermelons posing as scientists. That Nature publishes tripe like this is proof that this isn’t about science and that Nature is engaging in circular validation of themselves and the extreme leftist fringe.

  121. Sun Spot says:

    Being as the AGW debate is neither philosophical, scientific or civil it is self evident that AGW is largely a political entity with no significant scientific component. Climate science is another matter.

  122. Wagathon says:

    Remember when jet-setting eco-whackposts fled freezing temperatures in Europe? They all gathered in sunny Cancun to demonstrate they had bought into the hoax. As faithful True Belivers of Big Brother’s AGW they were determined to agree on how best all must join together. And, who better than schoolteachers to save the world?

    http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/global-warming-a-419-scam-you-cant-refuse/

  123. mfo says:

    The whole paper is a joke. Typical psychobabble. They can’t see the contradiction in trying to manipulate or convert people to their way of thinking by insulting them.

  124. ursus augustus says:

    I thought the paper resonated with the sort on convoluted nonsense the dribbles out of Stephan Lewandowsky’s brain. Lewandowski is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Australia and his circular rationalisation of AGW makes Judith Curry’s head spin. have a look at the credits for this paper and we have

    Affiliations
    School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia Queensland 4072, Australia
    Paul G. Bain,
    Matthew J. Hornsey,
    Renata Bongiorno &
    Carla Jeffries

    and also
    This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678) to the first author.

    What an absolute bloody racket! Climate change funding for all! Ya just gotta sit back and laugh so you don’t go nuts over this utter drivel.

    What really gets me about the psychologists getting in on the action, apart from getting their snouts in the funding trough – there is an understandable logic to that, is that it poses some delicious questions such as
    a) Just what is the psychology of the repetitive use of hate language terms such as ‘denier’?
    b) What is it about people who are apparently highly educated in a scientific discipline do not understand the difference between formulating a theory, supported by empirical data or not, and articulating it, on the one hand, and being credible communicators on the other?
    c) Lawyers understand the notion of credible witnesses in their bones and so does Joe and Joanne Public ( and their kids) in a democratic society but why on earth does the whole notion just seem to completely elude the likes of the authors of this publicly funded toilet paper?

    Oh for a couch to let these people relax and unburden themselves.

  125. more soylent green! says:

    Ian says:
    June 18, 2012 at 9:26 am
    I wonder if the, undoubtedly objectionable,term denier really has that much impact as since 2007 the number of those sceptical of CAGW has increased substantially. I think there re more sceptics now than the are non-sceptics. The superciliousness of those that write on and post to the various pro-AGW sites could have far more impact as no one likes being talked down to or treated in a very contemptuous manner.

    The voices of CAGW are becoming even more shrill now. If they had the science on their side, they would be talking about the science. Instead, they talk about everything but the science. They know we’ve turned a corner on AGW and they’re fighting it tooth and nail.

    An animal is most dangerous when it is wounded and cornered. At least these people can only make noise and call us names.

  126. Richard T. Fowler says:

    Oh, check this out from pp. 55-56 of the pdf. Some more hilarious, involuntary truth-telling by these clowns:

    This sample was accessed through a commercial provider, who obtained a sample from
    the general public across all Australian states [. . . .] This generated a total sample of 377. Nine participants (2%) were excluded for exhibiting convergent evidence of pattern and nonsense responding, e.g., completing the whole survey in less than 3 minutes with no variation in scores, and answering the text question with nonsensical responses like “nanananananananana”. We were particularly concerned about the need for participants to have the manipulation salient in their minds when making ratings, and gave prominent instructions to complete the survey in a single sitting. However, the time taken by some participants (up to 24 hours) indicated that some ignored this direction.

  127. Smokey says:

    mfo says:

    “They can’t see the contradiction in trying to manipulate or convert people to their way of thinking by insulting them.”

    True. But they are not trying to convert scientific skeptics, who are only saying, “Convince me with testable, verifiable facts.”

    Instead, they are deliberately demonizing those who question their agenda, which is based on an increasingly dubious conjecture.

  128. jorgekafkazar says:

    “We’ve known for some time that there’s an underlying, sometimes overt display of hatred towards climate skeptics. However, [deniers] generally never made it into science publications…”

    It still hasn’t.

  129. Curiousgeorge says:

    Statistically speaking capital N refers to a population. Lower case ‘n’ refers to a sample. Since they obviously were dealing with a relatively small sample the lower case should have been used. This also makes a difference in the statistical methodology.

    Beyond that nit-pick, the entire article is reminiscent of a tantrum by a 2 year old child.

  130. Mark says:

    blackswhitewash.com says:

    I don’t deny the climate changes. Nobody does. So what is it exactly we are denying?

    Do appear to be a group of people who “deny climate change”. Those who claim that any climate change must be down to humans are denying billions of years of climate change which took place before anything remotely human existed.

  131. Jarrett Jones says:

    The term “climate change denier” is ridiculous because no one denies that the climate changes. The fact that the journal Nature now allows the use of this term proves that it no longer subscribes to scientific rigor and truth. I find it advantageous that they have provided unequivocal proof of their capture by political activists.

  132. dmmcmah says:

    Personally I think that Nature “Climate Change” is a joke of a journal. They also published that crap on calculating how much money should be transferred from developed to developing countries to offset climate change. That is pseudo-scientific drivel. Nature Climate Change is barely a step beyond a far leftist sociology journal.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1548.html

  133. Alec Rawls says:

    I can see Bain et al. not wanting to use the “skeptic” term. I am not just skeptical that recent warming was mostly caused by CO2. I disagree. I deny it. But “Contrarian” used to be standard term for this position. See, for instance, Stephen Schneider’s “Contrarians” page. The only reason to substitute the “denier” term is to draw an intentional parallel to holocaust denial.

    The dishonesty and/or scientific illiteracy of the authors is also seen in their failure to correctly state the contrarian position which does not “deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change,” but only denies that it rises to any dangerous level. Can the authors name a single prominent skeptic who thinks that the human increment to CO2 does not have some warming effect? They have no fact-check on their own premise, treating their ill-informed presumption as an article of faith, so I like they way they use the “believer” term for the non-skeptics. At least they know how to describe themselves.

  134. Man Bearpig says:

    I haven’t read the paper yet, but if they are showing any bias then the paper should not pass peer review. To take a side or show bias on a ‘scientific’ subject rather than point out the discovery is not science. It may be that they do not, but then they would have to define a denier and believer either term being subjective. Only MHO

  135. NickB. says:

    Phil C says: There must be a lot of scientific findings in the IPCC techincal report (WG I) that that the authors of this website agree with, and those are the articles I’ve never read here. Absent any references to what they do agree with, it’s easy for someone to use the “D” word instead of the “S” word because skeptics accept some of what they read, while deniers dismiss everything. I think that’s the critical difference and it would be a wise move to publish some posts on points of agreement with the IPCC technical findings.

    It’s an interesting idea, I’ll give you that… maybe a “[what we don't disagree on]” write-up. I’m not sure if it would do much good to change any “believers’” minds but maybe.

    Or… taken one step further, a thorough listing of issues or areas (i.e. a primer), what is common ground, what is contentious… maybe with pointers to further discussions on said topics. It would be an ambitious undertaking, and I’m not sure who would actually be qualified to speak on behalf of the “non-believer” community… but definitely an interesting thought.

    I’ve always found it productive in situations where there are disagreeable parties, to focus on the common ground to start and work your way from there, so I definitely don’t find this a ridiculous notion.

  136. MangoChutney says:

    It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally.

    No, I want to save forests, prevent the over exploitation of nature and continually bang on about clean water and sanitation, but I don’t accept CO2 as climate driver

    However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions.

    Translation: Anybody who is slightly right wing is naturally a “denier”, whereas everybody who a raving leftie is correct

    An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important..

    Translation: We have no evidence, let’s try something else

    $268K (aus)! (Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678))

    A bargain at half the price.

  137. rogerknights says:

    The obvious neutral / parallel term to go with “believers” is “disbelievers.”
    Here are a few others I’ve come up with:

    Climate {Contrarians | Cynics}
    Dioxide {Dissenters | Dissidents | Deviationists}
    Scorcher Scoffers
    Hot-Air Heretics

  138. Spartacus says:

    I think that the publication of this article only ashamed his authors and the journal where it was published. It’s a complete nonsense and I’m starting to think that ant fart that comes from certain universities and anglo-saxon pseudo-scientists (such as the authors of this article) is half-way for success in scientific publication. I’m gobsmacked.

  139. A fan of *MORE* discourse says:

    A fan of *MORE* discourse says: WUWT‘s too-common use of terms like ‘warmista’ unfortunately yielded WUWT‘s high-ground in climate-change debate. If WUWT‘s editors, essayists, and posters were to embrace a policy foreswearing pejorative language, this would be a substantial step in a good direction.

    REPLY: “Too common”? it was used once in a headline.

    Google search finds more than eighteen hundred prior usages of ‘warmista(s)’ and/or “eco-fascist(s)’ on WUWT.

    The context invariably is pejorative.

    REPLY: Gosh you really have to learn how to use Google properly. http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=warmista

    Feel free to run similar queries on other websites about WUWT, or would that violate your hater bias?

    FYI,

    P: 93.182.129.82
    Decimal: 1572241746
    Hostname: exit1.ipredator.se
    ISP: ViaEuropa i Lund AB
    Organization: Infra-trygg
    Services: Confirmed proxy server
    Type:
    Assignment: Static IP

    No comment about your fake identity then? Gotta love it when I get morally lectured from people hiding in the shadows – Anthony

  140. Jim Clarke says:

    The authors are simply a cog in the wheel to despotism. The formula has been used throughout history and is very simple. Most people (like the authors) have fallen victim to the formula. (The instigators prefer to let the converted do the dirty work.) Here is the formula:

    1. Adopt a noble cause (climate stability)
    2. exaggerate the threat to the noble cause (I hope I don’t have to spell this one out)
    3. Offer the ‘one and only’ solution (immediate control and restriction of energy, alternatives, like adaptation, are not considered, even though it is clearly the wisest choice.)
    4. Demonize those who oppose the exaggeration and/or solution as being against the noble cause (deniers, in the pockets of big oil, flat Earth’ers, and “they don’t care about the children”.)
    5. Require the citizens to surrender wealth and freedom to implement the solution.

    This is how leaders have convinced the masses to support a decline into despotism over and over again. Its like telling people to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. The formula is being followed to the letter when it comes to global energy.

    The ironic thing about the formula is that the more successfully it is implemented, the more damage it does to the original noble cause. Hitler’s noble cause was the preservation of Germany, and he very nearly destroyed it. Communism’s noble cause was the elimination of poverty and it made everyone equally poor. Pol Pot’s noble cause was the end of corruption, but what could be more corrupt than the murder of millions.

    It is very likely that centralized energy planning would quickly result in a degradation of the environment across the planet. Decisions would be poorly made and the resulting inefficiencies would produce environmental problems. Failures would bring about tighter control to squelch the resulting unrest. Corruption would soar and a black market in energy would rapidly materialize; a black market that followed no environmental regulations at all.

    How can I predict this? Simple…it always happens that way under despotic rules.

    So if you want to do the best thing for the environment, fight environmental despotism.

    (Noble causes are great, but whenever we start to see greatly exaggerated threats to the noble cause and solutions being limited to one, then we know it is not about the noble cause. It is about power. ‘Global warming’ is an attempt at a massive power grab.)

  141. Bill Tuttle says:

    Phil C says:
    June 18, 2012 at 9:25 am

    I doubt very much if a majority of skeptics deny the existence of AGW. Most just question the future extent, the future consequences, and the expected costs. Plus, of course, the models used to get to those so-called forecasts.

    If you’re going to quote skip/Timmy’s unproven assumptions,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/14/climate-models-outperformed-by-random-walks/#comment-1011230

    at least give him credit for them.

  142. rogerknights says:

    Another neutral pair of terms would be proponent / opponent.

    Their use of this term will make them look all the worse in the end. They’ve tied themselves to the mast–they won’t be able to scuttle to the lifeboats when their ship founders.

  143. Smokey says:

    Jarrett Jones says:
    June 18, 2012 at 11:31 am:

    “The term ‘climate change denier’ is ridiculous because no one denies that the climate changes.”

    Actually, Michael Mann claimed that global temperatures [AKA: 'the climate'] remained steady and pretty much unchanging until the advent of the industrial revolution: that was the flat shaft of his hockey stick, before the upturned blade. Mann attempted to erase the LIA, and eventually the MWP, too.

    Nature is employing the deceptive tactic of ‘projection’: imputing your own faults onto others. Some people use projection without realizing it. For example, thieves think everyone else is a thief. But it appears that Nature has made the conscious decision to demonize skeptics using the alarmist crowd’s own shortcomings.

  144. Lars P. says:

    The name calling and the condescence are trully repulsive but… we have now officially “believers” of the higher climate truth officially sancted. Hallelujah brother!

    Interesting to see how this religion has placed its own values devoiding words and values of their true meaning and replacing them with their new understanding.
    For example “science” is not what we skeptics understand by the word science. One cannot discuss science with a believer as for him “science” is the only and pure truth coming from a … guess what? “true scientist”. Which is again only a climate scientist which is not a fossil fuel shill – so again only a sancted scientist.
    To illustrate it take a look at the recent discussion in North Carolina. John Droz approached the subject scientifically, he solicited inputs from 40 SLR experts. But that was not science in their view. How do “they” look at it? How do “they” report it? Not as science. Only their advocacy is “science” (policies to be based on history not on “science” – this is how “they” call it)

    When reading history, years ago, I was shocked and could not understand how could christians in the 4th century behave so intransigent, so violent & aggressive against non-believers whilst christianity was the religion of love?
    Now I got my answer. The parallels are amazing. We see and live the development of a new orthodoxy.

  145. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:

    Frankly I am proud to be a denier. I do not associate the term with denying that carbon dioxide has a small radiative forcing effect. I associate denier with denying the bogus 300% positive feedback that Hansen, Mann, Trenberth and Schmidt all endorse.

    Secondly, Anthony needs to get pissed off. Do not write to these editors of some hack journal that they used offensive language. Who cares what they write, mankind will not judge them, time will. And we can call the true believers deniers also, they deny that co2 is good for plants and they deny that there is a negative feedback. I accept the negative feeback as hard fact because it does not make sense to me that the earth has survived billions of years, while naturally amplifying, instead of reducing the effect of co2.

    Listen up, global warming is radical left wing kook stuff that never should have entered into the mainstream. People allowed it to happen because really nobody cared…until they started trying to actually base policy off this nonsense. Remember back to the days of George Bush, most people did not care and most still do not. But the left has been able to place a bunch of enviro gyros into office and they are trying to base policy off of this crap.

  146. Lars P. says:

    MangoChutney says:
    June 18, 2012 at 11:40 am
    It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally.
    ———————————————————
    No, I want to save forests, prevent the over exploitation of nature and continually bang on about clean water and sanitation, but I don’t accept CO2 as climate driver
    ———————————————————
    Mango here is where I see the problem. As they devoid words of their true meaning you do not understand that for “them” acting “pro-environmentally” means – which would be to reduce your CO2 output.
    I fear that to save forests, prevent over exploitation of nature, bang on about clean water and sanitation is not regarded by them as “pro-environmentally”, only if it serves to reduce the CO2 output.

  147. NikFromNYC says:

    As an award winning ivy league Ph.D. chemist I firmly and professionally deny the legitimacy of contemporary climate science.

  148. Vind says:

    I wonder if the detoriating debating climate isn’t good for sceptisism against the UN version of the science. When scientists are so obviously agenda driven, using this kind of language, people will have much easier to overcome a certain sceptisism against the ability of the powers that be to be so agenda driven as they actually are.

  149. James Allison says:

    I think it already been stated above but worth repeating that the more shrill and extremist the believers become the more ridiculous they sound and so more and more moderate people question or simply dismiss what they say. However I do support Mr Watts for attempting to correct the Nature Climate Change editor. What a great site this is.

  150. Gene says:

    We are denying them credibility, and they are acknowledging that by calling us deniers. What’s wrong with that? If anything, I see this Nature article as an indication that they are knocking off climate change from the environmentalist agenda.

  151. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:

    I’m worried by the lack of concern in most posts that people do not understand what the Nature Climate Change article is about. They want to convince everybody that mankind has more control over the weather than nature itself. It may not say it like that in the article but this is their ultimate goal.

    Regarding the scientific evidence…well the alarmists are denying past climate statistics. They deny earth is below GAT and atmospheric co2 and they deny that there was an ice age in the ordovician.

    I actually had a good email exchange with Isaac Held about the lack of comparison between todays temperature’s and the historical record. For those who do not know, Dr. Held is one of the only good scientists I know who supports global warming, but realizes the theory has serious holes.

    But I think overall if you polled scientists on the 300% positive feedback issue, we would see Mann, Schmidt, Hansen and Trenberth in a small minority.

  152. rogerknights says:

    techgm says:
    June 18, 2012 at 9:18 am
    The opposite of “Believers” is “Non-Believers.” These two terms are appropriate to describe people who are on opposite sides of a debate regarding something that is not accepted as fact nor been proven to be true.

    According to a book on logic and argumentation I just read (titled “Nonsense”–pp. 121-23), “nonbeliever” is the complement; “disbeliever” is the opposite.

    “Deniers” is a term that would be used to describe those who do not accept a proven fact as being true.

    Good point–I think that’s how 90% of believers intend the term, not as an allusion to Holocaust denialism.

    Incidentally, a warmist comment above took umbrage at WUWT’s use of “warmista,” presumably interpreting it as an allusion to the Sandanistas–i.e., as an attempt to smear believers as communists. But “ista” is just a diminutive suffix used as a mild put-down of followers of a certain person or fans of a certain topic, as in it’s common use in Clintonistas (fans of the Clintons) or Fashionistas (fashion victims).

  153. MangoChutney says:

    Lars P. says:
    June 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm
    Mango here is where I see the problem. As they devoid words of their true meaning you do not understand that for “them” acting “pro-environmentally” means – which would be to reduce your CO2 output.

    I think you are correct, although I’m not convinced “pro-environmentally” even means reducing my carbon footprint (I don’t own a car or television and rarely fly). I think “pro-environmentally” is just a guise for redistribution of wealth

  154. Lady Life Grows says:

    I think you need to lighten up a little with the music of my favorite band, Minnesotans for Global Warming and their song “i’m a Denier.” (the World’s not on fire….)

    Have you noticed what they call themselves?? Believers!! Haven’t we SAID they were The Church of Global Warming? I consider them a very blasphemous church, but that is a personal matter.

    In preferring the term skeptics, we are calling ourselves the scientists. Well, we are, but they cannot afford to admit that.

  155. Curiousgeorge says:

    There are some lessons to be learned from the philosophy of war in this dispute. Which is really what’s going on here between skeptics and true believers, just not with guns and bombs (yet ). A brief overview of the subject:

    Quote and link:

    “Alternative definitions of war can include conflict not just between nations but between schools of thought or ideologies.”
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/

  156. rogerknights says:

    Oops–”its common use”

    Man Bearpig says:
    June 18, 2012 at 11:35 am
    I haven’t read the paper yet, but if they are showing any bias then the paper should not pass peer review.

    Yeah, besides slamming the authors and the journal, let’s slam the reviewers who let this pass.

  157. Robuk says:

    A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

    cagw believers remind me of the game Lemmings played on the old ZX Spectrum. They believe everything the leader tells them and follow him without question.

  158. timg56 says:

    It used to be that those considered to be trolls could be interesting or at least entertaining. Alas, poor “a fan..” is neither. I was taught that if you can’t say anything good about a person then the best thing is to say nothing at all. Which brings this comment to an end.

  159. JPeden says:

    “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 [denier]? 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?

    No, the exact opposite would be the case: since the whole [passive-aggressive] paper apparently illogically and unscientifically “begs the question” as to the empirical reality of CO2CAGW “climate change” and is likewise intended to unscientifically demonize skeptics as “deniers”, it is only another example of the Propaganda Operation known as “mainstream Climate Science”, which intentionally does not practice real science, but instead directs its “methods” solely in favor of its own regressive Totalitarian goal, “perception is reality” Thought Control.

    As a rhetorical rejoinder, I’d also like to ask the “mainstream Climate Scientists”, enc., why they don’t believe in the principles of the Enlightenment, which include the principles of individual rationality and the Scientific Method. Not to mention the small matter of Evolution which they keep insisting they “believe in”, but which appears to place these thought controllists themselves as likely candidates to qualify as functional dead-enders or throwbacks when it comes to the question of exactly what objectively advances the Human Race!

  160. AndyG55 says:

    To these guys, I raise my right middle finger, palm upwards.

  161. Barry Woods says:

    Hi Anthony – should you follow up with another letter to NAture.

    This comment by Prof Richard Betts (Met Office (UK) -Head of Climate Impacts, IPCC AR4/AR5 lead author) may be worth quoting:

    ———————————-

    Prof Richard Betts:
    “his paper really makes me cringe.

    Neither “Belief” nor “Denial” have any place in a subject that relies on scientific evidence, and continual testing and review of that evidence. It should be about being either convinced or not convinced by the evidence.

    “Denier” is highly-charged word, and even if the evidence is strong, using the word “denier” for someone who is not convinced is deeply unsettling.

    “Believer” makes being convinced by the evidence for AGW sound like a religion, which it isn’t.

    Jun 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM | Richard Betts
    ————————————————————-

    This comment was made on pg1of the comments at Bishop Hill
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/6/18/potty-mouthed-nature.html#comments

    he seems equally annoyed with believe and denier,being used in a scientific context.

  162. Myrrh says:

    Took a look at the archives in Nature, found this in the January 1950 issue:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v165/n4184/pdf/165038a0.pdf

    Letters to Nature
    Nature 165, 38 (7 January 1950) | doi:10.1038/165038a0

    Article Tools
    Send to a friend
    Export citation
    Rights and permissions
    Order commercial reprints
    Bookmark in Connotea
    Search Pubmed for
    E. GHERZI
    Ionosphere and Weather
    E. GHERZI S.J. (Director for Meteorology and Seismology)

    1.Zi Ka Wei Observatory, Shanghai
    FOR some ten years, at the Zi Ka Wei Observatory, in Shanghai, China, we have been using, with exceptional success, a new technique in our weather forecasting. This method is based on an as yet unexplained correlation between the usual ionosphere echoes (E, F and F2) and the future movement or behaviour of the three main air masses, which make the weather all over the world: polar, maritime and tropical, or equatorial, as some people call it. Our results have already been published in the Bulletin of the Meteorological Society of America, in 1946, and in a paper sent to the last Pacific Science Congress held in New Zealand last February.

    ————-

    Sounds intriguing…

  163. Phil C says:

    NickB. says: Or… taken one step further, a thorough listing of issues or areas (i.e. a primer), what is common ground, what is contentious… maybe with pointers to further discussions on said topics. It would be an ambitious undertaking, and I’m not sure who would actually be qualified to speak on behalf of the “non-believer” community… but definitely an interesting thought.

    I see nothing ambitious about it. Anthony Watts is already a reviewer for AR5. Here’s the link to AR4 WG I report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    He — or anyone else who objects to the “D” word — can start identifying places of agreement (and disagreement back any time they want. I think starting to identify areas of agreement will go a long way towards end the use of the word “denier.”

  164. KnR says:

    Can anyone provide me with the ‘scientific methodology ‘ that is based on the use of insults ?
    Only I can not find one , also if you could supply me the statistical value of ‘belief’ that would help me understand how this paper is related to science and not silly name calling normal seen in the school playground.

  165. John West says:

    ”the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions

    No, the likelihood of conversion is directly proportional to the completeness of the evidence. As long as only a snippet of the available evidence supports action my conversion to supporting action is not likely irrespective of ideology. There is a reason for “the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth” as a standard of evidence.

    Would the authors of this [self-snip] or the “team” for that matter if under oath with the prospect (and assurance) of being found guilty of perjury if found to be wrong 20 years from now be willing to answer the following questions in the affirmative:

    Is it warmer now than at any time in the Holocene?

    Is it warmer now than at any time in the previous interglacial?

    Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter that the “feedbacks” from 2xCO2 warming will result in at least 3 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature?

    Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter of 2xCO2 resulting in economic loss, ecological collapse, or loss of life on the order of a supervolcanic (VEI8) eruption or greater?

    Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter of 2xCO2 resulting in economic loss, ecological collapse, or loss of life on the order of a supervolcanic (VEI7) eruption?

    Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter of 2xCO2 resulting in economic loss, ecological collapse, or loss of life on the order of a volcanic (VEI6) eruption?

    Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter of 2xCO2 resulting in economic loss, ecological collapse, or loss of life on the order of a volcanic (VEI5) eruption?

    Is the early 20th century warming statistically different from the late 20th century warming?

    Has there been any significant (common meaning) warming in the last decade?

    Has there been any significant (common meaning) upper stratospheric cooling (fingerprint of greenhouse warming) in the last decade?

    Is there conclusive physical evidence of the tropical tropospheric hot spot (another greenhouse warming fingerprint)?

  166. M says:

    Nature has to be treated like any other business. such as tabacco or oil and gas industry.

    If there are abusive papers, they should pay a price, if they don’t retract false science, which is causing huge cost elsewhere, they may have to pay damages, particularly, if they have been notified of issues and damages or if internal whistleblowers confirm they knew.

    The influence and the liability of their German owners is an additional issue.

  167. KnR says:

    Lets remember why Nature Climate Change was set up in the first place .In effect the idea was to make it easier to get pro-AGW articles into the public stream. I known given some pro-AGW rubbish that has already been seen how it could be made easier can be hard to see. Nevertheless , from birth this was highly pro-AGW publication , while its staffed basically by colleges of ‘the Team’

    So in one way publishing this article makes a sense which has nothing to do with scientific validity , which is why having none is not a problem for this article for ‘Nature Climate Change ‘

  168. Dr Burns says:

    David Suzuki: “Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: scepticism””
    This would obviously make the term ‘sceptic’ distasteful to the faithful true believers, like David Suzuki.

  169. kasphar says:

    Lots of ‘deniers’ in Australia after this survey following a debate on Australian television (ABC). Note the use of the word ‘dismissive’.
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/your_profile.htm?type=Dismissive
    A pre-program survey showed the same result with a much higher participation rate.

    I prefer to call myself an AGnostic.

  170. Greg House says:

    NickB. says:
    June 18, 2012 at 9:48 am
    Have you ever read an article here that argues against the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?
    =======================================================
    The basic physics contradicts the concept of CO2 causing any significant warming. The well known Tyndall’s experiment about CO2 and IR is not a proof of CO2 causing any significant warming.

  171. manicbeancounter says:

    The term “denier” is nowhere defined. However, an infamous survey concluded that 97% of climate scientists support human-caused warming, concluding.

    It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to the policy makers and the public who mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

    Either the definition of “denier” does not include the mainstream climate scientists, or “denier” is a term of abuse aimed at marginalising outsiders.
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/18/97-of-climate-scientists-claim-they-are-not-climate-deniers-survey/

    Those who prefer the term “skeptic” should be aware that this has been redefined by John Cook of Skeptical Science, to exclude those who are critical of mainstream views. However, I prefer the views of a consensus of the world’s leading experts on language to those of a partisan non-expert.
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/29/michael-manns-narrow-definition-of-skepticism/

  172. Greg House says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    June 18, 2012 at 11:34 am
    Can the authors name a single prominent skeptic who thinks that the human increment to CO2 does not have some warming effect?
    =======================================================
    I can do that. This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood

    Here is his experiment on the issue: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

    Please note the date.

  173. Myrrh says:

    Greg House says:
    June 18, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    NickB. says:
    June 18, 2012 at 9:48 am
    Have you ever read an article here that argues against the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?
    =======================================================
    The basic physics contradicts the concept of CO2 causing any significant warming. The well known Tyndall’s experiment about CO2 and IR is not a proof of CO2 causing any significant warming.

    =========

    What is the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?

  174. TimM says:

    I deny the UN FCCC definition of climate change:
    “Term definition:
    1. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”
    http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/text/html/list_search.php?what=keywords&val=&valan=a&anf=84&id=10

  175. Goldie says:

    As a credentialed scientist with over 20 peer review papers and three degrees all pertinent to this subject, i have to say this is offensive. I must say that what I find difficult is the assumption that I am skeptical because of an idealogical position. I am skeptical, but for these reasons;

    1) because i have not seen a single piece of solid evidence that suggest what we have seen over the last four decades is any different to the (recent) past,
    2) key papers have been seriously and publicly discredited,
    3) in response, instead of scientific refutation, the discredited have resorted to name calling, and
    4) having worked as a researcher in a leading university I am fully aware of the vested interest, grant grabbing and sometimes distorted view that academics will present in order to earn a quid.

    Nothing in this debate has altered my view, instead papers like this one only serve to convince me that a skeptical view is the only rational position to adopt.

  176. Area Man says:

    Personally, I would welcome the term “heretic”. I believe skeptics should advocate for that and use it to describe themselves and others of our ilk as often as possible. Ideally it could become the mainstream term of choice to describe folks like me. I would consider that a huge victory.

  177. Conversely, I’ve long struggled with the right words to name those who are not sceptical of the CAGW hypothesis. I’m no writer, but I wrote something about this here, in the hope that both sides of the argument might find more respectful words to describe one another’s viewpoints. Futile, I know.

  178. Jim Clarke says:

    Phil C says:
    June 18, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    I think starting to identify areas of agreement will go a long way towards end the use of the word “denier”

    Areas of agreement:

    1. All else being equal, doubling the amount of CO2 in the global atmosphere will produce a warming of 1.0 C, plus or minus 0.5 degrees.

    2. Nothing else remains equal.

    Areas of disagreement:

    Pretty much everything else!

    From this point forward, the warmists assume a 300% positive feedback and everything they examine, contemplate and conclude is based on this assumption. (Skeptics agreeing to anything beyond this point is an inadvertent rubber stamp of the assumption.) Skeptics can not find any evidence to support this assumption (and plenty of evidence that it does not exist). Therefore, there is little room for agreement beyond the two initial statements above.

    The only issues in the debate, and the ones that warmists most want to avoid, are climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration and natural variability. Everything else is a distraction.

  179. hro001 says:

    Smokey says: June 18, 2012 at 11:12 am

    [...]Instead, they are deliberately demonizing those who question their agenda, which is based on an increasingly dubious conjecture.

    Agreed. And I’d be willing to bet that not a single one of these “pro-environmental” psychologists has come any closer to actually examining the “science behind climate policy” [as IPCC alumnus and UNEP's "Chief Scientist", Joseph Alcamo referred to it in October 2009**], than the unexamined spin they’ve been fed by the “pro-environmental” churnalists.for the past 20 years!

    But that aside, as I have noted elsewhere … Nature Climate Change is not the first to have sunk to such depths. PNAS set the precedent two years ago with their publication of Anderegg et al‘s equally shoddy submission, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change“.

    The authors of this ‘quantity trumps quality when evaluating’ the expertise and credibility of the “convinced” and “unconvinced” wrt “the tenets of anthropogenic climate change” [my bold, their phrasing!] used the d-word only once in their text.

    Yet, PNAS chose to confer their prestigious seal of academic approval and acceptability with the following designations of Anderegg et al (although one of Anderegg’s listed co-authors, the late, great “communicator”, Saint Stephen of Stanford, might have had a hand in this):

    citation analyses | climate denier | expertise | publication analysis | scientific prominence

    ** Alcamo at IPCC Bali meeting:

    as policymakers and the public begin to grasp the multi-billion dollar price tag for mitigating and adapting to climate change, we should expect a sharper questioning of the science behind climate policy.

    So what is about “multi-billion dollar price tag” that these caring “pro-environmentalism” activists, advocates and “scientists” are having such tremendous difficulty understanding?!

    P.S. For those who might be interested, I did blog about use of the d-word, including Goodman’s role in popularizing it – as well as contemporaneous objections of others – a little over a year ago: Of labels, libels and language launderers.

  180. ROM says:

    The term “Denier” is meant to be a humiliating, derogatory, insulting, denigrating, demeaning term used to describe somebody who does not believe in the ideology and dogma of the committed climate change / global warmer or convert. [ "convert" as in to the global warming meme. They seem to be a very rare species. ]
    However far more is revealed about the “user” of the term, “denier” than is supposedly revealed about the recipient.

    Think about it a little;

    The “user” of the extreme descriptive term “Denier” with it’s supposed underlying association with those who deny the “Holcaust”, quite openly reveals their total intolerance for other’s views.
    The “users” of the term “denier” are extremely self righteous and are often / usually quite ignorant of the actual science so their standard refrain is to appeal to authority.
    The “users” of the term “denier” are extremely hypocritical and self righteous in that they want to be able to express their beliefs any time, anywhere but will do their utmost to prevent those who do not subscribe to their beliefs from doing likewise.
    They are extremely hypocritical and self righteous in that they believe and act as though their own personal and group behavior, actions and ethics in pursuit of their ideology regardless of the lack of any morality in their actions, is unchallengeable.
    They are often / usually quite thuggish and bullying in their reactions to those who dare to differ from their beliefs.
    They often seem to have very few scruples left in attempting to suppress any alternative views to their ideology and dogma.

    Judith Curry, Climate Etc; had a post on this not so long ago.

    There are five attributes of Ideologues

    1 / Absence of doubt

    2 / Intolerance of debate

    3 / Appeal to authority

    4 / A desire to convince others of the Ideological “truth”.

    5 / A willingness to punish those who don’t concur.

    And she notes; Note each of these characteristics is an anathema to science.

  181. Bruce C says:

    @R Barker says:
    June 18, 2012 at 9:46 am
    “Sorry. disregard my previous comment about funding. Those people are from Australia so hopefully the US is not funding them.”

    AU$268,000

    “This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678) to the first author. The authors thank A. Mackintosh, M. Manning, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Lawrence and A. Ryan for their comments on manuscript drafts.”

    http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP09/DP09_allorgs.pdf …page #245

    Murdoch University
    DP0984678 Dr P Bain
    Approved Project Title
    Collective futures: The effects of beliefs about future states of society on the support for
    and enactment of social change
    2009 : $99,000
    2010 : $80,000
    2011 : $89,000
    Primary RFCD 3801 PSYCHOLOGY
    APD Dr P Bain
    Administering Organisation Murdoch University

    Project Summary
    This research addresses a novel and potentially critical factor in support for social change, beliefs about society in the future, that helps build Australia’s capacity to effectively address important social issues that depend on widespread support and action, such as climate change. The research provides a basis for a more informed public debate about these issues, and enhances the effectiveness of policy-makers and information campaigns.
    Scientifically, it enhances Australia’s reputation as a leader in social change research.

  182. Gail Combs. says:

    I figure “Denier” is better than their other term for us ~ THE GREAT UNWASHED.

    Condescension is the correct term for the emotion they want to portray, and that is the way their politically correct sycophants view us because we are not among the favored lap dogs of the power mongers.

    As usual truth is lies.
    How many people have been killed by the “deniers”? ~ ZERO!

    How many people have been killed as a result of the Global Warming idiocy made policy?
    You can start with Friday Mukamperezida. You can then add all the elderly killed due to “Fuel Poverty”

    In just the UK:

    Last winter was exceptionally cold and many had to spend upwards of 30-40 percent of their income on fuel.

    The government is in the process of cutting schemes to support the elderly, phasing out energy assistance for poor households via the Warm Front scheme and reducing winter fuel payments by up to £100. This will lead to the deaths of thousands more elderly people. In 2009/10, nine elderly people died every hour from cold-related illnesses. In just a four-month period, 25,400 elderly people died in England and Wales, plus 2,760 in Scotland. The UK has the highest winter death rate in northern Europe; worse than much colder countries such as Finland and Sweden. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/fuel-a30.shtml

    These deaths are real and preventable and if the EPA has its way we will be seeing similar deaths here in the USA. – Unreformed Skeptic commented ” The average price of the electrity contracted for 2015 was $136 per MW. PJM’s press release made it sound like a great deal. However, the current average 2012 price is $16 per MW. This is increase of 8.5 times (the average 2015 auction price for PA, where I live, was $167 per MW, a 10.5 times increase.) “ How many elderly on a fixed income can afford an increase from $150 to $200/month to near $1000/month for electricity?

    The British Islands have a relatively mild climate but the climate in at least some parts of the USA is brutal in comparison.

    Given the above, perhaps the best term for those who activity promote political action because of alleged “Man Made Global Warming” is Accessory to Murder.

  183. Bill Jamison says:

    This paper makes a major logic failure in assume that climate skeptics are anti-environment. I think most, if not all, of us that are regular readers of WUWT are very much pro-environment. In fact, I don’t know ANYONE that is “anti-environment”. That seriously makes no sense to me. Definitely an invalid assumption from the start resulting in a fatally flawed paper IMO.

  184. Antonia says:

    “This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678) to the first author.”

    That tripe is research???

  185. Greg House says:

    Jim Clarke says:
    June 18, 2012 at 11:55 am
    Hitler’s noble cause was the preservation of Germany, and he very nearly destroyed it. Communism’s noble cause was the elimination of poverty and it made everyone equally poor.
    ===================================================
    Jim, neither communists nor Nazis had a noble cause. You can as well suggest e.g. a rapist and murderer had a noble cause, like he raped a woman because he wanted to make her happy and then he murdered her to relieve her from suffering.

    The communists’ cause has never been the elimination of poverty, because there is nothing in the their theory that proves plan economy being superior to market economy. Besides, to eliminate poverty is enough to create a welfare system.

    There was no threat to Germany in 1933 and later, the Nazi’s cause was purely offensive.

    Maybe we should not go deeper into those issues because it would be OT.

  186. Bruce C says:

    Antonia says:
    June 18, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    “This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678) to the first author.”

    That tripe is research???

    Yes…….and as being an Ozzie, I also find it as an insult to my intelligence…….just because I do not believe in ‘them’.

  187. Jeff Alberts says:

    Here’s Here are the details, from:”

    Fixed it for you.

  188. Dave Dodd says:

    Actually, the opposite of “believer” would be “agnostic” — so why not “CAGW agnostic?” Works for me!

  189. William Astley says:

    Observation and analysis is on the side of the skeptics as opposed to the “true” believers. It appears the editors of Nature are anti-science, “true” believers.

    The planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (planet resists the change) as opposed to the IPCC assumed amplifying response (positive). Top of the atmosphere radiation measurement Vs ocean temperature changes shows planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes (negative feedback).

    All agree if the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming. There is no extreme AGW problem.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

    “The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”

    Ironically, commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times. The optimum level of atmospheric CO2 for plant growth is 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm. Plants loss roughly 50% of the water they absorb due to transrespiration. As atmospheric CO2 levels rise plants can reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which enables them to reduce water loss.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments

    The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.

    Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.

    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

    For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. …

    … Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

  190. Manfred says:

    Bain et al 2012 letter to Nature is deeply troubling. The Bain letter is no more than a political and editorial position statement. Looking at the methodology is enough of a red flag. Correlation to age, gender and political disposition is shown, though I see no analysis of the variables against socioeconomic indices and in particular, education. It is claimed that the sample is ‘representative’ and attestation to this is made by stating: “This sample was accessed through a commercial provider, who obtained a sample from the general public across all Australian states, reflecting each state’s proportion of the total population.”(Supplementary Information). The commercial sample is not described and I seriously doubt that participant number (n=347) is representative of the wider Australian population (22.3M).

    The message here is about being a ‘caring and considerate people’, as measured by compliance to the environmental ‘message’ and thereby becoming a valued ‘environmental citizen’. This is more of the same: the creeping imposition of a new World Order manifest by Agenda 21.” If there’s any doubt, see: http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/austral/inst.htm#groups

  191. Frederick Michael says:

    Their use of “denier” is just a bit too reminiscent of letter #1 of the Screwtape letters.
    Jargon, not argument, is your best ally.

  192. steve mcdonald says:

    I was asked in a poll. “Are you a climate denier” I answered “yes I don’t believe that a climate exists.”
    “No I mean a climate change denier.” I answered “yes I believe the climate has nevered changed in over 4 billion years.”
    “No I mean man made global warming.” I answered “Oh finally a half rational question.”

  193. RobW says:

    And a once great science journal continues to dig its own grave. Someone should tell them what to do when you find yourself in a hole…

  194. Henry Clark says:

    Anthony Watts, I like this article and the rest of WUWT, yet, in this case, when your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, don’t try to stop him.

    In a form of groupthink, over years groups of biased ideologues, so used to interacting with each other and having expelled those with independent thought, can get increasingly out of touch with the outside world and how they would appear to spectators. I’m glad they are making the tactical mistake of doing an increasingly poor job even pretending to be unbiased.

    The likes of this is going to hurt them and their allied causes once increasingly blatant deviation between their claims and later global cooling eventually forces them to try to backpedal.*

    As some journals start carelessly breaking down the superficial pretense of objectivity which they have not had beyond a superficial level in quite a while, more observers can realize there is no magic to journal endorsement and peer review (nothing more than a partial review by several anonymous individuals with likely a degree in a related field but as much potential for bias as any and utterly dependent on whether the reviewers are selected by ideological activists), leading to the beginning of enlightenment and true critical thought which is a good thing for future society and science.

    * After solar cycle 24 completes its current rise, likely peaking by 2013, the Southern Oscillation (a several-year ocean oscillation of far shorter cycle period than the AMO/PDO but on top of it) should reach its next peak by around 2014 if not before; after that, from around 2015 on, welcome to probable cooling as in right on time for the 19th event similar to the Maunder Minimum after 18 such events in the past 7500 years (each about 4 centuries apart) as http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v4n1p178 by Dr. Abdussamatov implies, probably becoming by the 2020s too much and too blatant for even the most creative data adjustments to save the CAGW movement.

  195. jdgalt says:

    Hey, turnabout is fair play. If we’re deniers, then the climate change hoax itself deserves to be labeled the Dolchstoß.

  196. Merovign says:

    I’ll call myself a denier if they call themselves thieves, frauds, and con-men.

  197. eyesonu says:

    It is an oxymoron in a true sense that the “believers” are actually the “deniers”, given that they believe in the cause and deny the science.

    I consider myself to be a “climate realist” but don’t mind being called skeptical of the “cause” as pushed by the so-called “climate scientists”.

  198. barry says:

    Found in google scholar was a 2009 study using the word denier, as against ‘admitter’. The theme was believers and non-believers of religion.

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=galen_29_5

    Merriam-webster’s entry refers to ‘denier’ as being ‘one who denies (deniers of the truth)’, and references a 15th century precedent.

    I tend to favour the mainstream view of climate science, and have never connected the term with holocaust denial (never paid any attention to the Jewish Holocaust deniers, because that kind of stupidity is only worth the effort if it looks like catching on). If anything, I would associate the word with the denial of the truth or existence of God, if it had not gained traction in the climate debate. I remember that it used to be a phrase – climate change deniers, or simply climate deniers (which doesn’t make much sense, but then, neither does ‘warmist’), and AFAICS it has simply been abbreviated over time.

  199. wayne says:

    I think there is nothing wrong with denying something that is false and held up as true.

    If they want to say I am a “denier” of AGW, they are absolutely correct. Cold times will come in the future unfortunately. Conversely, it is they, the “believers”, who have been “deceived” by the “science” that has been proven false (falsified) many times over. Science proves nothing as true, it only refutes concepts and hypotheses which are false [credit given to Richard Feynman].

    Most people with basic science knowledge or a good common sense of nature, coupled with good data, books, and articles, are now seeing through the veil and “deniers” of AGW are multiplying exponentially, as it should be.

    Don’t shy away from being a “denier” of AGW if you also now see the reality.

  200. Joe says:

    If the “deniers” are converted by the Inquisition, how can we be sure they are not lying about it?

  201. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Dear Mr Howlett

    Many concerned and engaged professionals worldwide are expressing disquiet and concern over your journal’s slightly contentious decision to run some fairly inflammatory warming rhetoric, in particular using the word ‘denier’ (with obvious Holocaust implications).

    Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask a journal purporting to be one in the finest traditions of the scientific method is whether use of the word ‘denier’ is ‘scientific’.

    This would imply that climate change ‘deniers’ deny that climate change takes place. I think scientific evidence would point to a lot of polls suggesting that a large majority of ‘deniers’/skeptics do not challenge in the least that climate has changed, does change and undoubtedly will change in the future too. No doubt if you are diligent in your scanning of information relevant to your professional duties you will be aware of such studies.

    What such skeptics challenge is that the primary, overwhelming driver for such changes is human activity and that carbon dioxide is a dangerous greenhouse gas.

    They question the following:
    1. Whether the variations in temperature seen since the Little Ice Age 300 years ago are in any way unique in geological terms.
    2. Whether the rate of change in the past 50 years is in any way unique, either in geological terms or in millennial terms.
    3. Whether the basis of the arguments put forward by scientists and the IPCC are backed up by experimental data or the result of simulations using computer models.
    4. Whether the methods of temperature measurement are sufficiently accurate, widespread and consistent to bear up to skeptical scrutiny.
    5. Whether the means of ‘homogenising’ inconsistent data sets, including the use of temperature proxies, represent a true and fair way of dealing with imperfect data sets and whether settled conclusions can be drawn before 50 years of consistent direct measurements of temperature worldwide have been undertaken.
    6. Whether funding streams for research offer equal opportunities for those of a more skeptical viewpoint or whether climate science is now akin to the Christian Faith, where questioning the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ is outside the limits of discussion.
    7. Whether employment practices in HEIs are starting to discriminate against those of a more skeptical disposition.
    8. Whether Press reporting of climate matters is even-handed or biased in favour of an Establishment position of dangerous climate change.
    9. Whether climate change is a mantra for driving through unpalatable political changes which have nothing to do with climate whatsoever.
    10. Whether climate scientists now serve the people who fund their research or, increasingly, solely their own selfish interests.

    This is a fairly wide-ranging set of questions and ones you would not, I am sure, wish to suggest are ‘settled’ in any way.

    I hope that in future your journal and its sister publications returns to the sort of rigorous, skeptical scientific reporting which built their reputations over many years, since the past decade has seen that reputation become more than slightly tarnished due to a succession of tabloid-style journalistic campaigns ill-suited to a stable of sober journals expected to be champions of rigorous and skeptical scientific enquiry.

    Yours Faithfully

    Rhys T. Jaggar

  202. Bill Tuttle says:

    Gail Combs says:
    June 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    I figure “Denier” is better than their other term for us ~ THE GREAT UNWASHED.

    But we clean up nicely.

  203. Paul Mackey says:

    Did this really get published – in a so-called scientific journal? Nature Climate Science has now, in my opinion, publicly confessed to not being a scientific journal. This smacks of brain washing.

  204. Henry Clark says:

    steve mcdonald says:
    June 18, 2012 at 8:36 pm
    “I was asked in a poll. “Are you a climate denier” I answered “yes I don’t believe that a climate exists.”
    “No I mean a climate change denier.” I answered “yes I believe the climate has nevered changed in over 4 billion years.”
    “No I mean man made global warming.” I answered “Oh finally a half rational question.””

    Funny and yet so true.

    Really the CAGW movement proponents are the deniers: Deniers of how natural climate change has repeatedly caused temperature changes at greater rates than that in recent history, deniers of how the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer than now or else trying to keep people from hearing of it, deniers of the effect of cosmic rays, deniers of how (much like radiation topics) the matter is quantitative in a way making the likes of the Doran & Zimmerman 2009 consensus trick poll be utter dishonesty, deniers of the massive beneficial effects on plant growth and water usage efficiency which occur from CO2 increase, and so much else.

    A lot can be seen even from looking at Wikipedia climate article history, where large segments of info were deleted and what those were. So much has to be denied, deleted, and covered up by the alarmist team as knowledge the public is never supposed to find out. That can be contrasted to WUWT, for instance. While the quality of articles here varies naturally under fairly open submission, there is no fear of reproducing alarmist claims and quoting them or linking to their papers, as skeptics and truth in general do not depend on ignorance.

  205. hunter says:

    Is Nature even a science magazine anymore?
    Sir Maddox is spinning in his grave.

  206. Alan D McIntire says:

    Since we Americans had nothing to do with implementing the holocaust,, “denying the hololcaust”, is a null accusation to me, sort of like denying Tamerlane created mounds of skulls.. Who cares one way or the other if an uninvolved person has an incorrect perception of history?

    I had a religious upbringing- sort of like “Sheldon Cooper” in “The Big Bang”. When I hear the term “denier”, I think of Paul’s letters in the New Testament,- statements like:

    “If We Deny Him, He Also Will Deny Us (2 Timothy 2:12)”.

    So when the “denier” term is flung around like dung, I think of those doing the flinging as religious nuts, who cannot abide heretics who deny their religion.

  207. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    ATTN: ANTHONY

    You should send _hard_ copies of your email to the editors of the “Times of London”, “the Economist”, “The Wall Street Journal, “The Washington Post”, “The National Post” ,”The Huffington Post” and several other influential newspapers. You should send hard copies before you send an email. You should always send a hard copy of an email to establish a paper trial.

    If Rory H. knows you have sent hard copies to the editors, he _shall_ have to respond to your email since you put his feet to the fire. It is a good possibility that one the editors of these newspapers will publish an editorial about the Bain et al paper and your letter to him.

    I would send copies of the Bain et al paper to the editors so they can learn how poorly written science paper are these days. You could use some money from :Tip Jar” to cover expenses.

  208. David Ball says:

    Greg House says:
    June 18, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    Some of your comments make me wonder if you are ignorant of history. The Germans (Hi*ler and his cronies) viewed the jews as the threat. Then did everything in their power (“the Big Lie”) to make all of Germany believe this. Seems to have some close parallels to Co2 and climate change.

    I am glad that Nature has done this. Future generations will know exactly who did what to whom. It will come around to bite them. What science magazine in their right mind would print something like that? The word is purely political.

  209. David Ball says:

    Jeff Alberts says:
    June 18, 2012 at 7:10 pm
    Thanks Jeff. Nobody here would have ever understood the sentence unless you were here to help. I have yet to see you make any kind of contribution to the discussion. Pedant.

  210. NickB. says:

    Myrrh says: What is the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?

    I.E. that CO2 will heat up when exposed to certain wavelengths of IR… and that all other things being equal, changes in gas concentration will yield predictable changes in behavior. More below…

    Greg House says: The basic physics contradicts the concept of CO2 causing any significant warming. The well known Tyndall’s experiment about CO2 and IR is not a proof of CO2 causing any significant warming.

    I don’t speak from any special expertise on the subject :) …but I will quote Dr. Spencer:

    “It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

    This is not too different from the orthodox opinion on the matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2): “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.”

    The meaning of the term “significant” in this context could be somewhat up for interpretation. Regardless, the basic effect is certainly lower than the “3 °C ± 1.5 °C” (i.e. 150-450%) estimated once feedbacks are included (so the orthodox theory goes at least : )

    Maybe we’re saying the same thing(?)

  211. NickB. says:

    Joe says:If the “deniers” are converted by the Inquisition, how can we be sure they are not lying about it?

    Logically, both wood and witches deniers burn, so witches deniers must be made of wood. Since wood floats, and ducks float… witches deniers must weigh the same as a duck. Therefore, if someone weighs the same as a duck, they must be a witch denier.

    /sarcasm

  212. John says:

    When your opponent stoops to name calling, it’s already an admission of intellectual defeat. Time to smirk.

  213. eyesonu says:

    Bill Tuttle says:
    June 19, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Gail Combs says:
    June 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    I figure “Denier” is better than their other term for us ~ THE GREAT UNWASHED.
    ____________
    But we clean up nicely.

    ======================

    I think the ‘clean up’ is well under way. Maybe the ‘mop up’ is beginning.

  214. Greg House says:

    NickB. says:
    June 19, 2012 at 7:40 am
    I don’t speak from any special expertise on the subject :) …but I will quote Dr. Spencer: “It has been calculated theoretically that,…
    ===================================================
    Unfortunately for Dr. Spencer, another Dr. has EXPERIMENTALLY debunked it long ago: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/18/natures-ugly-decision-deniers-enters-the-scientific-literature/#comment-1012413 .

  215. PiperPaul says:

    Hunter, Maddox is now running The Best Page In The Universe”. Oh wait…

  216. Bill Tuttle says:

    eyesonu says:
    June 19, 2012 at 9:20 am
    Bill Tuttle says:
    June 19, 2012 at 1:00 am
    But we clean up nicely.
    ======================
    I think the ‘clean up’ is well under way. Maybe the ‘mop up’ is beginning.

    We’re certainly mopping the floor with the hockey stick fans…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/17/manns-hockey-stick-refuted-10-years-before-it-was-published/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/#comments

  217. Bill Tuttle says:

    [Note to hockey stick fans: the above is not a death threat]

  218. Myrrh says:

    NickB. says:
    June 19, 2012 at 7:40 am
    Myrrh says: What is the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?

    I.E. that CO2 will heat up when exposed to certain wavelengths of IR… and that all other things being equal, changes in gas concentration will yield predictable changes in behavior. More below…

    Greg House says: The basic physics contradicts the concept of CO2 causing any significant warming. The well known Tyndall’s experiment about CO2 and IR is not a proof of CO2 causing any significant warming.

    I don’t speak from any special expertise on the subject :) …but I will quote Dr. Spencer:

    “It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

    This is not too different from the orthodox opinion on the matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2): “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.”

    The meaning of the term “significant” in this context could be somewhat up for interpretation. Regardless, the basic effect is certainly lower than the “3 °C ± 1.5 °C” (i.e. 150-450%) estimated once feedbacks are included (so the orthodox theory goes at least : )

    Maybe we’re saying the same thing(?)

    ==============

    NickB – the problem is there is a disjunct between the two statements given about this, “that CO2 will heat up when exposed to certain wavelengths of IR” and “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.” –

    the first statement, so what?, the second statement, “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming”, where has this been shown? I’ve never seen any experimental or logical reasons for the second statement and without that it is not possible to dipute it. Please, do fetch it, so we can take a look.

  219. Greg House says:

    Myrrh says:
    June 20, 2012 at 4:43 am
    the second statement, “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming”, where has this been shown? I’ve never seen any experimental or logical reasons for the second statement…
    ====================================================
    The 3.7 W/m2 looks like a dirty little secret of the AGW people to me. Interestingly, even moderate/skeptical warmists are not willing to question that number, from my experience. Some of them simply refer to the IPCC as a source, just like that!

  220. Phil Ford says:

    “Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain what “deniers” deny. Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed. All this mess could be cleared up with an email.”
    http://joannenova.com.au/

    Nature make themselves look foolish. Juvenile. Perhaps even spiteful. No good can come of it.

  221. Lars P. says:

    I think the post title is wrong:
    It is not “deniers” naming entering the scientific literature, but the journal publicing it, is leaving the scientific literature.

  222. Peter Hannan says:

    OK, I’ve read the article. I had thought that Nature publishes scientific work: this counts as science?!!! Pure defence of faith.

  223. Myrrh says:

    Greg House says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:17 am
    Myrrh says:
    June 20, 2012 at 4:43 am
    the second statement, “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming”, where has this been shown? I’ve never seen any experimental or logical reasons for the second statement…
    ====================================================
    The 3.7 W/m2 looks like a dirty little secret of the AGW people to me. Interestingly, even moderate/skeptical warmists are not willing to question that number, from my experience. Some of them simply refer to the IPCC as a source, just like that!

    Not only don’t they question it, but when asked to produce something even a bit logical and empirical to back up this claim and other memes reguritated without due consideration – they get uppity.

    Very uppity – Singer had a piece not long ago calling those who objected to AGW fisics, “deniers”. And Monckton flipped and reeled out an obnoxious ad hom attack when I questioned him about the logic in their basic fisics claims, in a discussion he was making the point that science truth should always be striven for regardless of pleasing one’s professors..

    I find it very difficult to imagine that the public (British private) school that Monckton went to would teach such strange basics in physics.., yet he comes across as genuinly convinced the basics is as AGW teaches. Very puzzling.

  224. orson2 says:

    I wrote RH and congratulated him for adding ‘nigger’ to American discourse. I trust that the backhanded irony of my compliment won’t be lost upon its readers.

  225. Brian H says:

    All this fooforrah seems to arise because the word “Change” has been co-opted. It now occurs to me that “Disruption” defines a much better battle-ground. Who here would object to being called a “Climate Disruption Denier”? Not me.

  226. Justus says:

    It’s silly to fret about the use of “SS” since that is used in a lot of places. In Pokemon for the original gameboy, you board the SS Ann, and that game was largely targeted at children. Are we teaching children WWII terminology when we say that? No, and we’re not thinking of that when we refer to SkepticalScience. If they don’t like it, perhaps they should change their name.

Comments are closed.