Readers may recall this WUWT story: Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature.
Meanwhile, the discussion continues at John Nielsen-Gammon’s Climate Abyss website on Skeptics are Not Deniers, with part 3 now posted. Part 4 will likely be at this link today
At Jo Nova’s she has a response from Dr. Paul Bain. She writes:
Dr Paul Bain has replied to my second email to him which I do most appreciate. (For reference, see the letter he is replying to here: “My reply to Dr Paul Bain — on rational deniers and gullible believers” ). He deserves kudos for replying (it’s easier to ignore inconvenient emails), and also for taking some action to improve the article he published. I will reply properly as soon as I can. For the moment, and for fairness’s sake, it’s here for all to see.
… No, I don’t think there is any scientific reason (or definition in the English language) that validates the term “denier”, but Nature is going to publish an addendum this time, and that will be noticed by other researchers in the field. That is progress. Though there is a long way to go. — Jo
Bain writes:
As we all know, after publication it quickly became clear that the “denier” label was causing offence, and I contacted the journal’s editors to canvass options for addressing this. As the article was already published, it was agreed that the most practical option would be to include an addendum to the paper where we publicly expressed our regret about any offence we caused. This will be appended to both the online and printed versions of the paper. As you said, you yourself did not mention a link with Holocaust denial (and I myself did not hold such a link), but this was by far the most common association made by people who took the time to write to me personally to express their offence. By doing this, I don’t expect this to resolve (or even reduce) any issues (I fear that the damage is done), but I thought this was an appropriate thing to do nonetheless.
Full story here at Jo Nova’s
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AGW catastrophism is manifestly an extreme-left political agenda, not even pseudo-science. To the extent once-objective, rational sources such as Nature lend themselves to Warmists’ propaganda diatribes, we respond in kind: Kentti Linkola.
“Denier” is an emotive term intentionally used to demean opposition, at that time all lumped as “skeptics”. A bothersome tactic, but ignorable. Then ClimateGate 1.0 and an interview by ethic expert Dr Gerry North, TAMU in the Washington Post, stating [losely] ‘he had not read the emails but there was no evidence of wrong doing’. That prompted my reply at Canada Free Press “Recusant Picadores Circle the IPCC”, Nov 29, 2009.
Then the Lindzen-North debates were announced for Jan 2010. Gerry agreeed to debate with two conditions….no visual material….no reference to ClimateGate. The noon Petroleum Club and evening Rice Uni debates were insufferable hand waving and in questioning CG 1.0 did require a reply, to which Gerry said….’those emails were stolen and it is unethical for me to read them’. An example of great ethics in action. Days later in a Washington Post interview Gerry said there was no evidence of wrong doing in emails HE ADMITTED HE NEVER READ.
This prompted the first ever use of the term “Warmist” in the article “No Loophole for Your Soul”. In April 2010 a faux debate between Curry-Mann in Discover [choke] magazine prompted the first ever use of “Luke Warmer” in the article “Non Science Nonsense”. Luke in the ‘tepid’ defination and a playfull Star Wars character adolescent thnking reference.
The Chron.com post has been expanded from the N-G v RGB two sided debate between Warmist v Luke to the legitimate three sided debate in all three parts of the comment section. Let us hope that all science based viewpoints are included in resolving this conflict.
As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense. Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments.
In the end, even if it is agreed by all parties that the term “denier” is not politically correct, the terminology is peripheral. You call us warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists &c, and we use the term deniers.
The debate about terminology is peripheral. The central argument is about climatology, and in particular, whether the hypothesis that climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is capable of being supported by the data.
The projected warming has been coming down, sceptic science has had some impact and maybe labels and ad hominems are going to come down. Future use of these ugly substitutes for scientific argument will soon properly segregate the science from the doctrinaire. We will likely see some earnest respectful debate developing. Good start Dr. Bain you appear to be segregating yourself from the doctrinaire.
I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page when I try to go to Jo’s page. Has that happened to anyone else?
Every time the “other side” has an apparent change of heart, agrees to turn down the rhetoric a minuscule notch, admits there may have been a small possible mistake, whatever it is, I really wish WUWT would hold off on reporting it for a few days.
Because it sure seems like virtually every time that a big noise is made here about it, the wagons circle, the pressure is brought to bear, and the “other side” either recants or denies it ever happened. I am certain that right now those dark forces are gathering against Nature, pointing out for how long the “denier” label has been acceptably used, without complaint, that this is just new loud noise from the deniers as they lash out as the entire case against “climate change” falls completely apart under the overwhelming evidence, etc… Thus the use of “denier” is not only justifiable, but just and proper, and Nature should no more succumb to these anti-science climate change deniers’ demands than they would to those of Creationists.
WUWT holding off on reporting such would be for testing purposes. It would be interesting to know if the inevitable retractions happen after the big noise is made on WUWT, or if their side has their own little “Ministry of Climate Science Truth” that automatically searches for and squashes such heresy before it is publicly noted here.
Yes, both the in-article link and the side bar link give the same message.
Yup, a 403 for me as well. A repetition of the the problem her site suffered from recently, perhaps?
Faux Science Slayer says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:37 am
Denier would have been one of the nicer names I was called over at Little Green Footballs.
Alan says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:55 am
I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page when I try to go to Jo’s page. Has that happened to anyone else?
============
Same here. Maybe Jo Nova’s server went down?
Alan @7.55 am
403? Me too. Same with the main URL joannenova.com.au. Probably a technical glitch at the server, it’s early morning there.
Alan says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:55 am
I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page when I try to go to Jo’s page. Has that happened to anyone else?
Yup. Certain terms in a headline will trigger Net Nanny — depends on your server and/or browser.
Twice this week
403 Forbidden today
The most alarming phrase to me was “the debate is over”. It is what made me think there’s likely something wrong in that field. “Deniers” is a derivative of that attempt to claim virtual certainty, ie. that the field’s representatives were overstating their case.
To Docrichard @7:45 am:
The most common term applicable to your side of the issue is: wrong. As the early writings of Maurice Strong, the philosophy of Ottmar Edenhofer, and even the East Anglia emails come to light and are studied, it is becoming increasingly clear that the entire global warming thing was an orchestrated crisis in the radical leftist tradition of RIchard Cloward and others. They created a problem and proposed to solve it in the service of a collectivist/social justice agenda.
When empirical evidence is addressed in proper long-term time frames (not the 1978 – 2007 cherry-picked time frame that begins at the end of cool period understandably creating a steep upward slop), it is clear the modern condition is unremarkable.
Like Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute defacto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” It never was about the environment.
docrichard 7.45 am. I have independently established 5 serious mistakes in IPCC climate science and am collaborating with others who have come to a similar conclusion from different directions. In short the climate models exaggerate heating by 40%, 400% in the IR and cover up this mistake by incorrect aerosol optical physics. The result is that no climate model can predict climate. CO2=AGW barely exists and the positive feedback is entirely artificial.
I accept there has been climate change, now reversing as the Earth cools as shown by the jet streams moving nearer the equator as the thermosphere has shrunk because the sun is pushing out less UV. We also have more cloud area.
So, what am I denying? it’s the basic physics’ errors that climate science is teaching to students. This is the worst part of the situation, thousands of students imagining that the Earth must radiate energy at the same rate as an isolated black body in a vacuum and this is replenished by ‘back radiation’ which does not exist but they imagine they measure it by not realising pyrpmeters do not measure real energy fluxes!
Some of these mistakes come from meteorology which teaches the false ‘downwelling LW’ story What’s needed is for the subject to be restructured under professional physicists.
Yes.
Alan wrote: “I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page”
Me too.
Dr. Bain should be commended for admitting his error but it would be better if he acknowledged that the term “denier” is factually wrong not just impolite because it was “causing offence”.
Even the main link to Jo Nova’s site on the right margin is returning the 403 error. It appears that the entire site has been taken off line.
PF and turnedoutnice: Let me a question:
1 Do you accept that the anthropogenic CO2 released so far commits the Earth to a temperature rise of ~0.8*C?
If your answer is no, then you are in denial of basic physics.
[Reply: Please use a word other than ‘denial’. Thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
The terminology is NOT peripheral. The term has been applied by CAGW supporters with the explicit intention of linking skeptics to Holocaust deniers. The purpose is to politically neutralize skeptics so that their arguments won’t even be heard, let alone considered. The belief is that once the general public makes this perfidious connection they won’t listen past that point. With the skeptic view marginalized/demonized, only the CAGW meme is available. Nice try, doc.
The pejorative and highly offensive term “denier” was specifically created by far-Left columnist Ellen Goodman, who deliberately connected the term to scientific skeptics. Goodman still equates those who question catastrophic AGW – which she believes in – to Holocaust deniers. Despicable.
On the other hand, the hypocritical screeching over Heartland’s comparison of climate alarmists to Ted Kazynski’s written eco-manifesto was 100% accurate. Goodman’s comparison was a scurrilous, underhanded attack, nothing more or less. But there is a night-and-day difference between those who espouse Kazynski’s crazed beliefs, and scientific skeptics, who only want transparency so we can get to the truth.
What struck me in Bain’s response was this:
“As we all know, after publication it quickly became clear that the “denier” label was causing offence”
Especially since I too share the view of ‘warmist’ (?) docrighards, of Bain’s profession, who says:
“As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense. Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments” (*)
It defies plausibility that he was not aware, could not have imagined the provoking pointed implications read into it, and the reactions it would cause. After all, it is was the central topic of his paper, and the effort clearly was aimed at providing support for the ‘orthodox’ side.
Further, in psychiatry the term ‘denier’ (also there perceived as offensive) refers to a defense mechanism, a state of mind where internal unpleasent realities are kept out of concious awareness, and instead often placed or seen elswehere.
How this ‘denialism’ relates to debating the nature and physics of the atmosphere and how it functions and what makes it fluctuate and vary, or any heated political/policy-debate is also hard to see. Of course, in any political fight, name-calling and smearing is standard procedure, but maybe Bain thinks this is legit from one side. Or even believs that the labels are arguments (at least by one side?).
Anyhow, it is quite difficult to reconcile the tone, what was written and implied in the paper etc, with the concerned afterthought and even remorse which is displayed now. Or if genuine, it implies that he had no understanding at all of the topic of hus study … that such studies are just churned out, because you can … (get them funded, and also published) .. or both.
(*) The terms: “warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists” all have well understood, even defined meanings. And they are (most often) selectively used for those narrower groups for which they apply. (Which does not exclude them from being used as contentious insults occasionally). But, nota bene, you would not find them (submitted to or) printed in scolarly journal articles. Even although they have much more descriptive substance than nonsense-terms such as ‘climate denier’ or ‘denialist’
@docrichard
My answer to your question would be no and that would be the answer from the IPCC as well!
Attributing ALL the 0.8C estimated rise since the end of the LIA to anthropogenic causes would be a very brave thing to do.
I salute your courage.
Just saw someone at CNN using extensively the D word. The host was Anandpur, who, as expected, did not object or critisize anything. She appeared to be completely uninformed about anything what is disputed.
As a side, it is pretty annoying, how low class media such as CNN and the BBC increasingly drag their journalists into the focus at the expense of the news. One trick to do this is to magnify heads to fill the whole screen, what is quite annoying if the person is talking nonsense, another are these annoying trailers that already consume more time than the whole program