Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe has noticed that calling someone a “denier” tends to end the conversation. Her solution – call them an evidence “dismissive” instead.
There Must Be More Productive Ways To Talk About Climate Change
May 9, 20175:03 AM ET
Rachel Martin talks to climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who stresses how unproductive it is to label someone a “climate denier.”
With the White House threatening to pull out of the Paris accord, environmentalists are speaking up more strongly than ever about the need for policies that help reduce the effects of climate change. This is getting personal. When Scott Pruitt was tapped to leave the Environmental Protection Agency he was labeled a climate denier, and that has become the go-to phrase for anyone who expresses skepticism about climate science.
…
MARTIN: What do you think about the term climate denier? What does it conjure up for you?
HAYHOE: Climate denier is a good way to end the conversation. So if our goal is to label and dismiss whoever it is that we are speaking with or to, then that word will do it. What I use instead is a word I think is actually more accurate, as well as having less baggage associated with it, and that is the word dismissive. I use that. It comes from the six Americas of global warming, which separates people into a spectrum of six different groups depending on how they feel about climate change science and solutions.
The group starts with people who are alarmed. And then there’s people who are concerned. And then those who are cautious, which are actually the biggest group. Then there’s people who are disengaged, those who are doubtful. And then at the very end we have about 10 percent of the population who is dismissive.
And I think that’s the perfect term because a dismissive person will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented because dismissing the reality of climate change and the necessity for action is such a core part of their identity that it’s like asking them to, you know, almost cut off an arm. That’s how profound the change would be for them to change their minds about climate change.
…
Is calling someone a “dismissive” better than calling them a “denier”? Both pretty insulting.
Scientists like Hayhoe can’t bring themselves to call people who disagree with their speculative theories “skeptics”, because skepticism is such an important part of science – except apparently when it comes to expressing skepticism about the validity of the estimated lower boundary of the IPCC climate sensitivity range, which seems to be totally forbidden.
The ONLY people dismissing NATURAL climate change are the AGW scammers…
… and Ho-Hum is one of the top of that list.
I recommend us “good guy” Lovers of Liberty and ethical science deploy a certain retaliatory, “PC” term for the Gaia-freaks–“thermhorroids”.
What’s wrong with watermelons?
Because a lot of them aren’t. Many just actually believe their conclusions, sketchy though the evidence is. accusing them of being communists shuts them up even faster.
How about carbophobics or thermophobics? Factophobics?
@Walter
Yr: ” ..watermelons?”
“Watermelons” has its appeal, for sure, especially when employed in genteel circles, of which the best part of the metaphor is its clever, green-outside/red-inside imagery. At the same time, “watermelon” is just a little bit too high-toned, too “tasteful”, too dependent on a faintly hoity-toity, “intellectual” word-play, for its edge, to be ideally suited for general-purpose, “head-shot”, Alinskyite “wet” work.
In contrast, “thermohorroid” has a good, crass, smash-mouth quality to it, that, in turn, subliminally imparts the suggestion that the good-comrades are an “indelicate”, unsavory, malodorous, “fundamentally”-inflamed bunch of socially-retarded creep-outs.
IMHO, of course
Hayhoe. hayhoe, it’s off the chart we go !!
And bring more grant moneys.
g
Other possibilities include MWP d@niers, Roman Warm Period d@nier, photosynthesis d@nier, anti-humans, or genocidal maniacs.
“dumbsh!t”, “climate crook” and “ignorant tool” work for me.
I call them Climatists, and their belief system Climatism.
mike’s “bullsh!t” “climate crook”…”
Hmmm…not moi–rather a “mike”-bot beta-test, I’m thinkin’.
So we are the ” DDs ” The Dismissive Deplorables ”
Well it has a nice ring to it; I’ll take it any day.
g
First of all, this appears to have been broadcast at 5:03 AM. Because it’s such a low-interest topic that most people tune out immediately. The word changes are yet another symptom that the MSM are no longer controlling this narrative, their watertight illusion of certainty is now confined to preaching to their acolytes; everyone else has either Googled the truth for themselves or has ceased to care entirely since few even understand the enormous amounts of money involved to begin with. Just like the narrative change from “global warming” to “climate change,” this semantic spin is yet more proof that we are, by degrees pardon the pun, WINNING!
I know what I’d call Hayhoe, but she’d probably sue me!
So let’s just call her a dismisser of history:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/whats-katharine-hiding/
Sceptic….gullible
Dismiss it!
The best response to Hayhoe is to sigh and roll your eyes. I do wonder if she’s ever held a conversation with a real sceptic or just assumed that anyone who remotely contradics her with logic must be in the pay of Big Oil or suffering from some rare mental condition.
You’ve got to wonder how many people are employed who never have to demonstrate any quantifiable success in their work. She’s a perfect example of how good a career you can have without ever being good at it.
Sowell said it best …….
“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”
— Thomas Sowell
Great quotation. Thanks.
Sowell is great. Here’s another
“In democratic countries, where public opinion matters, the left has used its verbal talents to change the whole meaning of words and to substitute new words, so that issues would be debated in terms of their redefined vocabulary, instead of the real substance of the issues.”
Dr. Thomas Sowell
or Carl Sagan
“An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions or actions which under their old names have become odious to the public.” Carl Sagan
or this timeless one which gets to the heart of it
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.”
Galileo Galilei
How about we label the “eye roll” a “Cooper” (as in Anderson Cooper). So I give her one Cooper!
Well and in climate science, you can retire before the end of one standard climate 30 year period, so you will never be called on the crap you produced.
g
Most of these types have NEVER had a conversation with a real skeptic, because we have the same effect on them that a garlic clove and a crucifix have on a vampire; they CANNOT engage our arguments, which is why they instead resort to shrill, emotionally-charged hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. It’s all they’ve got.
Truth fears no question. 🙂
Dismissing the evidence fabricators.
She’s a “pot calling the kettle black”.
And these days, one can actually be on the recreational pot gig !
g
Hayhoe, you are dismissed, you may now go back to your safe spot.
Hayhoe apparently said
Whereas I prefer the simple term “skeptic”. And perhaps she can reserve the term “ignoramus” for herself. Because when she thinks “dismissive” accurately describes people like Judith Curry, she’s clearly got no idea.
Do you infer that she has demonstrated that she is so clueless that she doesn’t have a clue that she is clueless? Well, just how insultingly dismissive can you be, anyway?
This is getting rather complicated. Since Hayhoe summarily dismisses any evidence, data, logic etc. presented to her by one of her “climate dismissives”, then does that make her a climate dismissive dismissive? Or perhaps a second order climate dismissive?
Do we need a new notation here? CD and CD²?
What if a skeptic then dismisses her dismissal of the dismissive? CD³?
There is a name for that condition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
” Because when she thinks “dismissive” accurately describes people like Judith Curry”
How do you know she does?
Nick writes
So who do you think she’s referring to? Mann does and I’ll warrant she’d stick up for him on that.
“So who do you think she’s referring to?”
So you don’t know.
Nicky ole boy, anyone who disagrees with you is considered a “D’nyer”, like Judith Curry….So obviously the Tool Man is correct…
And you, Nick, don’t know he doesn’t know.
So why are you so sure about what YOU know?
(Don’t represent yourself as an expert in areas where you’re clueless. And don’t denigrate me for doing exactly what you’re doing.)
Nick: Is it your assertion that we need to ask whether Dr. Curry, Drs Pielke, Dr. Soon, Dr. Lindzen, Dr. McKitrick, etc., etc., are called “deniers” by all the right people (so to speak)? Because if we are going to limit that term to sky dragons, the debate has moved forward a long LONG way. Your comment is disingenuous. It is below you.
Sadly, his comment IS him. That is the caricature he has become.
Nick,
Based on her accepted six level categorization (alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive), she should be calling herself an “Alarmist”.
Where do you fit in on her list? Obviously not a dismissive or a disengaged … Are you simply concerned, or are you an alarmist?
Nick writes
In response to my ““So who do you think she’s referring to?””
Lets make it an actual question, Nick.
Who makes up the approximately 10% of “deniers” Hayhoe mentioned. Skydragons?
Or is it people who dont accept the science. Maybe they’re people who might say things like ..paraphrased…. the models are worthless. I’m sure Judith wouldn’t paint them as being completely worthless but she’s already on record as recommending climate science stops focusing on their results and starts focusing back on the observation systems.
CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does
In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isn’t a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/co2-cant-cause-the-warming-alarmists-claim-it-does/
The oceans are warming? Do you have evidence to support that conclusion? I’m talking about proven, statistically significant warming.
I’m simply referring to the ocean temperature chart that shows warming, as well as the El Niño impact on the atmosphere. The oceans contain 2000x the energy of the atmosphere so the math simply isn’t there for the atmosphere to warm the oceans.
The atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans. Instead it prevents the heat that the sun puts into it from escaping as easily. Which also results in warming waters.
My point is that while it is quite possible for a warmer atmosphere to result in warmer oceans, there is no evidence that this is happening.
Can happen about every 24 hours, and often does somewhere or other.
g
Is it the water warming the air, or is it the sun warming both the water and the air?
In addition, I maintain that there is no valid evidence that the increased CO2 you say isn’t doing any warming is from anthropogenic sources. See Harde 2017
I agree, warm the oceans and they release a whole lot of CO2. No argument there.
Surely the only intellectually acceptable position is total denial?
I’d rather be called a denier than anything else. Meanwhile, any supposed connection with holocaust denial is so far in the past as to be forgotten. Ahhhh hubris!
[False. .mod]
Wrong. Any xxx denier label has a very strong connection to holocaust denier. And hopefully the holocaust will never be forgotten.
There are many actual videos on You Tube of the horrors of the holocaust, and the Internet never forgets…(unless Agenda 21 becomes a reality, then all bets are off)
Anyone who uses “denier” gets the same response from me: “You are using that term to evoke Holocaust denial, which is not a logical argument, but a despicable smear tactic. Unless and until you can find a different term, no rational discussion is possible with you.” In that regard, I agree that “denier” ends conversations rather than starting them, because the people who use that term aren’t interested in a conversation; they’re interested in bullying their opponents into submission.
Doris Kearns Goodwin (historian) made the connection a few years ago. I think it was on a Boston TV broadcast. It may not have been original with her, but it became popular after she said it on MSM. Sorry, I’ve not got the link now.
If anything, it’s invoked too often. In these days of moral relativism gone mad, there’s very few things that are still generally agreed upon as being unequivocally evil. The Holocaust (and the persons behind it) is one of them. Child abuse (sexual or otherwise) is another. It leads to that handful of things being constantly invoked, either to signal one’s own Goodness (“We’re doing this for THE CHILDREN!”) or someone else’s Terribadness (the Hitler of this, the Hitler of that).
Those who suffered and died deserve better than to have their memory turned into a bloody shirt for the armchair moralizers to wave around. 😐
Why doesn’t Prof Hayhoe stop beating around the bush, call everyone who questions her a “heretic,” and get it over with? Then she can dispense with the mumbo-jumbo, wheel out the thumbscrews and the boiling oil, admit that climate science is a new religion, her true calling is priestess, and it’s about time to knuckle down to the real work of punishing unbelievers.
So what if sea levels rose 400 feet between 18,000 and 8,000 years ago, well before humans were a significant species? So what if China passed the U.S. in CO2 emissions 20 years ago, now makes and consumes eight times more steel and concrete than the U.S., and doesn’t give a damn what we do? Who needs facts when virtue-signaling makes us feel so much better?
Australia is the virtuous place. With 3/10ths of 1% of the world’s population, and an economy dependent on exporting coal and iron ore to China, Oz is making strenuous efforts to reduce their domestic carbon footprint to stem the tide of climate change. So what if Oz ends up paralyzed or being taken over by China, who is still going to need the commodities?
The “good people” are morally obligated to shoot themselves in the feet. Even if crippling yourself doesn’t make your neighbors limp, it signals virtue. That will keep the Neo-Torquemadas at bay.
Oh, my, my, …. Australia population expressed in the above “terms” sure puts a different perspective on their ……. “anti-CO2 ‘green’ energy push to save the world”.
Even if Australia’s 24.6 million people cut their anthropogenic CO2 emissions to zero, 0.00%, …… it would not make one bit of difference in “the grand scheme of atmospheric CO2 reductions”.
To put Australia’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions in perspective, to wit:
The current population of Australia is 24,592,391
The population of the New York-Newark metropolitan area is 23,723,696
The population of the Tokyo–Yokohama metropolitan area is 37,843,000
I lost track of how many times I’ve responded to a Global Warming fascist with the question “What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2”, and got back the answer, “It doesn’t matter!”
At first I thought it was because they knew that 400 parts per million equates to 0.0004, which means CO2 is 4/100 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, but I slowly came to realize that they had no clue at all, neither to what the answer is, nor how to calculate it from 400 ppm.
It is strange to think that there are cities in the world with higher populations then the CONTINENT of Australia.
Some parts of the planet are ridiculously over crowded.
Being the “evidence denier” that I am, I thought I’d go look at “the evidence” again, and I remembered that NOAA had updated the tide gauge data, so I thought I’d start there. At random, I picked the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel data, and jeez, here we go again with the false accuracy. It gives the rate as 5.94 +/- 0.74 mm/year. Are we supposed to believe that a tide gauge can give accuracy to the hundredth of a millimeter? That 0.74 variance, too; one decimal place of error is the rule.
If, as I assume, the measurements are in mm, the best they could do is 5.9 +/- 0.7 mm/year for a trend. It’s pretty easy to be “dismissive” when the “evidence” is made up to begin with.
“It gives the rate as 5.94 +/- 0.74 mm/year.”
Are you sure it was per decade? 6 mm per year is way high.
Agreed. All the data I’ve seen puts it closer to 2 mm/yr. A rate that has held pretty steady for a few thousand years or so. I note other studies which seem to show that the eastern seaboard is slowly subsiding as the interior of the North American continent continues to rebound after the unloading of the ice cap glaciation.
Possibly they are having subsidence issues.
Notanist
0.004…..not 0.0004. 🙂
Check again. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Look it up. That equates to 0.0004 or 4 parts per 10,000, which is the same as 400 parts per million.
I live in the Chesapeake Bay region (southeast Virginia). I didn’t look at the tide gauge data, but they do talk about sea level rise in this area of about 5 mm/yr, which is greater than the global average and sounds scary. What they don’t tell you (and most people don’t know) is that half of that figure is due to land subsidence (dewatering of Coastal Plain aquifers, etc.) and therefore absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Which means 1) that sea level rise (attributed to GW) is about average in this area, and 2) no amount of spending to address GW/CC will have any effect the half of the sea level rise due to land subsidence.
In a radio interview, Hayhoe said she found it frustrating talking to skeptics. Every time she thought she had them out argued, they’d come up with another objection.
Any expert, which Hayhoe is, can come up with as many facts as necessary to bolster her argument. It’s not surprising that Hayhoe can out argue a skeptic on any given point. What she’s missing is that skeptics are rather well informed. There is an almost overwhelming body of evidence against CAGW. That should give her pause. She should ask herself why it’s possible for skeptics to keep coming up with objections.
I can’t remember if she actually used the term whack-a-mole but that’s what it sounded like.
commieBob:
You say
Then she has only been confronted by incompetents.
The basic ‘skeptic’ point is that the issue is whether human activities are discernibly affecting variations to global climate that have always happened naturally, and there is no evidence that human activities are doing that; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.
The standard ‘believer; responses are easily refuted as follows.
Believer Response;
The earth is warming.
Skeptic Rebuttal;
Yes, it has always been warming or cooling and it always will be warming or cooling, but there is no evidence that humans are discernibly affecting that.
Believer Response;
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Skeptic Rebuttal;
Yes, it is. But that does not mean its increase from present levels in the atmosphere will cause discernible warming. The climate is complex and changes to CO2 in the air are seen to follow temperature changes at all time scales: a cause happens before – not after – its affect.
Believer Response;
Most scientists and their official Institutions believe in man-made global warming.
Skeptic Rebuttal;
So what? More people believe in Father Christmas. People with a vested interest tend to believe their interest is true. Global warming research is ‘big business’; Governments are spending more than $2.5 billion a year on it and scientists are entitled to support their jobs so they can provide for their families.
Believer Response;
But the scientists are experts in the subject.
Skeptic Rebuttal;
So what? The authority of proponents is not relevant; if it were then Galileo would have been wrong. What matters is the evidence, and there is no evidence that human activities are discernibly affecting variations to global climate that have always happened naturally; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.
Richard
“But the scientists are experts”
No the scientists are infamous. Withholding research data, climate gate, hide the decline, and the rest of the post-modern “scientific methods” show this position of “expertise” to be laughable.
I agree, the evidence against CAGW should be overwhelming given an impartial audience.
We only have the reports of Hayhoe’s discussions with skeptics from her point of view. It is telling that she found those debates to be frustrating. It’s almost certain that the facts presented by any skeptic will not change her mind. No matter how competent the skeptic, experts like Hayhoe have an armory of techniques they can use to protect themselves from having their minds changed.
Actually Richard, Galileo WAS wrong, since the sun is NOT the centre of the universe. You might want to use a different example for your last Skeptic Rebuttal.
Does the universe have a center?
Monna, Galileo said “Center of the KNOWN universe” at that place and time…
Most Canadians would tell you that the citizens of Toronto think Toronto is the centre of the universe. 🙂
FTOP_T:
I agree the facts of what you say, but I was describing how to be effective in a live broadcast discussion. Disputing the expertise and/or honesty of the experts is not effective when addressing an uninformed audience.
The BBC stopped interviewing me when I adopted the suggested method although many people went out of their way to say how good they thought my use of the method had been. A group of us intends to resort to law against the BBC if we fail in our attempt to get the broadcast regulator to stop the BBC’s biased promotion of the global warming scare.
Richard
Butch, can you please cite a reference for your assertion that Galileo said that the sun was the centre of the known universe at that time and place – because I can’t find one. Additionally, such an assertion (by Galileo) would be an admission that he could be wrong, and history doesn’t suggest that he thought he could be wrong.
Monna Manhas:
The precise details of what Galileo said are a ‘red herring’: they have no relevance to the matter under discussion and are (intended to be?) a distraction from the matter under discussion.
However, it is relevant that,as I said, “The authority of proponents is not relevant; if it were then Galileo would have been wrong.” And he was not wrong because, as he said of Jupiter’s moons, “But they do move”.
Richard
Commiebob, for an “expert”she doesn’t do very well as her sloppy science behavior is bad for science,for example:
Katharine Hayhoe Texas Climate Fraud Update
“Two years ago, Canadian Texas Tech evangelical Katharine Hayhoe, claimed in the movie “Years Of Living Dangerously” that heatwaves in Texas were becoming much more common, and cherry-picked a start date of 40-50 years ago to begin her analysis.
The reason she picked a start date of 40 years ago, is because that was the coolest date in the Texas temperature record. This is spectacularly dishonest, as heatwaves have declined long-term in Texas and were much more common prior to 1960.”
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/katharine-hayhoe-texas-climate-fraud-update/
==================================================================
She tends to mislead with her overt warmist positions,when the official NOAA data and HCN stations doesn’t agree with her.
The drought of the 1950s lasted from when I went into high school until I graduated from college. It was hot! It has been wetter in Texas since then, except for the one a few years ago which was the closest, but shy, approach since then. It will be interesting if we return somewhat to the previous cycle of droughts in the first half of the last century.
There are people at Texas Tech that know better and surely the old timers around there could tell her a thing or two. It is sad that she does not realize how this effects the credibility of science.
Just asking her about the Texas permanent drought should end any conversation.
Sadly, she does just fine for an expert. Experts are really crappy at predicting things. link Smart experts realize that. Dewy-eyed climate scientists don’t. They qualify as false prophets and belong in the eighth circle of hell. link
I listened to the interview and have seen presentations by Hayhoe in the past. This sort of condescension is expected from someone who openly mocks people (she straw-man’s Ted Cruze) who disagree with her point of view. Never once was she challenged by NPR on her false prophecy of unending drought in Texas. This is the frustrating part of the debate, alarmists are given a pass when wrong because of the “appeal to consequences” argument even after predicted consequences do not come to pass. We have years of data that are not lining up with predictions, why wouldn’t everyone now be skeptical? Throw in fiddling with data (Karl et al, 97% claim, loss of antarctic ice, &c) in the past and the whole enterprise stinks.
“This sort of condescension is expected from someone…
who has never held a job other than one funded by taxpayers.
Climate extremists and profiteers like Prof. Hayhoe dismiss the evidence daily. But someone as deeply hypocritical as she is doesn’t get it.
‘Climate Speculation’ – that’s all it ever was and will be.
‘Climate Optimist’ is better as opposing ‘Alarmist’.
“Cargo Cultist” is the term that best suits if you don’t want to use “Alarmist” or perhaps “Climate Opportunist” would suit her ilk better.
Since the catostropic anthropogenic global warmists are unwilling to consider either the potential benefits rather than just the negatives of warming and the natural contributions by nature I have decided they do not get to label themselves. Henceforth they shall be known as Unnaturals.
dis·mis·sive
disˈmisiv/
adjective
feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration.
Yes, the climate change scare is not worthy of consideration.
I prefer…. Climate Realist.
It explains the skepticism many people have much more clearly.
R
‘Climate Realist’ indeed is a better term, but it doesn’t ‘sell’ that good to the big public. Too serious. I myself I try to be ‘a realist’ but I don’t think many people will be interested to listen to ‘realists’.
‘Climate optimist’ sells much better: it means that you are not in panic about what could (!) happen and that you are optimistic about the ability of the Earth to be more stable than ‘alarmists’ suggest. People like to hear optimistic stories. They don’t like serious and critical debates. Too dificult for 95% of them.
We must ‘sell ourselves’ better. Climate Optimist sells.
Wim,
“We must ‘sell ourselves’ better.”
I agree . . but the “elitists’ approach (too difficult 95% of them) is not a real big seller, as Ms. Deplorables seems to me to have demonstrated recently . . and I’m pretty sure 100% is more like it, depending on the subject . . and in this world full of propagandist dominated “fake” serous debate, it’s not like we can get a realistic read, it seems to me.
“Climate Optimist sells.”
I agree that for a two word “label”, that one is pretty damn good.
The term, ‘climate realist’ would immediately be co-opted by the ClimateCatastrophists™ and the stupid media to refer to themselves. Happens all the time. He who holds the megaphone and has the government funding “wins” the argument. Even if they don’t win, they’ll claim that they did and use the megaphone to “prove” their victory.
Now submit, peasants!
Notice they’re never specific about what we’re supposedly “dismissing.” It’s quite reasonable to dismiss a “catastrophic” trend, since the evidence is weak to the point of non-existence.
The true “den-eye-r’s” are those that think that the climate does not change naturally !
What is the most productive way in which we can insult our enemies? How best to arrange our hate of the other side? Gosh we are reasonable, unlike them.
The term “dismissive” is at least not connected to “Holocaust denier”. However, we are all disengaged, because we are doubtful, not because we would dismiss any evidence.
Quite the contrary. We are not willing to dismiss lack of evidence either.
I’m certainly NOT dismissive of the AGW alarmist agenda! It is having detrimental effects across virtually every western economy on the planet – a truly global tragedy. I will continue to do whatever I can shoot it down.
“The term “dismissive” is at least not connected to “Holocaust denier”. ”
That’s probably the primary point as the debate reaches the mainstream. It’s pathetic AGW advocates ever had to reach rhetorical overkill of “Holocaust Denier” in the first place so consider the morf a coverup. There’s still a slice of the debate audience that refuses to accept the mendacity of the Green left culture. The move is in fact deception.
More honest is when they talk about killing “deniers”, reeducation camps, Marxist collectivism, one world government, Agenda 21 and so on.
I doubt it will catch on among AGW advocates. The rank and file need the hate and there is real attachment to Holocaust “Denier” with plausible deniability of dropping the silent “H” prefix. It’s open secret culture code which is very popular in media and leftists circles as if they were Free Masons with special hand shakes.
Utter claptrap. Obvious “projection”. Heyhoe even starts out by saying that using the term ‘denier’ is being dismissive. The term is used extensively and almost exclusively by the warmists. So who’s being dismissive?
I always find it interesting when someone claims that Loathsome Group X is evil because they do this and think that – but the description actually matches the claimant’s actions and beliefs.
Example: She claims that skeptics will not change their minds because their beliefs are too connected to their identity. Does she really think that could not be said of the alarmists, or any other group? FWIW, I think that there is some connection between our beliefs and identity that can make changing those beliefs difficult in the face of ACTUAL evidence. However, I do not think such a connection is going to automatically override a person’s sensibility simply because he has a firm opinion. I think the biggest obstacle to changing one’s mind is one’s self-interest. If you are likely to benefit from CAGW being real (or perceived as real), you have a big incentive to “cling” to that idea. If you are able to recognize that CAGW schemes will be harmful to you (and most of the planet), you have a big incentive to keep on dismissing the “alarmed”.
I find it alarming that this woman has an audience. I also find it alarming that so much of the world seems keen on keeping the developing world in squalor and dragging the developed world down to the same level.
The glib_lib_rename_game (US version)
Back in the 18th century, the evil British arbitrarily confiscated property using “writs of assistance”. There was a revolution over that, and after the evil Brithish were kicked out, the US Constitution got the 4th and 5th Amendments to stop arbitrary seizure of property. Now “writs of assistance” aren’t used to seize property in the USA. Instead, “civil forfeiture” and “arrest of property” are used.
In the bad old days, black people were subject to racial discrimination. The people favouring this were evil white racists. Nowadays, white people are subject to racial^H^H^H^H^H “affirmative action”. The people favouring this are evil^H^H^H^H “upstanding civil rights activists”.
According to the Geneva Conventions, “Prisoners of War” are supposed to have certain basic rights. The USA has invented a new catagory… “enemy combatants”, who have no rights whatsoever.
Black people in the USA have gone through so many name changes, it’s ridiculous. At one point, the officially accepted (by blacks) term was “colored people” (NAACP == National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Then it became “negroes”, as in the United Negro College Fund. Since then, it’s cycled through “Persons of Color”, “Afro-Americans”, and who knows what else.
Getting more on topic, the alleged problem has been renamed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” to “Climate Weirding”, etc. And people who call themselves skeptics have been labelled “Climate Deniers”, and now “Climate Dismissives”. Is “Climate Deplorables” next?
Walter, it really does help if you spend some time learning what you are talking about.
The Geneva Conventions goes to great lengths to define who is a legal combatant and who isn’t.
Legal combatants have do things like wear uniforms and they do not target civilians or hide amongst civilians. Since the terrorists do none of these things, they are by the rules of the Geneva Convention, illegal combatants. This isn’t a term the US invented.
The US would be in it’s rights under the convention to have all such prisoners executed on the spot.
The fact that we don’t means we are going beyond what the Geneva Conventions require.
PS: The Geneva Conventions allow the capturing country to hold POWs until the war is over. The war isn’t over.
MarkW, …+ 1,000 gold stars !
Great, accurate comment, MarkW.
The term “enemy combatant” gained prominence with the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. The “enemy combatants” actually were wearing identifiable clothing. And they were targetting invading foreign troops, not civilians.
Our history books get quite huffy about the treatment that captured allied servicemen received at the hands of their German and Japanese captors in WW2. “Waterboarding” is something I would expect to read in those history books, but instead, it’s something being done by the USA.
And ignoring peoples’ rights is not restricted to outside the USA. The US CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) is essentially a martial-law state within 100 miles of any US border or coastline. See https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
And don’t think it stops there. CBP agents play fast and loose. And they now claim jurisdiction within 100 miles of any international airports (“ports of entry”). I’m old enough to remember the Cold War, when Russia had a wonderful-looking constitution, that was merely a decorative piece of paper. The west is sliding in that direction. I’m in Canada, and it’s happening here too.
MarkW,
If the Chinese invaded the US, and you resisted, you’d be an “enemy combatant” according to the “rules” you allude to . . right?
Walter, I refer you back to the first rule of holes.
An enemy combatant is and has always been someone fighting for the enemy. The issue is legal vs illegal combatants. Just because you are ignorant of the terms doesn’t mean they entered use when you first heard them.
The Allies were upset about the treatment of POWs precisely because our soldier were legal combatants and entitled to Geneva convention protections. So your example isn’t relevant.
As to your comments regarding the border patrol. Your delusional. It’s time you stopped reading propaganda and rejoined the real world.
John, if I failed to join the US Army, then I would be an illegal combatant.
I am a citizen, so when a foreign army invades America I am already a legal combatant. The small fact I served in US Army in the past is not relevant to the issue.
Mark,
“John, if I failed to join the US Army, then I would be an illegal combatant.”
Then the law is grossly immoral, and contrary to the right of self defense, as far as I’m concerned. I have that right, I say, whether or not my assailant is wearing a uniform.
For one (to me) obvious example;The French resistance were criminals, according to your (to me) ‘invading military are as gods over civilians” doctrine . .
In Australia, “climate contrarian” became popular for a while, from the left. “Climate vandal” appeared briefly. These have also morphed under the left-handed broad brush, to science denier, unscience etc. Pity they can’t come up with as many logical arguments for their case, as they can pejorative/ derogatory names.
One should be careful using language. It was not “enemy combatant”, it was “unlawful combatant”, a class that was defined in the Geneva Accords. You probably should know that, and like a good many others in political debate, are trying to be deceptive.
I heard this interview announced on NPR and got all excited, now at last NPR was going to be reasonable and try to reach across divide. After listening to the interview felt I actually hurt. The lesson, never expect any fairness from these radicals, because that’ what they are, radicals. Then the hurt changed into anger and through day I thought about if the climate debate was in reality a sexist issue. Well us men who did the weather in by doing things. How many of these 97% are women, any studies on that? Do women more than men believe the weather has been done in by us men?
They can call me a climate “Nazi” or Climate “deplorable” or whatever. It makes no difference. They still have not proved their case; ipso facto, I remain sceptical.
The real problem here is that scientists have been allowed to spend time doing things other than science, which does not involve advocacy. Once a scientist indulges in advocacy they cannot be trusted to produce accurate science or commentary.
I understand your point, but no one should be in charge of what a scientist is “allowed” to do. They are free to advocate if they want, and we are free not to trust them.
Freedom is the sacred foundation of America. It’s scary to see it eroding.
Freedom is paid for by everlasting vigil against those who would take it from you.
Skeptics are those watchers.
They stand in the way of those who would claim “it is for the greater good” when they really mean “We want you to acquiesce to our mastery”
“They are free to advocate if they want,”
But not on the “taxpayer dollar”.
But not on the “taxpayer dollar”
Exactly. What part of this is so hard to understand?
The original comment did not say “government-paid scientists.” There are quite a few scientists on “our side” who are advocating. Do you not want them to be allowed to do it?
If you would permit, I would like to refine your statement.
Being on the government payroll does not prevent someone from being advocate, but they have to do it on their own time, not the governments. Nor can they use the authority granted them by their government position to advocate positions in opposition to that of the current government.
Questioner, I like the term questioner.
Question everything and come to terms with everything.
One World Order, wooden idols plenty, professed by clerics (those championing the untruth-partial beliefs) using CAGW as one idol. Projecting to the front a much earlier concept – “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Blindfolded fear is driving the mass of minions via the clerical idols. Media-tower-babel is the primary tool within the tenets of worshiping wooden idols.
Including the concept of questioning everything.
Good grief. If one applies those terms honestly, then “Climate Scientist” Katharine Hayhoe is a “dismissive” since she dismisses both evidence and people with whom she disagrees.
All “dismissive” does is remove the problem of association with the Holocaust denier. That was the real problem with denier–it is too naked, too blatant, too honest about the thought processes of the alarmists. It lets the cat out of the bag.
But “dismissive” doesn’t improve anything from the standpoint of civil debate. It still dismisses out of hand the other person’s position, assumes from the start that they cannot be reasoned with and are therefore undeserving a reasonable hearing.
And her main problem is still the main problem with alarmists everywhere–dishonesty. Nobody denies the climate changes, what they are firmly unconvinced of is that the data support the conclusion that humans are affecting the climate in a way that is a serious threat to the future of civilization and that the evidence supports changing human behavior, even at great cost, to maintain a favorable climate.
changing human behavior
=========
most people with an ounce common sense know that you cannot change human behavior. It has been tried over and over again for thousands of years, with millions upon millions of dead the result.
because in the end, everyone that wants to change human behavior wants to change the behavior of everyone else. their own behavior, well they are perfectly happy to leave that unchanged.
Right, one cannot change another person’s behavior to the behavior they themselves prefer.
The best one can do is provide the person a “good enough reason” that would cause them to “want to” change their own behavior.
And you better be giving those persons a “good enough reason” before they finish maturing through their teenage years, ……. because after that time has elapsed, …… its’s darn near impossible to suggest or offer them a “good enough reason” to be doing anything that they don’t want to do.
You are your own “proof” of the above.
“six different groups depending on how they feel about climate change science and solutions.”
==============
so from what she is quoted as saying, Hayhoe the climate scientist is measuring is people’s feelings. why is a climate scientist studying people, not climate? outside of psychology, what have peoples feelings have to do with science? peoples feelings are based on what believe. belief is the province of religion. science is a method. if your methods are poor your science is poor.
Perhaps Hayhoe has finally realised calling sceptics “deniers” has backfired on the CAGWers and is trying to change the narrative.
How long till all the trolls get the memo?
I want to know what this person Katharine Hayhoe has ever brought to climate science? What science has she produced? All I can remember is that she has been dead wrong any time she has put down a marker. Such as her claims about the duration of the drought in Texas. For the most part she seems to do nothing more than speak at forums where she cannot be questioned or debated on a level playing field telling like minded alarmists how to debate skeptics.
how to “debate” skeptics
fify
I’m dismissive about the term “climate dismissive”.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
I have recently become an avid reader of Scott Adam’s blog — he has a very different way of looking at events than I am used to. He’s done a number of posts on the climate debate and he always starts out with the admission he’s not qualified to understand, let alone debate the scientific issues. Instead he concentrates on what works and does not work in persuading people to believe something. Here is a recent post:
I took the Yale survey several years ago and received the coveted “Dismissive” rating. It came with a downward pointing arrow so I used that as my Facebook profile picture for years. Of course, the ‘top’ rating of the survey was ‘Alarmist’ with the arrow pegged on the upward side of the scale. The implication was obvious Alarmist = Good while Dismissive = Bad. As I said on another thread here on WUWT, irony is lost on the left.
“dismissing the reality of climate change and the necessity for action is such a core part of their identity that it’s like asking them to, you know, almost cut off an arm. That’s how profound the change would be for them to change their minds about climate change.”
==========
from her words, I expect Hayhoe would rather cut off her arm than change her mind about climate change. I expect that climate change is at the core of her identity.
Dismiss/deny? Yup. I am going to dismiss/deny that northern Illinois where the city of Chicago presently sits was under a mile of glacial ice as recently as 25,000 years ago.
Well at least it doesn’t have the baggage of the Holocaust. And she claims the dismissives are only 10% of the spectrum, so maybe she’s onto something. It seems to me most of the articles here are about directly challenging the conclusions of the CAGW side rather than dismissing it. So would that exclude WUWT from the ‘dismissive’ label?
These professional alarmists seem rather obsessed with what they claim is only about 10 percent of the population.
Non-Believers are a threat and must be silenced or converted. It’s that simple.
“What a lot of people don’t realize is that the most important skill any climate scientist has is programming,” – Katharine Hayhoe http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/katharine-hayhoe-lubbock-climate-change-evangelist/
Hayhoe appears to be sincere unlike the political-activist types, but her basic assumptions are wrong, as evidenced by this quote. [Computer] programming is a most dangerous skill when you accept false premises. I suppose that makes it important, but not in the way Hayhoe means it. Richard Feynman thought reasoned self-doubt was a much more important skill for people, particularly scientists, to have.
Well, if by “important” she means “needed for convincing the world we’re right”, then it’s a true statement – regardless of whether “programming” is understood in the computer sense or in the cult-psychological sense,
People, please read the references before posting some stupid knee-jerk reaction. It’s really not that hard. Here’s a little more context:
Next time perhaps you can come up with a knee-jerk reaction that, like meteorologists, climate modelers should stick their head outside once in a while.
Yeah, and climate scientists probably think that if the program compiles, it’s correct.
Sigh. These people are engaging in as classic a case of Bulverism as I have ever seen. To quote C.S. Lewis:
I was waiting for the term “Bulverism” to morph into a more earthy term. Oh well. Maybe next time.
Excellent. Take away quote for me: In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. I can remember that….
Every time I read C.S. Lewis, I learn something new.
Another label….thanks.
How about calling them “colleagues”.
“Climastrologist” is the correct term.
Those who appear to be scientists at first glance, but once examined, are found to be little more than astrologists of the climate alarmist variety.
Fits nicely with climate modellers being “numerologists”.
Of course “colleague” maybe more insulting
“When Scott Pruitt was tapped to leave the Environmental Protection Agency” ? Should that be LEAD not leave ?
Another interesting Scott Adams post on the climate debate:
DiCaprio is a hypocrite, nothing more.
If he believed anything he preached, he wouldn’t be jetting around the world or taking vacations on yachts that burn more diesel in a day than most cars would in a year.
He is of the “do as I say, not as I do” type.
He is nothing more than a pretty face used as a tool.
Once his usefulness is at an end, he will be discarded just like those before im.
That’s my instinctive reaction as well, but I find it very interesting to at least consider Scott Adams’ point of view: DiCaprio has been persuaded by fear, and his desire to “do something” and be seen as a hero take over. He is now kept in his belief by cognitive dissonance. As I said, Adams has a very different way of looking at debate and persuasion than I have always had. He may not be right, but I think it very unlikely that calling DiCaprio a hypocrite will be effective in convincing him he is wrong, just as Hayhoe calling climate skeptics “dismissives” or “deniers” is unlikely to move anyone to her side of the debate.
I’m willing to look at things from Adams’ perspective if it offers a greater likelihood of moving people to the skeptical point of view.
I heard the interview while driving to Boston yesterday. She actually sounded fairly reasonable (compared to how she usually sounds, of course).
Don’t focus on the term “dismissive.” She suggested six terms:
WUWT is sometimes called a lukewarmer site. “Doubtful” doesn’t quite fit, “cautious” doesn’t quite fit either, though. At the other end of the spectrum, “alarmed” doesn’t go far enough, I’d add another. I hesitate to call it “evangelical,” as some evangelical Christians are mostly reasonable people. Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian, so I doubt she would agree it should be used as an extreme. “Zealot” might fit, at least it would cover Gore/Obama/Hanson/etc.
Personally, I’m quite happy to call myself skeptical. All good scientists are skeptics, especially about their own work.
Totalitarian might be the word you are looking for.
Either agree with her completely, or you are evil and to be destroyed.
And we all know the types of horrors people like that who get into power can cause.
I agree with liking the term Skeptic which is already used by the rational ‘alarmists’ as a more polite way of describing anyone who doesn’t swallow the MSM version of CAGW/Climate change narrative. I take no offence whatsoever when called a Skeptic, since healthy skepticism is the foundation of all real science. Which makes me wonder why a real committed scientist would call anyone a skeptic when they too know what the word really means. Especially as related to matters of science.
If someone calls me a Denier, I am also not upset, because it shows their level of ignorance in labelling people who disagree with them as inferior and equating them to a denial of a holocaust. Especially when you try to have a reasoned conversation with them, and all they can do is call you a Denier. To anyone else watching that is sitting on the fence maybe, they too see that the one calling names is generally the loser.
The religious faith angle is always worth exploring. For some Christians, the approach to faith is separate from the approach to the science, but for others it is sentimentally connected. In this respect Hoyhoe’s (renaissance religious) humanism appears similar to Houghton’s divinely ordained stewardship in that the envisaged self-inflicted climate catastrophe provides a mechanism of self-determination, a moral choice and the prospect of atonement by good works:
I think it is quite necessary that we read more of C.S. Lewis, and others like him, if we want to use logic on these closed minds. An alternative would be to answer the Climate Science Peeps, the Warmians, and their accompanying ilk in Latin or Classical Greek, speaking logically, of course. That would not only confuse them because most of them are of closed minds, but would also end their illogical arguments because they are uneducated for the most part.
I am, therefore, reviving the Latin I learned in high school long before these twits were born, and I have a friend who is a Greek immigrant who has agreed to instruct me in Classical Greek.
One thing that is difficult for either side to do to the other is to change the determined mind of the opposition. The usual response is emotional, not rational, and it most frequently comes not from the Skeptics, but from the Warmians, despite Ms. Hayhoe’s assertion to the contrary.
My response to Ms. Hayhoe would normally include asking her ‘So, how much grant money will you lose if your conclusions turn out to be incorrect?’ The other questions might include ‘Have you always been such a control freak?’
My cynoglossum (forget-me-nots) have finally begun to sprout, despite the cold weather and the squirrel digging in the pot to find nuts that aren’t there. This is the one thing that is always missed by these closed-minded people, and I sometimes think it is intentional on their part: Nature is a very resilient force, with no need for any help from we, the Puny Human.
Pure projection, Hayhoe is dis-missive.
“…a dismissive person will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented …”.
Does this describe us? Does this describe readers and contributors to WUWT? We do dismiss appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, but those are not evidence or arguments. Sometimes we are rather dismissive about the results of computer models, but again, model results are not evidence or arguments! Climate models start with the assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperatures and are self-fulfilling prophecies.
What happens here when evidence or an argument supporting a climate crisis is presented? It is not dismissed. It is REFUTED! It is logically and rationally dismantled. It is scientifically examined and found to be incorrect.
Frankly, I can’t wait for some scientist to present their ‘evidence’ for a climate crisis so I can watch the skeptics tear it to pieces. It’s like watching sharks in a feeding frenzy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen much any more. There never was any real evidence of a looming crisis and the alarmists have learned what happens when they try to manufacture some evidence or present an argument to support their case. It is thoroughly refuted!
All they have left is name calling…and being dismissive.
And then at the very end we have about 10 percent of the population who is dismissive.
Actually there is a seventh group at the bottom that is a very small but vocal percentage of mostly so-called intelligentsias that are status contracted.
And I think that’s the perfect term because a contracted by position or status person must reject any evidence, any arguments or skepticism with which they’re presented because the necessity for maintaining their occupational eminence is such a core part of keeping the money rolling in that it’s like asking them to, you know, almost cut off an arm. That’s how profound the change would be for them to admit to their peers, and even more so to themselves, that they knew all along that AGW is a Grand Swindle and it is really ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
NOTHING so sullies the integrity of humanity as the subversion of science by servitude to politics – – and/or MONEY!
MODS / Anthony. You might want to put a reminder that a certain word leads to automatic moderation of comments. Those that are appropriate will pass moderation. That word is appropriate in the context of this article, but dropping the policy is not in the interest of this site.
I’m a CO2 advocate. I’d like to see it at a healthy 2,000ppm, even it means promoting concrete construction. If we’re lucky, we might get 2C of beneficial warming out of it and delay the return of the ice sheets. But we’ll never know it because that’s well within natural variation.
To paraphrase Ms Hayhoe :
“a person will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented because dismissing the reality of and the necessity for action is such a core part of their identity that it’s like asking them to, you know, almost cut off an arm. That’s how profound the change would be for them to change their minds about climate change.”
Funny how blind Ms. Hayhoe is to how the exact same sentence applies to her worldview yet it is somehow deemed acceptable.
Stay Skeptical my friends !
Exactly, Jeff. Hayhoe is describing herself.
Agreed. Freudianism, taken as a coherent model, is a crock, but did have a few useful concepts. Hayhoe is engaged in what was called “projection”, of attributing her own thought processes and faults onto others.
How about optimistic?
We have freezing temperatures in N Europe and new record low and would love some warming.
How about this label “climate hoax resistant” ?
To me, neither is insulting. The words say nothing about the minds of the accused, they simply give an indication of the mind of the accuser. It is the accuser who is projecting his own bias and lack of intellectual curiosity on the accused.
To answer the question, … as long as you understand that the term, “evidence”, is implied with the term, “dismissive”, then, YES, because it is more precisely INCORRECT, thereby more poised to be obliterated by evidence that it lies about.
It is more easily turned upon the person making the claim, as a reflection of the true ignorance of the person making the accusation.
It is insulting, yes, but even more insulting to the person employing the label.
A person who has NOT looked at all the evidence, who calls someone else a(n) (evidence) “dismissive”, looks more like an idiot than ever, and this is good for unfolding the truth, I’d say.
.. interesting how labels unfold. We’ve gone from “global warming denier” to “climate change dismissive”.
Insulting more politely will surely gain more converts. Seems a bit of a passive-aggressive tactic.
Perhaps I should lighten my use of the word “stupid” to the phrase “intellectually hasty”, or just “hasty”, for short.
Nah, “stupid” is more fulfilling. I’m past being polite. If you want to see the true meaning of the term, “dismissive”, then look no further than the folks using this term.
No matter how neatly and nicely you dress it up, calling people names is not the way to win friends and converts. Because the climate selling industry functions in a manner that is not really out to win friends but rather make sure no one knows what a farce the whole thing is, they spend all their time insulting people and hoping no one catches on if they use “nicer and nicer” insults.
Global warming believers who are in this 100% have no desire to get converts by being “nice”—they bully and insult, demanding everyone believe. They also believe everyone will agree with them if they seem authoritative enough. None of this has anything to do with science, but rather marketing. And not very useful or smart marketing at that.
“None of this has anything to do with science, but rather marketing.”
That’s right. They don’t have the science on their side so they have to do marketing instead. Then when people don’t buy the marketing, they claim the people are denying science.
It sounds like she just defined herself: “Dismissive of Evidence”.
I notice she didn’t use the word nature, or experiment, or experience, or observation as Feynman did. She probably knows this quote (maybe not):
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.” – Richard Feynman
Prof. Hayhoe, depends on the climate gullible to push their agenda.
Why don’t they stick with “deplorables”? It worked so well for them in the last presidential election, and I’m sure it will continue to produce the same results.
She says calling someone a denier basically ‘ends the conversation’. And then she tells us about the term she uses instead, ‘dismissive’, implying she doesn’t want to ‘end the conversation’.
OK, sounds reasonable.
But then she in her explanation of what a ‘dismissive’ is, she says “will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented because dismissing the reality of climate change and the necessity for action is such a core part of their identity that it’s like asking them to, you know, almost cut off an arm. That’s how profound the change would be for them to change their minds about climate change.”
So she doesn’t seem to believe that her ‘dismissives’ will listen to reason (or what she claims is reason) and won’t change their minds. So, just why does she want to talk to them if she claims it is a waste of time? Is she just a masochist?
Sounds more like she just wants attention and decided that coming up with a new term for skeptics would get her the attention she craves.
Denier was coined to equate skeptics to those who deny the holocaust. While “dismissive” may be insulting, it does not carry the weight of denier. And if dismissing bad science makes you dismissive, then count me as a deplorable dismissive.
I always loved this line from — of all places — the movie “Galaxy Quest”: “You don’t have to be a great actor to spot a bad one.” The same applies to scientists.
“Denier was coined to equate skeptics to those who deny the holocaust” and that’s why dismissive won’t catch on – it’s not mean spirited enough for them
Why does Hayhoe call people “dismissive” when there is not much evidence to dismiss?
Cuz we’re not dismissing evidence, we’re dismissing people – those unable to supply evidence to support their fantasy.
Gerald
We an dismiss content-free assertions.
We can dismiss unfalsifiable hypotheses as a waste of time.
We can dismiss conclusions based on unreferenced data sets and unknown computer code.
We can dismiss assertions about climate and weather disasters that are blamed on human activities which lie well inside the historical limits of natural variation.
She dismisses actual Data.
ie. on hurricanes, global cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, precipitation, actual raw temperature data, sea level rise – lack of acceleration, forest fire data, total icecap data including Greenland and Antarctica combined, snowfall, the greening of the planet, and etc., etc., etc.
Do I have to reference each one of these? You can find most of it on the WUWT reference pages.
This is an encouraging trend! Climate Denier → Climate Dismissive → …. Climate Realist!?
[But, to remain alliteratively accurate, should that not be “Climate Denier → Climate Dismissive → Climate Datist” ?? .mod]
I’m an engineer Jim not a poet!
“Is calling someone a “dismissive” better than calling them a “denier”? Both pretty insulting.”
The whole point is to denigrate people with a different opinion. It is quite judgemental to decide what someone else’s reasons are for making a decision. To project ‘dismissive’ onto anyone is itself an improper act.
One cannot know the motivations of another – only what they show, and even then, only what is perceived within the spectrum of what they show.
We do this a lot when calling people ‘alarmists’. I find that alarmism is common and hardly something new. The common approach is, “There is something to be alarmed about, give me money to check.”
How often do you hear the message, “There is nothing to be alarmed about, give me money to check again”?
Ms Hayhoe is correct: calling people names is not a very effective way to engage them. On the other hand, listening to her interview on the CBC last week was painful as she clearly has no intention of listening to pan-topical arguments herself, only projecting onto others her surprisingly strident and ultimately incoherent views. One can say she is an ardent believer, which is fine on its own, but serves as no basis for demanding that others drink the Koolaid, as it were.
I did not find her well-informed on the topic of AGW, and did not detect a willingness to discuss a subject she feels, as Michael Mann said in 2003, is closed for further discussion because the discussion has already concluded that most climate change is caused by human-sourced CO2. Fourteen years later the claim is an unfounded as it is misleading.
Goebbels would be proud….keep adjusting the language even though the concept remains the same. By the way, the word “dismissive” can be equally (or perhaps more appropriately) applied to AGW bedwetters.
Considering we’re constantly told ‘the science is settled’ isn’t it amazing how often the Katharine Hayhoe’s of this world speak of sceptics yet refuse to debate with them? It’s almost as if she secretly worries sceptics are winning the argument.
Just had a very civil conversation with an environmentalist with whom I am on very good terms last evening. The same phenomenon keeps happening in these discussions. I state my understanding of what the real evidence shows us and explain the evidence supporting those conclusions. I explain that given the scanty evidence it does not make sense to conclude that human activity is having any serious detrimental effect on climate. I ask my friend why they reached the conclusions they did about climate change and what evidence they rely on. At this point it generally turns out that they have a belief system based on climate change for which they can’t state objective evidence. They state it simply must be true because it so obviously makes sense that we can’t keep consuming Earth’s resources without doing harm. And they likely walk away thinking there is something wrong with my reasoning.
Either that or they are so wedded to the notion that any change, no matter how small, that is caused by man is bad.
As soon as you concede the fact that there have been trivial changes, they consider themselves to be victorious.
If Hayhoe wants a neutral D-word for us, here are three: Dissenters, Dissidents, Disbelievers.
Other neutral words are Contrarians, Critics, Naysayers, Protest-ants.
Here’s another D-word, for mainstream Warmists to apply to those in their camp who favor nuclear power over renewables: Deviationists
Warmists’ collective and emphatic rejection of nuclear power is driven by greenie utopianism and PC-ness, not science, and means the movement is operating under false pretenses. IOW, it is Deceptive.
Hayhoe’s prediction of permanant sothwestern drought caused by global warming was 100% wrong.Shes an idiot .So who cares what her next opinion is?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/katharine-hayhoe-opens-up-evangelicals-and-other-skeptics-to-climate-change-1.3065561
The above link is to the 6+ minute interview with Dr. Hayhoe in which she outlines her choice of the word dismissive and preaches a little bit about the bible and its role in climate change.
In my view, Ms. Hayhoe is one of those individuals who is fighting a good-vs-evil religious war in their heads, and they believe that they (the CAGW believers) are on the “good” side of the battle–they are the “holy warriors”. It is of course a holy religious war to “save the planet” from the “evil” of fossil fuels. Those who they see as being on the “evil” side of the war are the skeptics who do not necessarily view fossil fuels as evil.
The battle lines in this holy war are clear. Those on the “evil” side here cannot possibly have their climate science correct because they are on the wrong side of this holy religious war to protect the planet. Only those on the “good” side of the war can possibly be right. The believer’s climate “science” has too be right because only an “evil” person would place fossil fuels over protecting the planet. Michael Mann’s bashing of fossil fuels seems to put him in this category.
For the “good side” holy warriors though, it is perhaps more of what they see as a morally correct “good” and “right” rather than a scientific good and right due to the “evil” label that fossil fuels have acquired. It doesn’t matter if those on the climate change “evil” side have a scientifically valid case, those skeptics are still wrong because they are morally wrong. The planet must be saved, and this why contrary evidence from the skeptics doesn’t matter.
This is a cult-psychological means of treating and looking at this issue which was mentioned in a comment above. Anyone lacking in good critical thinking skills and/or is scientifically illiterate will be especially vulnerable to succumbing to the treatment of the CAGW issue in this manner. Unfortunately, this probably includes many in the mainstream media, in academia, in the internet blogosphere, and in government at all levels.
I do not know if, when and how this psychological cult will die out someday. It could happen from the faultiness of the CAGW “science” becoming more widely known or from the cutoff of funding or something else. And I do not even want to see what the actual economic and financial consequences are going to be someday if and when the cult actually succeeds.
Hayhoe, Mann and the others are all probably genetically wired to think and behave this way. And that is why it is probably a waste of time and effort to argue with them.
Think you have hit it, CD.
Its in the wiring.
Some are positive Earth
Some are negative Earth
Seems harsh to call her an idiot ,but her comrades on the other hand are just plain liars.
Classic. Change the terms once they have lost the emotional effect.
I propose the following terms: for those who have legitimate concerns about the science, call them Realists. For the committted warmists, call them Climate Taliban.
Since ‘dismissive’ is every bit as pejorative as ‘denier’ and, since the two terms are better applied to globalwarmists than to skeptics, I believe I’ll dismiss the phrase change by denying its validity.
If by “climate dismissive” she means people who have actually looked at the evidence, even with an assumption that man is in fact warming the earth, and that it is a problem, and actually found that the “evidence” is primarily hype and models with unproven assumptions built into them, then yeah, whatever.
Whatever a Climate Liar like Hayhoe needs to tell herself I guess.
Offer them $10 towards their next research project, as it looks like the tide of climate-science funding is on the turn …..
Warmies as evidence permissives? I hadn’t thought of them in that way before but the cap fits.
She could lead the Reality Dismissive movement.
We only make up 10% of the population eh? Strange how the overwhelming majority of people aren’t concerned enough about climate change to have an opinion either way, maybe we make up 10% of the people with an opinion on the matter at all.
Ms. Hayhoe thinks dams are not useful for flood control. A day after this exchange on Monday, she blocked me on Twitter. Which of us ended the conversation and was dismissive?
https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/861540735153303552
https://twitter.com/Pete_Finnegan/status/861541075269419008
Wow, I had it all wrong!!!! All we have to do to stop floods is change words on maps! Great, we can rip out all those ugly damned dams.
Yet another bigot, being dismissive of those who have evaluated available data and draw unsettling conclusions. We experience this regularly. It is ultimately self-defeating.
(I had intended to attach the video clip of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Basket of Deplorables’ rant but it was just too gutter low…..)
Seems like Hayhoe’s “expertise” is in propaganda nuisances/techniques, not climate. Just like most other warmist “climate scientists”.
Can we start using the term climate-credulous for true believers? I think it captures the unskeptical faith often given to political climatologists by the media and their flock.
A better term than “credulous” has already been invented (by people in the Skeptics movement): Climate-Creduloids
Today, most people only seem to use the word “conversation” genuinely when using the paste tense, as in “I had a conversation with Katherine about global warming”.
When someone says “Katherine is going to have a conversation with you about global warming” then you know full well that a genuine conversation is the last thing on Katherine’s mind. She is merely going to lecture you. Again.
“Climatesplaining” is probably an up-to-date term for it that will resonate with the kids on the street.
…or Greensplaining
Generally speaking, when someone like her says that they want to have a discussion/conversation about Issue X, what the person really means is that he wants to yell at you and tell you why you are wrong, while you sit there and let them.
The green weenies get more Orwellian every day. Love it. Spend your own money on snake oil and tulips.
It is possible to stop an argument with Them before it starts by asking ‘How much grant money are you getting for this promotional spiel you’re throwing at me?’
Other similar questions:
– Why are you such a control freak?
– Did you know this nice, warm interglacial period could end as abruptly as a dam breaking?
– Is your pantry stocked for cold emergencies? Do you even have a pantry? Did you know that your microwave won’t work if the electricity goes out?
– Why are you wearing clothing made of synthetic fabrics? Why are you using petroleum byproducts instead of natural stuff?
I think hitting the part about money and sticking to that theme might work very effectively. I don’t know whether or not it’s possible to make them cry hysterically, but it’s worth a try.
The worst part about the Warmians (of all levels) is that they don’t want to acknowledge that they might be wrong, not even slightly. So they attach pejorative terms to anyone who does not instantly agree with them or does not knuckle under, and the labeling is a defense mechanism. They really are control freaks, you know. And they’re afraid to find out that they might be wrong.
Just my humble opinion of the whole thing.
Evidence Dismissive is term that will work in reverse more so than its intended target. Firstly the proponents of global warming have yet to provide evidence that stand up to scrutiny. Secondly the pc brigade now have climate science in their sights.
Well, Nick seems to be trying to horn in on Mosher’s “drive by” action, failing to address the Hayhoe premise and nibbling around the edges of other’s opinions and wording. So boring.
As for me, I think the new term won’t fly, because it means the same thing. Lefties always have to change the term for the things they believe that become unpopular because lefties are wrong-headed bozos. For example, liberal used to mean liberty loving, property rights, law and culture and tradition as a rightful inheritance, protection FROM government. But then the lefties got hold of it and it came to mean collectivist, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, more government, command economy. So it became politically unpopular. Now all those collectivist terms have morphed into today’s “Progressive” which according to the last election, isn’t working out so well for the term changers either. With global warming we see the same thing. First, it was climate change, and now they’re trying to change it again to climate disruption and Hayhoe’s ridiculous “climate weirding” because the alarmist side badly needs bad weather related deaths to emotionally support their feeble scientific arguments. Changing a political category term is always a temporary fix as well as a hypocritical exercise, when the new term merely tries to hide the same old, true intentions. It doesn’t work because it’s fundamentally dishonest, and the emotional aspect of a true hysteria is impossible for alarmists to hide.
But that’s not the real reason Katherine Hayhoe is propaganda peddling polemicist. The reason she is is because she disingenuously misrepresents the categories of who is and is not being labeled a denier by alarmists. One must be on board with entire vertical stack of propositions in the full alarmist hypothesis to avoid being called a denier.
What do I mean by “the vertical stack of alarmist hypotheses?” I’m so glad you asked, Nick. Here is what I mean: Keep in mind that each claim in the stack relies on the validity / truth / acceptance of the previous item in order to logically be valid. They run from A to F. Each one is given with my long verbose response following each.
:
A – The Earth’s climate is changing
My response: Yes, of course it is. This is trivially true and means almost nothing. Except perhaps to those people who’ve never heard of the cycles of growing and melting Laurentide or Cordilleran ice sheets, who don’t know that Puget Sound was carved by glacial ice or that Nantucket Island is a glacial deposit, or who can drive or hike through mountain valleys not realizing that the U-shaped ones were carved by alpine glaciers that are now completely gone (while the V-shaped ones were carved by streams). There are many people who don’t understand how Oxygen came to be in the atmosphere, how the biosphere has evolved from oceans, and that the atmosphere’s chemistry had to change before life could exist on land. There are some people who don’t understand why the Earth is not like Venus not only because we’re further from the Sun, but BECAUSE life evolved here. And that life consumed CO2 and produced O2. And then after enough stuff had rusted, other life subsequently evolved to consume airborne O2 and produce CO2. Some people don’t get that all these life forms evolved in a sometimes cooperative, but mostly brutally competitive arms race with a sort of niche filling pressure. Many people don’t understand that some mineral and much biological chemistry can sequester CO2 for a long time. And some don’t know that if all CO2 were gone from the air, we’d all die and so they can’t appreciate having a healthy safety margin.
B – The world is warming
This one is not quite so simple, but yes, it’s probably true, based on our best observations. It is not so completely “known” that it can be called a “fact” (IMO). And certainly not on the same scale as “the sun will rise tomorrow (which in fact, is a stupid and unscientific way of saying the sun will still be a bright yellow star, fusing hydrogen into helium when the Earth completes its next full rotation), or that Halley’s comet will return as of such and such a date (which isn’t a fact either as some collision or gravity well might destroy it or permanently change it’s trajectory, and we might never know). But IF, as Kevin Trenberth once infamously opined, some missing heat must be going into the deep oceans, and since we measure so little of the oceans volume for temperature, we would be hard pressed to say with certainty that deep oceans are playing this new imagined role in climate change. And if we cannot say that with any certainty, this newly hypothesized process may or may not be happening, how can he say heat or energy is or is not moving there? IF there are some hidden forms of cyclical variability in ocean layer shifting that moves massive amounts of heat energy, and if those forces are beyond our flimsy ARGO measurements, we could be completely wrong to say that the whole ocean/atmosphere coupled climate is gaining heat right at this moment. If that were true, our warming period might really just be a venting of a very long lived heat sink that moves energy in a way we don’t understand. This is why Trenberth, who wants very much to sell a simple model of the climate system as the truth, was stupid to offer a highly complicating feature to that system in order to quickly dismiss one of his sticky problems, that of the plateau or pause in what he desperately wanted to be a continuously soaring temperature record. And that’s why it was stupid for other “scientists” to jump aboard his quick fix bandwagon without any thought for how it complicates their job as climate alarmists. If I were a scientist, studying a new hypothesis for how heat is being stored in deep water as Trenberth suggests, potentially saving that heat up, then releasing a hundred or thousand years later, and I also said that modern warming might be the result of that process, I believe I would instantly be called a denier. Trenberth was not called a denier, of course. Because he was advancing the whole vertical stack. He finessed the whole issue of how his new throwaway hypothesis complicates the whole picture of the entire climate. And neither he, nor Katherine Hayhoe are likely to delve into this and make it their next research project. They wouldn’t dare broach that subject. Because then he’d have to acknowledge the complexity, as Judith Curry does, and then THEY would be called deniers, flat out. BAM, just like that. This issue brilliantly shows how the wicked problems of unknown unknowns can bend over hubris filled scientists and do to them what John Goodman (wrongly) thought the young punk Larry had done to El Duderino in “The Big Lebowski.” Kevin, when you proposed your missing heat going into the deep oceans, I think you really dropped the soap.
C – The world is warming primarily because of Human CO2 emissions from our use of fossil fuels
This claim is quite dodgy, and I feel the evidence we have to date actually shows it to be false. Deep ice cores show CO2 is not driving the big climate shifts and that increasing CO2 is an effect, not a cause. You’ve all heard the arguments. I won’t repeat them again. Climate alarmists blame CO2 for everything done by both CO2 and water vapor combined, while water vapor is the far more powerful greenhouse gas because of volume and mass, and water in the air is a far more important climate change agent due to its role in producing clouds and heat transfers via state changes. For CO2 alarmists, the only mechanisms of “proof” of CO2’s role are tendentiously built GCMs which blame WATER VAPOR feedback for most of the actual warming, and conflate human emitted CO2 with existing poorly understood natural CO2 cycling systems. But even here, most skeptic don’t dismiss that CO2 is playing a role in radiative energy conversion in the atmosphere, and that human CO2 emissions play some small role in the warming. But if you are in that bucket you are called a denier, not cautious, not skeptical, but a denier. You are told that you want to destroy the planet.
D – The Human CO2 emission caused warming is 100% bad. Sea level rise, polar bears, extinctions, human health going down the tubes, crops failing, resource contention, drought, wars breaking out, yadda yadda yadda
Now I feel we’re into the realm of pure poppycock. CO2 fertilization is greening the world, feeding the whales, feeding the cows, feeding the trees, and a small bit of warming will help human beings tremendously in the short run. Crops will grow better, more people can be fed more cheaply. People will spend less to heat the homes, and be able to afford to run their air conditioners. Cold kills more people than warmth. There is even some small evidence that suggests warming might even mean more deposition on Antarctica and falling sea levels. Camille’s butterflies did not go extinct in the Sierras, the pikas are doing fine, animals have evolved and are adapted for large changes in temperature every day, every year. It’s silly to say they cannot adapt to a 2 degree warming. The polar bears will be fine, and seals will have to come ashore to pup, too, probably making them the bigger loser if the Arctic sea ice melts. But there will still be winter sea ice in the Arctic. But If you say the little bit of warming we’ve seen so far is good and a little bit more won’t hurt at all, you’re called a denier. Not a realist, not a cautious-but-hopeful-challenger of dogma, but a denier who would despoil our only planet.
E – The only way to fix the human caused global warming problem is to cease burning fossil fuels, immediately… without adding horrible polluting nuclear plants or habitat destroying dams and hydroelectric plants
This is so far from true, so dismissive of the role fossil fuels play in our civilization that anyone who can believe otherwise is a delusional fool. Will everyone need to convert their gas burning furnaces to electric? Will they have to move to the tropics so they don’t need a furnace? Will everyone need to buy an electric car or forever forego commuting except on a bicycle or bus or train? How many people would not be able to keep their job? How will modern transport be maintained? Will all trains and buses also have to be converted to electric? All trucks? What will provide the base load to energize all that electricity use? Will your grocery store be stocked with food? Will farmers still be able to grow enough food? Or will we all have to move back to farms to maintain a subsistence existence? Is this the new Holodomor? What if the whole economy collapses and humans start behaving like they do in “The Walking Dead?” To say fossil fuel use must stop is a reckless, dangerous, misanthropic position, a human experiment on a vast scale, completely devoid of any responsible evaluation of costs and benefits. And yet, the CO2 alarmists advance their notions with a causal hubris that could make Hurricane disasters or even the Great Wars of the 20th century look like a Sunday picnic. That is a far greater risk than any risk of climate change or sea level rise, IMO.
But now we come to a level where the alarmist camp begins to show clear differentiation.
With some of the most misanthropic alarmists, human death, suffering, civilization collapse is fine, even if it means some environmental destruction in the short run. Because to them, humans are a cancer on the Earth. The sooner we all die off (some of them wouldn’t even except themselves), the sooner the Earth reverts to a “natural” state. These folks won’t admit their true political goals, they understand that saying it out loud would torpedo their goals almost instantly. They could be rightly judged as sociopaths, or even insane. To this most fervent group, they instead use propaganda and emotion to convince useful i d i o t s and K -12 school teachers to advance their agenda by surreptitiously indoctrinate and brainwashing young children in their eco-lunacy cause long before they’ve had a basic science class. And some of theses teachers send their children students home to shame their evil stupid, fossil fuel burning parents. This is a new incarnation of the Hitler Youth, a fascist form of child abuse, IMO.
F – Finally, for those alarmists who are merely the brainwashed, the dupes and fools, but who are not aligned with their misanthropic brethren, and who don’t want humans to be gone or greatly reduced on Earth, they have an out. Because free wind and solar “renewable” power will magically run our modern civilization right now, just a cheaply and as efficiently as fossil fuels, and without nuclear power and new hydroelectric dams. Green jobs and Progressive advances will through this same government mandated magic, create a Gaia Utopia. Humans can still be just as free as ever, only they will first have to replace all their single panel windows in their homes and ride a bicycle to work, which will be good for them. And their job might be something that used to be done by fossil fuel burning machine, so it might involve a little hard labor, which is fine, because that’s also good for their circulatory system. Little children in their mid-twenties going to Universities (at no charge) will still be able to continue their studies without having to do any heavy lifting, of course, or clean the bathrooms, because they will forever be such an important a part of the political elite, governing class. We must not mess with that.
My response: alarmists have gone totally stark raving mad, as mad as those courtiers of King Canute who presumed a King was tantamount to an omnipotent God who could command the seas. They ignore all human economics, all potential for new technologies, they dismiss the power of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, of human ingenuity in adapting to new realities and problems. Wind and solar power mandates are the new Lysenkoism. But if you say wind and solar are more expensive, they’re intermittent, non-dispatchable, kill birds and bats AND THEY need to be backed up by fossil fuel plants anyway, then oh, oh, your a denier, a polluter and despoiler of the planet.
Climate Scientologists, just like real Scientologists, are notoriously hard to deprogram. You can point these folks to power systems experts who will tell you the real costs of “free renewable energy,” and they’ll point you to gutless, weasel-word filled papers or a Guardian article they read (Hi Griff).
That my friends, is the CO2 alarmist’s “vertical stack.” Veer off from any of it’s propositions, and you will be called a denier. If Katherine Hayhoe were to happen to read this and give her enlightened opinion to each item in the vertical stack, and whether it’s controversies were real or imagined, and whether deviation from any alarmist talking point deserved either the dismissive or denier label, I’d be very interested. And maybe if she could begin to see the hubris and folly of climate alarmism, I’d stop calling her a propaganda, group-think-driven, self-interested, self-serving, bureaucratic, tendentious, piss-poor scientist and political analyst (so long as she also agrees to stop calling herself a Nobel Prize winner). Apart from which, I’m sure that she is a lovely, admirable, adorable person.
Climate changes, humans are not causing it and humans can not stop it. See? Isn’t that so much better than droning on&on with something they will not listen to or bother reading? Cut them off at the knees and walk away. It is their religion, the more you talk the more entrenched they become, it validates their sad little existence.
Denial writ large is called “denialism.” So is dismissiveness writ large “dismissivalism”? I await the Wikipedia edit wars.
my favorite technique for dealing with epithets like this (eg ‘denier’ ‘dismissive’) in debate is to use judo – use their power against them – eg start listing how they fit the description as well – i don’t deny it fits me since part and parcel of their perception of you and won’t easily be dislodged
i wouldn’t bother trying to persuade them that calling names is “unscientific” – they KNOW that as well as you – but they LOVE the effect it has on you – so being dismissive about being called “dismissive” will probably frustrate them – and throwing it back in their faces is usually disorienting
Hey ho, Hayhoe! Hey, nonny no!
You silly child, why can’t you grow?
You tell us that if we “dismiss”
Your bad agenda, we’re remiss.
Dismiss the Pause? How can you say
That it was colder yesterday?
Could just say “victors”, for closure.
“Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe has noticed that calling someone a “denier” tends to end the conversation.”
I would suggest any conversation end long before the first D-bomb was thrown, and changing an obtuse reference to racist holocaust deniers, to an even more obtuse reference won’t help.
Who is dismissive of any scepticism that the data used is good enough for research no matter how much evidence exists?
Let me help you out, Ms Hayhoe. The climate changes, humans are not causing it and humans can not stop it. See? Now you can find something productive to do with your time, instead of defending a fake religious hoax. No, no, don’t thank me, just move on.
Wow, 13 hours and over 200 comments already. Must a been a slow day.
The opposite of “climate dismissive” is “climate gullible”.
They’re by in large not “guilble”, it’s a mistake to portray the Greenshirt left in that way.
“Evil” or “corrupt” is far closer to the mark.
“Guillible”
will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented because dismissing the reality of climate change and the necessity for action is such a core part of their identity
How does dismissive differ from alarmist, given that each one has its own “necessity for action”?
The only “necessity for action” I see is for these warmistas to get over themselves and do something useful with their time.
The slight walk back to dismissive is calculated by the embarrassment to main stream culture of calling someone a “Holocaust Denier” over a political dispute.
What goes on in small academic circles is transformed as the debate is mainstreamed to the larger electorate. The move isn’t sincere and more a cover up of the hate culture of the Green left base.
OK, if they want to be PC, the new terms should politely convey the information whether the person is afraid of some ongoing or coming climate change or not.
So I recommend “climate heroes” for the skeptics and “climate cowards” for the alarmists.
Word capture and destruction has a long leftist heritage. Nothing worse then the current use of the word “science” as a accusatory term at those who oppose ones political policy dressed as “science”. In the common left culture at the street level the GOP must of course be “anti-science” while the collectivist climate advocate wing are “pro-science” in their group think fashion.
In the early Clinton Presidency there was a huge word play effort regarding “fairness” which meant rationalizing tax-increases. The MSM went into overdrive on the use and social definitions to support “fairness” and again any opposition was of course labeled? Right “unfairness”! It lingers to this day but was obsessive in the early 90’s.
Something more obscure to illustrate again; When the Soviet was falling a legislature was formed during the Yeltsin crisis years. The American media in particular went to the trouble of creating a word convention to label the old Soviet Communist hard line wing of that assembly as “Right Wingers” again as a pejorative to those who supported individual rights in the West and the U.S.. For hundreds of years the coding of left and right was derived from the French tradition of assembly. Those most associated to social revolution and radicalism, collectivists and communist as we would modernly label them sat on the left side of the assembly. Conservatives, perhaps monarchists, would sit to the right of the parliamentary assembly. Of course the Soviet “hardliners” were by in large of the old state communist variety yet American leftist media created their own convention of calling them illogically “Right Wingers”. It was done for a propaganda purpose. Word dishonesty is nothing new and if you read a high school text book regarding this historical period you can well find the word convention smear of those years still conveyed. The irony and scope is chilling.
So while Hayhoe is a tool and the pejorative substitution seems obscure, unlikely or laughable there is a broader cultural implication about word conventions and about what is accepted and what should be rejected. Every time you see the term applied, “denier” it should be immediately referenced to “Holocaust Denier” which often leads to back tracking and equivocation of the proponents of AGW orthodoxy using the term. Moderate debate observers, at least some, realize the fanaticism of the application. So does Hayhoe who might not ever be less fanatical but realizes the tactical need for the word re-write and is making her case. Whatever the word that is ultimately chosen will ultimately become the same authoritarian code as “denier” which means “Holocaust Denier”. It should always be contested aggressively which in part why Hayhoe’s actions can viewed as a form of capitulation. The “Denier” smear is failing and as the public debate broadens in scale it looks even more difficult to maintain and support the pejorative’s of the core AGW community. This is a benefit of a broader public debate and an example of how small specialized debate culture changes for a larger anticipated audience.
“Denier” should never be forgotten. It should always be pointed out in public debates as it ultimately defines the nature (totalitarian) of the at large AGW advocate culture and community.
When Dr. Hayhoe came to town just over a year ago, I showed her this nearly hundred-year-old photo of potatoes grown with and without the benefit of CO2 supplementation from blast furnace exhaust, and I pointed out how important enhanced agricultural productivity due to CO2 fertilization is for alleviating starvation and poverty:
http://sealevel.info/CO2_fertilized_potatoes_1920_50pct.png
I also showed her this graph of an especially high-quality, 168-year long (very obviously linear) sea-level measurement record:
http://sealevel.info/120-022_Wismar_2016-05.png
I also pointed out that it had been 125 months since the USA had been hit by a Cat3+ hurricane, and I showed her this graph of hurricane frequency (not increasing):
http://sealevel.info/frequency_12months.png
She was… dismissive.
BTW, this is what I showed her:
http://sealevel.info/theory_vs_evidence_2016-04-06.htm
I personally don’t like the term skeptic either . I have always associated skepticism with people who debunk illusions, magicians and fortune tellers , a modern day party pooper. In fact using the six categories in the article I think there are terms which better portray them accurately. For those who spread alarm I would call them Charlatans, those who are concerned , Gossip mongers, those who are cautious, Gullible, those who are disengaged are Normal, those who are doubtful as Pragmatists or Realists and those who are dismissive as Heroes. Without the active resistance of climate heroes there is very little that stands between a functional live and let live global situation and a global Nanny state dictatorship seeking to control all aspects of your life