This comment was sent to me in case it was not posted at all or in it’s entirety over at Climate Progress. It wasn’t, so I’m repeating it here because I think it is relevant to the discussion that Dr. Judith Curry started. From my perspective, the best way to begin to foster understanding is to stop using labels that degrade, and that goes for both sides of the debate.
– Anthony
Kate says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Judith Curry wrote “I reserve the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing this issue…”
I reserve the word “deniers” for people that explicitly reject the history of Jewish extermination in wartime Germany.
When I see anyone legitimize the term “denier” in the context of this debate, an alarm bell goes off – “this is not a serious person”.
To do so is to commit an unforgivable devaluation of the historical relevance of the word “denier. It’s a rhetorical tactic unworthy of anyone who wants their scientific credibility to remain above reproach.
When the word “denier” first crawled out of the political slime, I fully expected those in science and media alike to reject it, vocally and without qualification.
Instead, it has become mainstream.
Small wonder that a great percentage of ordinary observers such as I begin to question that we haven’t been fed one big, fat lie after all. For the people propagating it have seemingly lost all sense of historical proportion.
Not to mention, curious double standard.
Outrageous buffoons like Al Gore zoom about the planet in private jets in the name of your “science”. The WWF travel agency zooms multi-millionaires around the world in private chartered jets in the name of your “science”.
When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.
You may know a lot about science. You understand precious little about public perception.
Denier, proponent, opponent, labels, labels and labels. How about “I am a follower of scientific method”? Of course, I am not a “scientist”, merely a professional civil engineer.
And, since there does appear to be scientific (and measured directly) evidence that trees regulate the temperatures of their leaves, needles, cooling through respiration when the leaves get too hot and heating the leaves through oxidation of surplus sugars when the leaves get too cold, forests must be a factor in moderating the air temperature within the forests. This would, since the air does blow, cause a forest to have a “heat island” or “cool island” effect on areas downwind from the forest.
slow to follow (09:52:37):
Yes, this is the other side of the “denial” coin I think, and may be just as important. If you’ve read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, he credits the Frankfurt School of Marxists with inventing the much-loved tactic of “psychologisation” – explaining all ideological opposition to you as the result of psychological problems clouding your opponents’ minds. When Dr. Curry talks about her “quest to understand skeptics” it sounds as if the same game is being played.
Hot Potato.
If the goverments of the UK, USA and Australia pass the climage change laws they now do so at great risk of inciting revolt within their citizenry.
Are they that stupid?
I.E. – if you passed laws that imposed intentional savagery on your economy and the people knew what the outcome was going to be, plus they knew the reasoning was bogus, would not that put the legitimacy of governement in widespead contempt?
At this point, there has to be serious talk within govenment leadership circles of going down a road that has “coup” written all over it. And that has to put them on pins & needles.
The path for govenment to back out with face-saving grace is wide open. They merely have to cite “ClimateGate” concerns, and they can opt out. You know how politicians like to look good.
Here it is. Your golden parachute, and you keep your smiling face & base intact.
Hot Potato.
If the goverments of the UK, USA and Australia pass the climage change laws they now do so at great risk of inciting their citizenry.
Are they that stupid?
I.E. – if you passed laws that imposed intentional savagery on your economy and the people knew what the outcome was going to be, plus they knew the reasoning was bogus, would not that put the legitimacy of governement in widespead contempt?
At this point, there has to be serious talk within govenment leadership circles of going down a road that has “coup” written all over it. And that has to put them on pins & needles.
The path for govenment to back out with face-saving grace is wide open. They merely have to cite “ClimateGate” concerns, and they can opt out. You know how politicians like to look good.
Here it is. Your Hot Potato.
This ClimateGate Hot Potato has generated millions of denialists.
“Outrageous buffoons like Al Gore zoom about the planet in private jets in the name of your “science”.”
Don’t forget the other outrageous buffoon, the railway engineer who heads up the IPCC.
Meaning is based on context, and that’s true for every word. (eg. the bark of a dog; the bark of a tree.)
We all know what the word “denier” means in the context of global warming. It doesn’t mean what it means in other contexts, like “he denied himself sexually for years”.
Generally, deny is to say no. But in the context of global warming, denier means someone acting in bad faith. If culturally we came to associate bankers as being greedy selfish short sighted incompetents, then you could start calling anyone a banker and they would rightly be offended; they would know what you mean, for the word would have that new meaning.
You can talk about denier in any other context, but in global warming it is no longer an acceptable word. Being gay used to mean something different. Even being joyous has its own connotations in certain contexts.
When global warming speak says you’re a denier, it says you are a person of bad faith. Well, prove it. Show me the evidence that I am acting in bad faith. Don’t just label me without supporting evidence. If someone called me a racist I’d be right to demand they explain why.
I am a denier, and my opinion is based on measurements, facts and real science, what is wrong with that?
Be proud on your “yellow star” of this time.
And again the MSM are ignoring it!
Anthony,
OT, but it would be nice to have a post updating solar activities. I know you are very busy with EAU/CRU. Please keep on with Climategate, it is crucial to cover onging developments . . . it is just that solar posts here were always the greatest! I miss them.
John
REPLY: I haven’t seen the sun in days, forgot all about it. – A
What do you call someone who denies publicly owned scientific data to interested scientists?
Anthony,
OT, but it would be nice to have a post updating solar projections/activities. I know you all are very busy with EAU/CRU. Please keep on with Climategate, it is crucial to cover onging developments . . . it is just that solar posts here were always the greatest! I miss them.
John
Judith Curry wrote “I reserve the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing this issue…”
So Mann, Hansen, etc Al. are Deniers so do “Greenpeace”. Also Kyoto Treaty and Copenhagen are examples of denialism.
If this lady is a scientist i wonder how the scholar quality went down so much. What she wrote doesn’t even pass simple logic.
rbateman (11:06:49) :
Hot Potato.
I agree. But they (members of the government) have a problem. They need Cap & Tax to pay for their beloved social programs, their stimulus package, and cradle-to-grave health care. If they don’t pass CAP & Tax, they won’t have the money to pay for these programs, and as a result they might get “unelected”. Decisions, decisions!
Oh, I almost forgot, in the case of my Senator, Barbara Boxer, she’s not bright enough to recognize there is a “mess”, much less a way to extracate herself.
There is white washing with a mop and then there is white washing with a boar bristle artist brush. Still white washing.
Some have claimed that the word “denier” is just a word and does not invoke the Holocaust. That is simply untrue. It was floated in climate debate to compare climate change denial with Holocaust denial (e.g. Hansen’s hyperbole comparing coal trains to Nazi death trains; see Andy (08:40:52)).
Now it has been incorporated into the wider debate. It includes not only those few who outright don’t believe in climate change, but also a rainbow of viewpoints, many not even truly skeptical. These viewpoints include those such as Pielke Sr.’s land use impact scenarios, Stephen Mosher’s non-skepticism (his beef is with the poor scientific methodology sometimes evident in climate science), Tom Fuller’s and Lucia Liljegren’s lukewarmer POVs, and even those people who are uncertain or don’t have an opinion.
The term “denier” has been used to paint all non-adherents of the CAGW party line. It is entirely a morality label with nothing to do with science and includes many who are not skeptical of most anthropogenic climate change science. And it is a conveniebt political tool being used by politicians in that age old, very successful strategy: dehumanize the opposition so that they can be marginalized, ignored, or worse.
The term “denier” is used to deny the labelled the same rights as the labeller.
Pamela Gray (10:13:47) “Without dust bowls, the fishing industry would completely disappear as mass extinctions become a sudden and permanent fixture of the oceanic landscape.”
I welcome the sharing of related links.
Patrick M. at CA said With Dr. Curry’s first post I was annoyed that she seemed only willing to go half way and was blaming “the skeptics” for the current situation. I think I am beginning to understand her approach. I’ve noticed that she is not speaking to the skeptics at all in her posts. She is speaking to her “tribe”. She knows they can’t swallow the whole truth at this point, so she appears to be luring them to the table with the face saving, it-is-the-only-way-to-get-rid-of-the-skeptics line. The fact that she made her appeal on ClimateAudit may be the only nod and wink she can give the skeptics at this point.
IMHO this is an important point. There is “tribalism” among readers of CA and WUWT just as in the climate science cabal, even if not nearly so bad. Plus, comments allowed by moderators can easily, by the best of visitors, be taken as the opinions of Anthony and Steve (and everyone else who posts here).
It’s very easy to slip into “tribal” language and I don’t want to cast stones at Judith for doing this herself, especially if her aim is to help open up dialogue. I would rather help facilitate a “meeting” where all sides are somehow obliged to attend and can put out their issues without fear of reprisal.
The term “denial” is also used in psychology/counselling/addiction treatment to describe a situation where “everyone else” can see a problem but the person who is being focussed on cannot or does not. I.e. they refuse to see “the truth”.
The implication is that there’s something seriously wrong and you are wilfully refusing to see it.
Recently, I’ve seen “the climate change denial industry”. I don’t know anybody that denys climate change!
I can deny that the Yankees won the World Series in 2009. I can deny that the Yankees will win the World Series in 2100. Two different things!
Best,
Frank
anonym (11:04:51) :
slow to follow (09:52:37):
Yes, this is the other side of the “denial” coin I think, and may be just as important. If you’ve read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, he credits the Frankfurt School of Marxists with inventing the much-loved tactic of “psychologisation” – explaining all ideological opposition to you as the result of psychological problems clouding your opponents’ minds. When Dr. Curry talks about her “quest to understand skeptics” it sounds as if the same game is being played.
This just reminded me that there was some U.K. “scholarly” attempt to study and identify the psychological pathology of AGW “deniers” this year. I wonder what has become of that?
Re: Lucy Skywalker (12:11:20)
My instinct is similar.
The problem is that a lot of contributors from the 2 extremes have a political interest in making sure middle-ground is no-man’s-land.
Venturing into the centre requires ability to withstand vicious stoning from both sides.
The message to bystanders is:
This is what will happen to you if you don’t commit to one of the opposing extremist factions.
In a way, it’s a horseshoe alliance that militantly resists balance & stability.
I see the Kultursmug as just too thick so as to make a path to simple coexistence almost impossible, let alone anything that looks like engagement.
The preferred, most accurate designation of those who question current climate change theory is CRITIC.
When I use the word denier I reserve it for the people who want to deny
access to code and data.
The salient aspect of holocaust denial is this: people denying something they know to be true. Every trained scientist knows that the foundation of scientific knowledge is reproducibility. And they know that in order to reproduce results one must share data and methods. So, when scientists make arguments as Jones did, that he won’t share data because his critics will use to just find mistakes then you have a class of denial on par with holocaust denial. He knows he must share data and code and yet refuses to.
Notice that no one on the other side of the fence has ever resorted to the opposite extreme of labelling anyone as a “collaborator.” One side has demonstrated significantly more class than the other and has done so for a long time. Curry’s latest gestures are welcome, but only a first step.
Free the code, free the data, free the metadata, and independent replication (not review) of all foundational data and studies are now the minimum standard. Everyone has lost their “trust me” privileges.