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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Myranda (12:22:46) :
Fine, as far as it goes. But they are not saying skeptics are “in denial”, they are specifically using the term “denier”. The choice is willful, and they know exactly what they are trying to convey with it.
Google: Goodman global warming deniers
If any “labels” should be used to describe those who are part of the proper scientific process, shouldn’t it be “Presenter” and “Questioner”?
In the “climate change” arena, a scientist presents data, information, a concept, etc. and other scientists question it. Is this not as it should be?
What we appear to have within the climate change discussion is a number of “Presenters” (primarily from the supporters of the AGW by CO2 concept) who have not been willing to make their data/methods available or transparent, are unwilling to clarify the uncertainties of what they present, refuse to engage in debate with the “questioners”, and have been caught more than once providing deliberately false and misleading information.
Worse, many of these “Presenters” are politically driven rather than science driven.
It is not the Questioners who are the problem, here. They might be, if the Presenters were conducting themselves properly, but until the Presenters do, the corruption of the scientific process is primarily the fault of the Presenters.
There will no doubt always be extremists of both Presenters and Questioners. They should be minimized and ignored as much as possible.
Proper science would mind our “Ps and Qs”.
“It is a characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top.” ~ Robert Lindner
But don’t let that deter you.
Perhaps some alternate, less biased lables could be proposed:
Climate progress obstructionists
Anthropogenic heat beasts
Climate evildoers
Gaia molesters
Weather villains
Sky killers
Meteorological monstrosities
John M (13:35:43) :
Actually, I agree with you. It seems like I didn’t make myself clear enough. I’m suggesting that the term has a negative/immoral connotation from a different field as well. In that context it tends to be rather shaming – at least that’s my experience – and often goes with guilt-laden questions about “what it’s doing to the family”, especially children. Sound familiar?
Maybe the AGW proponents were aware of this, maybe not. There have also been some rather controversial movements within the psychology/psychotherapy world, that have used the term to label anyone who didn’t agree with them. These also have had similar issues with differentiating between hard data (often not available) and the ideas existing in some person’s head.
Her comment was let through at Climate Progress, comment 93. But check out Joe Romm’s response, which includes:
“[JR: As I’ve blogged, those who deny basic climate science are quite different from the Holocaust deniers — but almost certainly more dangerous, since one denies past harms while the other encourages many future harms.
“Holocaust deniers” are denying an established fact from the past. If the media or politicians or the public took them at all seriously, I suppose it might increase the chances of a future Holocaust. But, in fact, they are very marginalized, and are inevitably attacked and criticized widely whenever they try to spread their disinformation, so they have no significant impact on society. The disinformers and delayers (and professional deniers), however, are very different and far more dangerous. They are trying to persuade people not to take action on a problem that has not yet become catastrophic, but which will certainly do so if we listen to them and delay acting much longer.]
It appears we are drifting from the crux of the matter. What criteria determines who can be termed a “Scientist”? Certainly not the Grand Inquisitors of AGW, who support their theory by derogatory name calling. They are merely defending their position of sucking on government sugar tits. I am sorely afraid they will be allow to continue, for their falsified theory allows a tat for tit, which governments can cite to tax the very air we breathe.
Its going to be an uphill battle.
Dr Curry, I imagine you will visit here to see the response to your letter so I’ll address this to you; I think Kate has, perhaps overly bluntly, made an important point. I’m not so concerned about the use of derogatory terms, but of the classification and vilification of political enemies purely on that basis, and about the aptness of terms used. It would seem from your own words that you are guilty of tribalism yourself. I hope this is an accident of your choice of words, as I sense a commitment to the integrity of science that resonates with me as a scientist (not a “climate scientist” — my PhD is in Mathematics).
If there is to be a tribal division to be made let us agree that it should be between science and politics, or rather between science politics that disguises itself as science or science that is wielded primarily as a political tool.
In this light, Kate’s final lines are of some importance. Al Gore is clearly the #1 proponent of AGW and the current round of proposed solutions to the problem. It would really help the situation if his unsuitability as a spokesperson for the SCIENCE of climate change were loudly repudiated by those working in the field, on all sides of this issue, not just as a matter of political partisanship.
But it is not just the opportunist, scientifically illiterate Gore (and many others like him) who is problematic, but those with genuine scientific heft who wield those credentials for political purposes in ways that clearly go beyond the bounds of propriety as defined within the “science tribe”. Besides from several names associated with the Climategate scandal, James Hansen’s name comes to mind.
If you’re going to bring out terms of vilification for those making a toxic mix of politics and science, I will cheer. But only if you apply these terms uniformly. Since your intended meaning of the term “denier” is not politically uniform it strikes me as appropriate. How about “pseudoscientific opportunists”? Doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely but it lends itself to further qualifications such as “of all stripes”.
Roy Spencer makes the point on another WUTW thread that the term “climate change denier” is more appropriate for those (e.g., of IPCC ilk) who labour to deny the MWP or little ice age, the great climate changes of the recent holocene.
Prominent skeptics like Spencer, Pielke and McIntyre (and even, for that matter, most political proxies of the skeptical community) do not deny the reality of climate change — in contrast they generally promote the longstanding scholarly position on the holocene variability and generally do not deny the perfectly normal warming of the late 20th century. The term is simply inappropriate on all levels.
I would be interested, Dr. Curry, in your perspective on the status MWP and Little Ice Ages. The “science” pertaining to these is much older and well established than the recent highly politicized issues. Are you a “climate change denier”, too?
Anthony:
I GOT IT! Your comment about “haven’t seen the sun in days”..
HAH, you live in CA, virtually IMPOSSIBLE..
Except when you are inside making those 10,800,000 Google Hits on ClimateGate(TM).
The last time I checked, with standard seconds, you are creating over 5,000 “hits” per second. WOW, your typing speed is phenomenal.
(Wait, wait..don’t tell me…maybe OTHER people are creating this furor?)
Remember to get some sunlight, or you may be SAD!
Richard Sharpe said:
“So what about all the hoax-deniers?”
What a great term. I like it.
O/T
Has anyone else notice the addition of the requisite AGW prayer to any paper remotely connected to climate or even the environment. It is like the new science “open sesame” required for grant funding and publication in peer reviewed journals.
For example: A NASA on the lack of sunspots states:
“But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Note the required half hearted blurb on global warming “…The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming…” A statement that has nothing to do with the main topic of the article.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (10:33:22) :
“Just like using the word Warmongers?”
the preferred spelling is with two M’s, meaning that they’re mongering warmism.
slow to follow (09:52:37) :
“In the context of “man made global warming” I have also seen the term “denier” evolve based on those who do not accept the science as true as “being in denial”. IMO this is meant to say it is just a stage on a “psychological” journey on which the enlightened “believers” have already travelled.”
I think this was mostly what was/is intended, and that the warmists would be using the epithet even more if there had never been a Holocaust denial movement. If the other side wants to switch to denialist, that would be OK, since it would pretty much eliminate the objectionable connotation denier has.
Oops–last paragraph (by me) shouldn’t be italicized.
Bird Stewart Lightfoot (13:12:57) :
“The preferred, most accurate designation of those who question current climate change theory is CRITIC.”
Yes indeed–I floated that suggestion here a week or two ago. (I think I may have said “climate change critic,” which has alliteration.) It’s a term midway between skeptic and denier.
William Tyndall; (c. 1494 – 1536) was a 16th-century Protestant reformer and scholar who translated considerable parts of the Bible into Early Modern English (the language of his day). He drew directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, rather than Latin translations. His translation was the first to take advantage of the new medium of print enabling its wide distribution.
In 1535 Tyndall was arrested and jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde near Brussels for over a year. Subsequently, Tyndall was tried for heresy and burned at the stake. He was strangled before his body was burnt.
“I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plough to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!”
The King James Bible, published four years after Tyndall’s execution, drew heavily on Tyndall’s work.
Sceptics/denialists/critics/heretics [delete whichever is inapplicable] want access to the original data sources, rather than dubious interpretations, for any who want to make up their own minds. The IPCC “Papacy” denies access to the original data sources because we aren’t worthy. If the data says what the “Papacy” says it does, what is the “Papacy” afraid of?
History, as ever, repeats itself — hopefully not too closely on this occasion.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.” — Thomas Aquinas
One little side note; one thing that struck me about the hacked emails was the fact that Jones, Mann and others in their group decidedly did NOT use the term “denier”, even when they thought they were alone. If the term was in there anywhere, I missed it. They referred to McIntyre and others, properly, as skeptics. This tells me that Curry is a very political animal, using very political language in a very deliberate way. When they don’t talk like this in the climate alarmist “locker room”, that leads inevitably to the conclusion that this is deliberate inflammatory language for public consumption.
The word to replace “deniers” is “Questioners”. That will infuriate the AGW crowd, but the term is accurate. Just think how many questions have been asked and not answered. How many times have Steve Mc and associates asked or (questioned) for data and codes and been “deniered”
Roger Knights (15:42:15) :
“Yes indeed–I floated that suggestion here a week or two ago. (I think I may have said “climate change critic,” which has alliteration.) It’s a term midway between skeptic and denier.”
I didn’t see your earlier suggestion, but I agree, Climate Change Critic is the term to use.
I don’t think it is really between skeptic and denier, since these terms suggest opposition. Criticism suggests analysis and evaluation of the attributes of the theory, a search for truth, and could result is either approval or disapproval.
rabidfox said
rabidfox (10:11:50) :
“Short sighted” would be a better description of the MSM. Here we have a scandal that is big — much bigger than Watergate! It spreads from the UN itself all the way to small countries like New Zeland. This is the story of the century, Pulitzer material (if covered correctly) and the MSM – ALL the MSM are ignoring it!
Just in case you were not aware, the MSM has been owned by the bankers here in the USA since 1917.
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947
“….In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.
“These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.” http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Morgan-Buys-Newspapers9feb17.htm
Then there is the Rockefeller/ Morgan connection through Chase Bank and the Rockefeller/Maurice Strong connection through the Rockefeller foundations (Strong is a trustee) Oil, Strong worked for a Rockefeller company and the World Bank. Strong of course started the whole “global Warming ” Crusade in 1972 at the first UN earth summit.
I would expect the MSM to continue to completely ignore the whole situation. They have ignored the fact that the last ten years of increased food poisoning in the USA is directly attributable to the 1996 HACCP regs turning responsiblity for food testing over to corporations while government labs are shut down. If two congressional investigations and a woman’s death due to deliberate inaction by the USDA does not wake up the mass media a few e-mails released by a whistleblower aren’t going to do it. The woman’s death/USDA/ConAgra story was covered and written up by a New York City reporter and then suppressed by the papers owner.
We are bucking big money and our only weapon is word of mouth and the internet.
Pamela Gray (10:13:47) :
“One more time. Weather pattern shifts that coincided with and were secondary to Pacific oceanic conditions caused the dust bowl…. The American dust bowl happened right on schedule and in accord with natural weather pattern variations.”
Do you have any idea of when we can expect another dust bowl? or change in rain patterns? As a farmer that bit of information is of real interest to me.
I would say corrupt would be a better term for the MSM, the Sun was the main mover for Blair’s landslide victory, they slandered Bush at the drop of a hat, etc,etc they might as well have Goebbel’s ghost editing their stuff. As for us, critics works for me, I was questioning back along but when faced with the outrageous corruption and lies that the AGW promoters resorted to my questions were answered, now I am a critic.
Wow folks.
I can ratchet up the rhetorical argument ongoing here by coining a new term: Climate Change Infidel. If someone has already used the term in a serious way, they have my sincere and disgusted apology for claiming to have coined it. It cleverly implies that the catastrophic global warming “tribe” (props to Dr. Curry) is practicing religion rather than science. It also implies a frightening amount of zealotry is involved. If you take an expansive view of the implication of the term, it implies that it’s just fine to kill those that disagree with you. But of course it’s nothing more than a rhetorical tool.
I agree with the few here that have commented that a good start to reconciliation in this mess would be to stop labeling each other.
I have to say though, that when things reach the heated proportions of this particular issue or for that matter the issues related to the use of the term Infidel, we would all be wise to simply fall back on the rule of law. You can take what you will from that with regard to the broader issues around the term Infidel. In the specific (and if I’m honest, somewhat less urgent) discussion ongoing around Climategate, it’s clear that individuals that conspire to obstruct FOIA requests and that ask their colleagues to delete information subject to same should be prosecuted.
OA
Words are interesting,
Mike Bryant (08:55:50), you mentioned denier in relation to fabrics. As a youngster I remember my mother talking about denier in stockings as in “these stockings are 15 denier” as in den-ee-er not den-eye-er.
This from Answers……..
den·ier2 (dən-yā’) pronunciation
n.
1. (also dĕn’yər) A unit of fineness for rayon, nylon, and silk fibers, based on a standard mass per length of 1 gram per 9,000 meters of yarn.
2. (also də-nîr’)
1. A small coin of varying composition and value current in western Europe from the eighth century until the French Revolution.
2. Archaic. A small, trifling sum.
My dictionary (Oxford Concise) says a den-eye-er is one who denies (declare untrue or non-existent,be abstinent,refuses access to).
I have thought that, if you can deny, why not become a denyer instead of denier. All these years, when I see denier I see den-ee-er.
Dang ! Just can’t get deny outa ma head……………
How about denihilist. More fitting label…
“I can ratchet up the rhetorical argument ongoing here by coining a new term: Climate Change Infidel.”
Or hot-air heretic. (There are threads from 6 months or so back where lots of proposed names were thrown into the mix.)