As we all know, the debate over global warming is contentious, often vitrolic. Labels are often applied by both sides. One the most distasteful labels is “denier”. I’m pleased to report that the UK paper The Guardian has taken on this issue headfirst.
In a recent email exchange with the Guardian’s James Randerson, where he discussed an outreach opportunity to climate skeptics via a series of stories on the Guardian website, I raised the issue with him.
From: “Anthony Watts <xxx@xxxx.xxx>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:13 AM
To: “James Randerson” <xxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: Re: Guardian: CRU emails
Hello James,
Thanks for the response.
If the Guardian truly wishes to engage climate skeptics, I do have a piece of advice that will help tear down walls. Get the newspaper to go on record that they will never again use the label “deniers” in headlines or articles.
For example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/15/climate-science-ipcc-sceptics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers
And there are many others I could cite.
That simple, single act, recognizing that the term is erroneous, distasteful due to its holocaust denier connotation, and unrepresentative of the position on climate change of many who simply want the science to be right and reasonable solutions enacted would be a watershed event in mending fences.
There’s no downside for the Guardian to do so that I can envision. It would elevate the paper’s credibility in the eyes of many. The Guardian can lead by example here.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts
Yesterday I received an email from him. It is my impression that he sent the suggestion out to other staff members and there was a discussion about it, which was written about here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/climate-change-scepticism-style-guide
I excerpt the relevant paragraphs here, highlight mine:
We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to “climate change deniers” in favour of, perhaps, “climate sceptics”.
The editor of our environment website explains: “The former has nasty connotations with Holocaust denial and tends to polarise debate. On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence. Also, some are reluctant to lend the honourable tradition of scepticism to people who may not be truly ‘sceptical’ about the science.” We might help to promote a more constructive debate, however, by being “as explicit as possible about what we are talking about when we use the term sceptic”.
Most if not all of the environment team – who, after all, are the ones at the sharp end – now favour stopping the use of denier or denialist (which is not, in fact, a word) in news stories, if not opinion pieces.
The Guardian’s environment editor argues: “Sceptics have valid points and we should take them seriously and respect them.” To call such people deniers “is just demeaning and builds differences”. One of his colleagues says he generally favours sceptic for news stories, “but let people use ‘deniers’ in comment pieces should they see fit. The ‘sceptics’ label is almost too generous a badge as very few are genuinely sceptical about the science but I think we have to accept the name is now common parlance.”
I applaud the editorial staff at the Guardian for taking this step, and even more so for having the courage to put it to print. I thank James Randerson for bringing the subject to discussion. I hope that other editorial staff and news outlets will take note of this event.
On that note let me say that we could all (and that includes me) benefit from the dialing back of the use of labels, and we should focus on the issues before us. There’s really nothing positive or factual to be gained from such labeling.
I call on readers of WUWT to reciprocate this gesture by The Guardian by refraining from labeling others they may disagree with here and at other web forums.
Let’s all dial back and treat others with the same respect in conversation as you might treat dinner guests having a discussion at home.
My position has been that there is no debate that the earth has warmed over the past 100+ years, but that the magnitude of the measured warming and the cause(s) remain in debate. The question of whether such warming is beneficial or detrimental depends on who you ask. I’ll also point out that it took our modern society about 150 years of science and technology advances to get where we are now. Doing it cleaner and better won’t be an overnight solution either.
There are also other pressing environmental issues which have been swallowed whole by the maelstrom of this worldwide climate debate and are getting the short shrift. The sooner we can settle it, the sooner we can get on to solving those.
UPDATE:
In related news, the nastiness of debate caused one long time blogger to close his discussion forum.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7043753.ece
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“[…] My position has been that there is no debate that the earth has warmed over the past 100+ years, but that the magnitude of the measured warming and the cause(s) remain in debate. […]”
Yea, verily.
Well said Anthony. I believe everyone would be better served if the level of anger and name calling was lowered to a level where everyone could discuss the topics in mixed sitting again. The “climate wars” have lived up to their name.
Jack
Well said, well done and take a bow, Mr Watts. And the Guardian too.
Hear hear!
Now if all newspapers and blogs would follow, maybe we could get something done.
I never understood how someone could “deny” the future as predicted by a computer model.
Are low-paid government computer programmers and climate scientists supposed to be some sort of gods who know the future?
“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”
G K Chesterton
It’s too light here to see how many moons are in the sky but that is an important concession—I doubt the ardent supports of the other side will refrain, though.
REPLY: Perhaps, but now there exists a lead by example reference that you can point them to. – Anthony
Very classy move. Hopefully they will not…now and then…spell it incorrectly by using septic!
Dang
Nothing has hurt their “cause” more than words…..
…..and now they are going to stop using the words that do the most damage.
I entirely agree with the need for both sides to eliminate abuse and ad hominem attacks because at some point, now looking sooner than later, important people in politics and finance will realise that they have been being led up the garden path by AGW scare.
Experience tells us that few people like to admit that they were mistaken let alone hoodwinked. The more senior and public the positions of those being asked to agree that they were misled the less likely they are agree to make the admission. I have seen large corporations spend literally millions to ‘protect’ the reputations of senior directors so know of what I speak.
Trained negotiators know the vital importance of providing the potential mind-changer with a ladder that allows them to emerge from the hole they were in not looking as if they have been buried in ordure and smelling of it as well.
Being polite but absolutely firm with the opposition is without doubt the right policy to pursue henceforth. Keep to the moral high ground.
“and unrepresentative of the position on climate change of many who simply want the science to be right ”
Very good !!!!!
It is that simple !!!
There is a petition to ask Brown to stop describing ‘sceptics’ as climate change deniers. (See http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Deniers/ ). Perhaps the Guardian could mention this petition in future articles?
p.s. to Messers Brown and Milliband : – Flat-Earthers is not very voter-friendly either?!
I’m very pleased to see this. Sometimes it’s hard to even believe that reasonable people continue to exist, and the fact that the Guardian has been introspective and logical about this give me hope for mankind. 🙂
Well done, both of you (Mr Watts and The Guardian). I really hope that the “extremists” on both sides will moderate their language, avoid personal attacks, and focus on the real issues as they are outlined by Mr Watts in his last two paragraphs.
Someone in the Washington Post today heeded your guidance, evidently – calling me a “denialist” instead.
Neither myself not Richard Lindzen, object to being labeled a “denier”
The term has become associated with a certain set of convictions that, to my understanding, characterize mine
That is a wonderful move!!
I have to wonder how he knows that “very few are genuinely sceptical”? Has a poll been taken? Has someone counted?
Ian E: Quite right, though I’d rather be called a flat earther than be flat headed (or with a low sloping forehead at minimum) like the many rabid politicians. The former is kind of quaint and endearing, the latter, well.. says it all.
Minimal acknowledgement of the dignity of the skeptical view seems better than none at all, even if its reluctant and half-hearted in tone, as if he were being asked to swallow some kind of bitter medicine. What it says to me is that your (very reasonable) suggestion is one he can no longer afford to ignore.
Keep up the good work Anthony.
FTA: “The ’sceptics’ label is almost too generous a badge as very few are genuinely sceptical about the science but I think we have to accept the name is now common parlance.”
Only now is skeptic in the common parlance? Funny, I thought the term came from waay back in the day of Pyrrho of Elis in ancient Greece referring to something known as “knowledgeable ignorance” which essentially means having an accurate grasp of reality through knowing what is not known.
In fact, it should really be an embarrassment to anyone who accepts the CAGW line that the word skeptic is used to describe those who disagree with them, it’s like admitting their own failure to grasp reality.
It is very pleasing to see a little bit of good sense over at least this one. Reading through the Guardian article you linked, they still seem to have a very strange attitude that leaves me uncomfortably feeling that this is rather a hollow gesture.
“They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.”
“Rather than opening itself to the charge of denigrating people for their beliefs…”
“The ‘sceptics’ label is almost too generous a badge as very few are genuinely sceptical about the science but I think we have to accept the name is now common parlance.”
Frankly, I’ve seen as much utter nonsense from the Guardian’s environment correspondents as I ever have in sceptic blogs. Anthony’s position seems pretty unassailable to me, and although well done the Guardian for agreeing to avoid the gross insults, I think they would do even better to try to approach the issue in a more inclusive and a less patronising manner.
Kudos to The Guardian! And to Anthony Watts for pointing out an opportunity for The Guardian to progress.
Mr. Watts, I could fill many pages with passionate and substantiated arguments reflecting huge moral and logical problems related to the “mutual respect” approach toward those who knowingly commit fraud and legislate taxation on the basis of ideological propaganda in their unscrupulous pursuit of money and power.
It would suffice to say this, with all my respect toward you, personally:
I don’t invite to dinner those who regularly robbed me, deceived me, and insulted me.
No, sir.
Mr. Watts and @Rhys Jagger 11.00.39
You should be aware that Guardian comments columns are heavily censored.
In particular they are careful to control informed and detailed sceptical comment.
Access is simply denied to commentators like “Bishop Hill”. I’m also barred possibly because my email address is interpreted as a paid fossil fuel industry lobbyist (incorrectly as it happens) .
When the Guardian lifts its censorship, reveals how many sceptics they have barred and apologise, then maybe they can take a bow. Not until.
REPLY: Let’s start with small steps first. -A
Oh gosh, you mean I have to be respectful to my dinner guests
I can see the headlines now:
“Climate Change Dis-believers Cry Foul Over the Use of the Word Denier”
🙁
The Media will publish/air/show what the Politicians say. The Politicians will read/listen/watch what the Media publishes/airs/shows. The People are the last to be seen/heard/noticed by the Media and Politicians but they drive the whole mess. Ain’t life a beach?