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.
I agree that applying the term ‘denier’ pre-emptively and in a blanket fashion is not appropriate, as many people are true skeptics. However there is large, and very vocal number of people who fit the definition of denier, i.e. no matter how much evidence you show them, the will not change their mind.
Yes, I know you will say there are similar ‘deniers’ of evidence in the AGW camp, and I don’t disagree with that. Just because people agree with my position, does not mean they do it for the right reasons – right for the wrong reasons can be worse that just being wrong.
Sean Peake (12:08:23) :
“If someone really does think that climate change is not happening – that the world is not warming – then it seems fair enough to call them a denier (and I’d love them to explain to me why comma butterflies are flying north to Scotland, for the first time in history, as fast as their jagged little wings will take them)”
“I may be misinformed (I’m NEVER wrong) but I thought these creatures used to reside in Scotland and disappeared (or moved off) over 110 years ago?”
Yes they used to be in Scotland, they were reported in the late 1800’s even up to the 1930’s. The Commas’ range also extends in to Scandanavia. In North America they are found from British Columbia all the way across the continent to Nova Scotia. One of the theorized reasons for their decline in Scotland and Ireland was the washing of Hops as that was thought to be their main food source. Nettles are now considered their main dietary choice and that is probably as much of a factor as anything to their “resurgence”. Nettles are plentiful and widespread throughout that range.
So it is not the first time in history for them to be in that type of climate by any means.
A few days ago there was an article in Guardian’s G2 section about the flat-earth society by David Adam
A version of the article (abridged?) appears here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society
As you can see you can (and the Guardian has) insulted climate change skeptics – by assocating them with various conspiracy theory, pseudo-scientific and paranormal beliefs – without ever once using the word “denier”.
(And this is despite the fact, that all important skeptics and luke-warmers are arguing for MORE openness and MORE use of scientific processes and principles, rather than less).
Here’s the first paragraph of the article:-
Daniel Shenton should be the most irrational man in the world. As the new president of the Flat Earth Society, you’d imagine he would also think that evolution is a scam and global warming a myth. He should argue that smoking does not cause cancer and HIV does not lead to Aids.
Here’s the 3rd paragraph:-
In fact, Shenton turns out to have resolutely mainstream views on most issues. The 33-year-old American, originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin. He thinks the evidence for man-made global warming is strong, and he dismisses suggestions that his own government was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Here’s the 5th paragraph:-
If you thought that flat Earthism was gone, think again. The scientific evidence is stacked against Shenton, obviously, just as it is against those who think global warming is a hoax and that the dead stalk the Earth as ghosts – but that doesn’t appear to trouble him in the least.
Phil M (16:40:11) : Want a good laugh? Scroll up and count how many times the word “warmer” is used to describe someone pro-AGW.
I did just that. In 224 comments on this WUWT topic, the word “warmer” is used to describe someone pro-AGW exactly zero times.
Thank you for bringing this up.
Anthony,
I see no real change in anything but commend you, the mods, guest posters, and most commenters here for maintaining one fantastically well conducted blog.
But don’t lower yourself to the level of the likes (from what I have been able to tell) of those at the Guardian, Ann Turner, Judith Curry, etc. You’ve, as far as I can recall, have always taken the high road and regulated WUWT in that vein – unlike the character of those above noted.
One pet peeve of mine: STOP WITH THE “CLIMATE CHANGE” usage! You, Anthony, in your posted letter, etc. are also guilty of mis-associating “climate change” as a labeling of topic of the debate – it’s not!
For example:
“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.” – Anthony (above)
Alarmists discarded Anthropogenic Global Warming for “climate change” to avoid the failure of their fundamental arguments. Skeptics, most likely inclusively believe climate change as a changing climate has and always will exist. What AGW skeptics don’t agree with is significantly damaging AGW – if it exists at all. GW sure, AGW – maybe, maybe not. Those are the issues of import. As the alarmists have attempted to re-identify labels the debate has been spun and is now dominated by distorted terminology: “climate change” by default. This is a truthful and clarity failure in the debate.
I quite like the following:
2 03 2010
Brian G Valentine (11:17:38) :
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
– I don’t really care being called names if it means the debate is clear and the conclusions understood.
Deniers is exactly what they are. They are in the same league as those who deny evolution. Their tactics are the same, and generally their political leanings are the same. I don’t see the issue. Call them what they are — deniers.
@Phil M:
I can speak for anybody else, but I’d personally be happy to change terminology, if better options are available.
Can you tell me a polite, but concise collective term, and not value loaded (neither for or against), that should be used instead of “warmer” for those accepting the IPCC position?
e.g. George Monbiot, Phil Jones, and Michael Mann are all _____________
Can you tell me a polite, but concise collective term, and not value loaded (neither for or against), that should be used for those predicting far more extreme scenarios than the IPCC
e.g. People who predict the world population will fall by half by 2050, and sea-levels will rise 20 meters by then as well, because of climate change are ___________________.
Mike (13:17:17) :
So, do you all agree to stop calling AGW a “hoax”? I do not know if that term has been used on this blog, but it certainly gets used a lot.
I don’t believe it is used at all here, or if so it would be rare, because it would be incorrect, and doesn’t do the enormity of the harm that CAGW/CC has done, continues to do, and threatens to do in the future justice.
A good example of a hoax would be what Penn and Teller pulled on a group of unsuspecting, clueless “Greeny types” at a rally, where they had a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. All of those people would, of course believe in CAGW/CC.
Instead, the phrase that seems to describe it best is probably Cargo Cult Science: From wikipedia: “cargo cult scientists conduct flawed research that fails to produce useful results. Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must first of all avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment.”
2 03 2010
Phil M (16:40:11) :
Want a good laugh? Scroll up and count how many times the word “warmer”…
I acknowledge that all AGW alarmists may not be alarmists. You may be an AGWer, but then I may be also. Then there is not debate. However, when you describe the discussion here as “…vitriole and ignorant mean-spiritedness…” I would be inclined to believe you are an AGW alarmist.
How would you like to be identified as, Phil – related to the AGW matter, of course?
Oh the humanity! When Revkin is forced to live without power for 2 whole days, the Prius gets parked and the burning of “recycled carbon” commences.
Gaia wept.
(14:06:25)
REPLY: Troll is usually applied to somebody who posts anonymously, and I’ve used the term since it started on early BBS’s and not in climate debate. -A
Anthony: I don’t use my full name because I am an officer of a US company. The law states that anything I say or write is company policy. My opinions and comments here are personal, not official. I think there is a big difference between the commonly accepted definition of “troll” and somebody who just wants or needs to be anonymous.
Neven (15:34:45) :
The rise of these elements has further been made possible by an ongoing PR campaign to discredit AGW theory and climate science in general in order to delay action on AGW and maintain the status quo for financial and/or ideological reasons. This PR campaign is more difficult to discern if it can be hidden under the guise of skepticism.
This is not atypical of the paranoid nature of alarmists. Maybe it’s part of this personality defect that attracts them to AGW. Sorry Neven, there is no PR campaign. Just concerned scientists and citizens. Get over it.
Phil M (16:40:11) :
It’s ridiculous to see a an article like this, on a website that does nothing except actively foster the vitriole and ignorant mean-spiritedness already polluting the science community.
Stage 2 … anger.
Anthony,
this is not only good practice to refrain from ‘tagging’ the opposition, but it is also good tactics to show that bloggers here are focussed on highlighting the fact that we are sceptical of the information being put out, often through MSM sources such as the Guardian, in the name of global warming alarmism.
I will take a leaf out of Robert E. Lee’s book. Marse Robert couldn’t bring himself to refer to the Federal Army as, “The Enemy,” choosing in stead to call them, “those people.” This is not to say that I think we will go the way of Robert E Lee, in stead if there is an historical comparison I prefer to see this lengthy struggle in terms of WW II. I see Climate Gate as the turning point comparable to El Alemein in the west and Stalingrad in the east. Churchill summed it up best when he said, “Before El Alemein there were no victories. After El Alemein there were no defeats!”
JDubya
Well said mate! You touched on something that is often overlooked, and that is the desire to see Mankind at the centre of the universe, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Many people just can’t bear the thought that we are really insignificant in the great scheme of things. We HAVE to be shown to be leaving a significant mark on our planet albeit a bad one. We HAVE to be seen to be in control of nature (despite the fact that there are hundreds of examples that prove otherwise). Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand when it comes to promoting this belief. If one doesn’t believe that we have that much influence on the planet then the believers label that person a ‘denier.’ Perhaps a hundred years ago the term, ‘heretic,’ would have been applied. Of course CAGW isn’t a religion, is it?
Hey, Dough!
2 03 2010
Doug (16:52:39) :
Deniers is exactly what they are. They are in the same league as those who deny evolution. Their tactics are the same, and generally their political leanings are the same. I don’t see the issue. Call them what they are — deniers.
I believe we have considered AGW but have concluded that the hard line held by destructively significant AGWers (alarmists) “believers” is likely wrong.
What to call “destructive significant AGWers believers” skeptics? How about that (DSAGWerBSs for short) or Questioners? Whatever. Just get the debate on AGW right. Forget the “climate change” thing.
Hey, Doug! – not Dough, sorry.
“Object all you want, I don’t much care about anonymous opinion.”
Do I consider my self an anonymous poster? I’ve always posted under my real name. My email address is entered. I can provide any personal information you might request. I addressed you directly in my post to ask you specifically the questions that rose in my mind. If you don’t care much, well I dont know what to say, except – thanks for your honesty! 🙂
Those advocating anthropogenic warming will derive credibility from association with skeptical voices, and not the other way around. It is better for the lines between these two disparate entities – the ‘warmers’ and the ‘deniers’ – to remain distinct for a good time to come.
You conflate CO2 control – an economic issue with air pollution – an environmental issue. This is a fundamental problem, I’m sure you are aware. All the world leaders did not gather at Copenhagen to ‘cool the world’, did they?
I will venture to apologize if I came across as offensive. Its just rhetoric, believe me. 🙂
Regards
Anand
Phil M(16:40:11) : is pretending that there is no censorship on his choice of blogs. Phil M take a step back and think about what you wrote. Ridiculous. Man, there seem to be a lot of pro-AGW comments on here of late, and they are getting increasingly shrill. I could give a (snip) what anyone calls me. Prove that Co2 drives climate, prove that warming is bad, prove that increased Co2 is bad. Call me what you like. I have survived a lot worse.
Phil M (16:40:11) :
Want a good laugh? Scroll up and count how many times the word “warmer” is used to describe someone pro-AGW. ……blah, blah,blah….
lol, you’re not really that dense are you? Does warmer carry the same connotations as denier? But, I digress, if you indeed are in the same camp as for instance, Mike Mann, then I’d call you an alarmist (hopefully invoking visions of Chicken Little frantically running around, flapping your wings/arms, screaming “The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!” )
On a totally different perspective of your statement, you being pro-AGW, are you stating you’re advocating AGW? Because, that would put you in an entirely different camp.
I think that Mr. Watt’s position is the right one, if for no other reason than to emphasize the seriousness of the matter. “Yeah, yeah, call us names and get over it. But now you have to look at this.”
They have cheated; they have massaged the data to support their conclusions; and it is something that they have documented themselves.
That is why, even as yet, they have not released all of the data and all of the computer coding.
I was getting used to being labelled as a denier.
I was also waiting for the tide to turn in favour of the real science and be able to label the warmmongers as deniers. Deniers of the real climate science.
do you think the Gaurdian are just putting up their gaurd for when the tide turns: and they want a little more sympathy for being the real deniers.
I think i would still regard them as enviroMENTALlists
To deny something requires that something in the past must have happened and you “deny” that it happened. So would that mean that Mann and others are denying the MWP? or are we denying the hockey stick.
First and foremost, we are “Skeptics of Future Global Warming Alarmism” and question the extent to which man contributes.
C’mon, just a little more smash mouth, please?
With mercilessly self righteousness, AGWarmists have bludgeoned non-carbonCultists for years with all sorts of Gaiacidal invective, in addition to “denier”.
Yet now we’re supposed to talk pretty to them because the scam is exposed?
Not only do I call giving-it-back-to-them-with-both-barrels a right just piece of my mind, it let’s them know there’s consequences to acting like a bunch of moralizing hyenas.
The higher ground is punishing AGW frauds and their accomplices, to lessen the possibility that it happen again.
Perp walk the bastards!
berniel (14:51:56) :
“Bishop Hill posted some curious notes about a meeting of press and others at Oxford Uni last Friday. ”
That link was hilarious.
One cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God! the British journalist
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
Humbert Wolfe: The Uncelestial City 1930
While attempting to build bridges is a laudable activity my big ol’ oil funded crystal ball tells me that the Guardian will be back to what we know an loathe at soonest.
Hearings out of the way, xgates forgotten and a bit of warm weather will see the machine back to running speed. They just can’t help themselves.
I have found it absolutely impossible to be too cynical when it comes to these people and a few weasel words from them won’t change that.
Keep your friends close but your enemies firmly on the ground with your boot on their collective throats.