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.
Anthony,
I respect your request about using labels, I will follow it on your blog site.
In order to do this, them my interpretation of your request will be:
1. Do not stereotype individuals.
2. Even if it is done to me, firmly point out to the other person what they are doing and say tell them it is bad behavior
3. Given that satire uses stereotyping and labels and satire is a powerful vehicle for exposing fallacies, I will clearly say when I am starting a satire and when ending one.
4. Humor is a borderline grayish area that relies on some of the stereotyping and labeling. Please be quite tolerant of humor. But I will agree to try to use discipline when using humor.
5. When quoting others in my comment responses, I will not use their labels or stereotyping in my quotes. Maybe I call out their use of stereotypes/labels in some witty way.
Deal. No problema.
John
Well Anthony you are a bigger man than me. It’s fair enough to have opinion pieces but there is useful opinion and then there is unconstructive hateful ranting which any respectable media company shouldn’t publish. I for one will not be gracing the guardian with my web traffic because of the likes of the opinion pieces it is willing to run with. I don’t want to read something like that on either side of the debate.
I’m glad we have people like you or problems would never get solved.
Moderators,
So, why do I think you are going to be doing some heavier lifting for a while?
Heh, a metaphorical pay raise perhaps?
Some comps or perks?
Expense paid moderator conferences in Bali?
John
Well they use a lot of weasel words trying to avoid the D-word; such as to immdeiately claim that: “On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence. ”
No you clowns; we just see the evidence differently from some of you.
The IPCC and its devotees for example, see that the global mean temperature varies Logarithmically with the atmospheric CO2 abundance; and they even name that universal constant of proportionality as “Climate Sensitivity”; for which they claim a value of 3 deg C per doubling of CO2; thereby choosing a base 2 system of Logarithms (which is perfectly fine, since the base matters not a jot.)
But when it comes to the value of their Universal constant; they vacilate, and say it could be off by a factor of three; so somewhere beteween 1 and 10.
The problem is that there is no peer reviewed (observed or proxy) climate data comprising CO2 abundance, and mean global temperature, for ANY time interval out to the last 600 million years, for which such a logarithmic function fits the data any better than any other assumed relationship; including a linear relationship; as exemplified by the famous data published in Al Gore’;s book; “An Inconvenient truth.” pages 66/67, where the two curves for the last 650,000 years are exactly the same (basic) shape, and are clearly NOT logarithmically related.
So we don’t deny the data; at least that which has been made available without undisclosed mastication.
And we reach entirely different conclusions from some of you folks who cling to the idea that man is in control of the climate; and we reach those sorts of conclusions that we do, on the basis of good scientific evidence and reasoning.
All YOU have to do, is to PROVE with either good peer reviewed measured data; and good Physical models for the behavior such data exemplifies; that the climate is changing significantly outside the bounds of natural variability, and past history; and we will listen.
You might try listening to why we don’t follow your course of argument.
How come you don’t seem to mention cloud cover a lot in your AGWMMCC dissertations ?
“Climate Skeptics” isn’t accurate either. We aren’t skeptical of climate, or climate change. We are skeptical of the science behind AGW.
Perhaps we should all employ this little aphorism from American author and journalist Mignon McLaughlin: “Don’t be yourself – be someone a little nicer.”
Well done and well said, Mr. Watts.
My position is that there hasn’t been any “global” warming over the last 10000 years that is statistically significant. certainly there has been regional warming, cooling and stasis, but nothing global at all.
””’George E. Smith (18:47:59) : Well they use a lot of weasel words trying to avoid the D-word; such as to immdeiately claim that: “On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence.” ”””’
George,
Yes, you are correct. There are infinite ways for media and advocates (including scientific ones) to state/imply that skeptics of the scientific theory of CAGW are purposefully ignoring or disputing data.
Cheer up, the good news is there are infinite number of ways we can articulate skeptical rebuttals and arguments.
It is better we enjoy our work, even if it is very serious work and makes us angry sometimes. Well, maybe a lot of the time. Even so, fun and positive attitude. Rah rah. WUWT has a lot of fun mixed into the serious business at hand.
John
If I tell someone that the evidence before me does not seem to add up to the conclusion the offer does that make me a ‘denier’ or a ‘skeptic’ ?
If someone tells me that God talks to them and offer evidence for it does it not bode well for me to be skeptical?
If a scientist says something is true then do I have to believe what he says even though my own mind suggests something different based on the knowledge and background I have?
If we never question and simply accept, especially when the evidence suggests that the science may be flawed then we become nothing more then zealots clinging to the words of people who say they no better then we do. Now that is not to say I am right or that they are wrong only that the only possible way that information can be absorbed in a rational way is through repeatable experimentation being skeptical enough to wait until evidence shows truth.
Just my two cents, please do not enter into religious arguments with me the idea was to show that just because someone says they talk with God it does not mean they do or do not only that it behooves me to be skeptical of it.
Mr Anthony
I’ve given this some thought.
I think I owe you thanks for the opportunity to post here. But I always thought a moderator read or rapidly screened and was aware of my contributions via posts made here. If I indeed did hear a “don’t care for anonymous opinion” I interpret it thus.
Those who post here are nobodies to you – personally. This is generally true of Internet/BBS/forum interaction; I am just stating the obvious and not at all in a weepy whiny sort of way. The polarized opinions expressed thereof, and the strong stance that people are able to take in online debates doesn’t matter to you – as they are carried out in the safety of anonymity. In this instance it is because you are after all as a meteorologist and popular blogger in touch with the people from the print and visual media and rightly indignant that these people do not falsely characterize you (and anyone in your position) crudely as a ‘denier’.
The other face of this anonymity that devalues opinions such as mine – is that what I say matters, not who I am. When I ‘objected’ to what you posted, I expected only a response to what I said, not a dismissal based on the fact that I was anonymous.
Please read the above in a matter-of-fact tone. I would say the same things if we met in person, for example. I am the same person that posts here. 🙂
Mahalo
Fine work! Even something like a breakthrough. And if you can persuade the media to consider how their facile application of the label “environmentalist” has been darkening counsel for 40 years, we’ll really be making progress.
This is a huge step in the right direction. Let’s all stop the name calling and discuss the science in a polite way.
Actually, I prefer to wear the label “climate heretic.” Seems more appropriate.
Well done, Anthony, thanks for engaging these folks and getting a response!
For a decade now we have been labelled “global warming deniers”.
Richard Lindzen now clearly enjoys the term, and I do too.
It is a badge of honour for those of us who have withstood vile attempts at intimidation, ostracization and threats of violence from the fanatical advocates of the Mann-made global warming movement.
The shame is on the warming alarmists for their odious behavior, so let them wear that shame with the disgrace it truly deserves.
I am a global warming denier, and I am proud of it.
Check out the first vid: click
While I may object to the term “Denier” which I see a as a term of vilification, I do not necessarily object to those seeking to attack skeptics using it. Little Brother has been watching and recording a vast amount of venomous commentary by AGW fellow travelers. I for one will never forgive nor forget. Terms like “denier”, “contrarian” and “big oil shill” make for easy searching of the huge body of evidence stored across the Internet, implicating the many governments, organizations and individuals who have brought us to the brink of a global disaster. Their continued use of terms of vilification in their increasingly shrill defense of the indefensible simply makes future identification of those who sought to promote personal or political agendas through the AGW hoax easier.
My attitude may seem less than Christian at a time when there is talk of greater engagement and understanding, however the hidden elements of the failed Copenhagen treaty should serve as a serious warning against appeasement. The AGW movement has been a threat to science, genuine environmental concerns, freedom and democracy. A great number of those involved in this global scam should not be allowed to slink away from their past behavior. So many trouble makers hiding behind the one dying stalking horse is a unique opportunity that it would be unwise to miss.
The fellow travelers in the AGW hoax are presently shocked and confused, but they will regroup. There will be new stalking horses and a similar agenda. The continuing use of terms of vilification in support of the AGW hoax should be encouraged. In the age of Little Brother this can be used to minimize the influence of those promoting the present scam in their future endeavors. Let them call us “deniers”, many years of petulant silence from the AGW believers should be well worth it. Imagine a few decades free from post normal science, MSM advocacy journalese, “Traffic Light” environmentalism, global governance and global taxation.
Anand (19:25:05) :
I can’t fight Anthony’s fight for him. But,………………………………………………………………………..That depends, if what you are responding to is what Anthony posted, and if it is a legitimate critique, then you should post your name and you should be responded to. Truly, if the response is legitimate, myself and you included, have seen that he does. You know it is contingent of whether he can respond in the post or not. Yes, I’ve seen him cut people out because of their anonymity. We all have. I can only surmise as to why, but I’ve never seen the person come back and restate their assertions with their real names. I wonder, is it because Anthony doesn’t allow dissenting views, or is it that people are afraid to post their names to their views. What’s the worst that can happen? Being called a denier?
WUWT Team,
I personally would rather be commenting here among people using their real names. It is a personal preference and I naturally have a greater margin of respect for those who do.
I do have an idea for how to encourage commenters to use their real names.
Create a positive benefit for those who use their real names without having anonymous commenters losing any of their current ability to comment. A wild idea might be to creat a small WUWT subarea where commenting anonymously is not allowed. Anonymous visitors could see the activity in the small area, but would not be allowed to post. In the common area of WUWT [like is currently done] both anonymous and non-anonymous commenters can both post together. You could try this idea in a beta test period to see how it works out.
Maybe a bad idea, just an idea. I am sure there could be many ways to satisfy anonymous and real name commenters.
I have no idea how you could really distinguish whether a person’s name is their real one or not.
John
I wonder, what qualifies as a denier? Is it the “you can’t prove the earth is getting warmer.” statement? Does that make me a denier? Maybe the earth getting warmer isn’t really bad. Does that make me a denier? What about, “CO2 isn’t significant enough to make it warmer.” Does that make me one? I just wish someone would tell me what constitutes a “denier”, then I would know if I were one or not. Maybe, it is that I don’t believe there ever was a consensus beyond Phil, Mike and Jim……maybe Keith too, but I’m not sure those mentioned really believed the BS they spewed.
The only congrats here goes to Anthony,
The Guardian has begrudgingly conceded.
Why would I congratulate a person who has been robbing my house regularly because he has agreed begrudgingly not to rob me anymore?
Anthonys got them on the ground with his boot across their throats and yet it’s still he who is making the reasonable suggestions. Very commendable.
So does this mean the terms “climate fraudster” and “data-cookers” are out?
Baa Humbug (20:56:18) :
They are still robbing us, they’ve just started talking about not calling us bad names while they rob us.
I still haven’t figured out what the heck I’m denying to be called a denier. I suspect, the answer is “all of the above.”
There was a British admiral, whose name escapes me at this moment, but a rough translation of his statement may apply. ‘The nature of war is violence. Moderation in war is idiocity.’………..I think that’s pretty close. Let’s not snap defeat out of the jaws of victory.
I would agree with you but this really needs to go a step further. When the “scientists” begin to use real scientific methods to try to pinpoint the causes of warming rather than trying to fit the results to a pre-determined conclusion then I might oblige. Remember, science is postulating a theory which is presumed right, until that theory is proven incorrect, it is a search for the truth. When climate scientists begin acting like scientists, I will treat them with the respect that they deserve.
Anthony,
IMHO, it’s not merely the word “denier” that matters. It’s the intention behind the attitude that seeks to label one part of society (now in the majority in the UK, I might add) as wrong in their views. The whole tone of the Guardian article takes it for granted that to deny that “Climate Change” is happening is plainly misguided.
Let’s focus on the “Climate Change” label. The Guardian thinks this is preferable to “Global Warming”, especially now that they’re on shaky ground with that. And so they want to have some other term that will cover anything and everything they’re pleased to believe is caused by anthropogenic CO2 – be it “cold” or “warm” events. However, the fact is that they still maintain all those events are the result of anthropogenic, CO2-caused, greenhouse warming effects.
This is insincere Newspeak. They want to control the vocabulary because, of course, they think they are still right whatever labels they might condescend to approve or disapprove.
I look at it from this perspective. There is a hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is causing deleterious global warming. The probable majority on both sides support their cause as a matter of belief rather than knowledge. In other words, it’s a symmetrical situation. That is, “deniers” (disregarding for the moment its derogatory Holocaust associations) are just as “wrong” as their counterparts, though there isn’t really an insulting term having quite the same venom for them. I suppose “alarmists” is currently the nearest.
I say, let’s be logical and even-handed. Those who are choosing to believe, on either side, without full knowledge (mainly just parroting mantras) are both driven by conviction rather than rationality. That’s one point. And the other, is that they have a perfect right to be driven by that conviction. There is nothing wrong with that, any more than there’s anything wrong with choosing to be a theist or an atheist; epistemologically, they are equivalent positions, both being based on belief rather than knowledge. The trouble only arises because some theists seek to attack and denigrate atheists, and vice-versa. The words in and of themselves carry no value judgement.
My view is that the only logical position is agnosticism. No one actually KNOWS whether anthropogenic CO2 is having deleterious effects on climate. One might have an opinion whether it is or not, one might lean one way or the other, but if so, one is perfectly aware that that IS only opinion, and one may be wrong.
So in my view, there are only three categories: pro-believers, anti-believers, and agnostics who may or may not have a leaning. I categorise myself as an agnostic with an anti-leaning. My opinion could be wrong. I am open to that possibility.
As regards the Guardian, its editorial line is pro-belief. They have plainly decided to believe that anthropogenic CO2 is having deleterious effects on climate. All this talk of back-pedalling on the insulting terminology is a disguised form of patronising condescension, a way, being in the unaccustomed position of their dogma being increasingly challenged, of saving face.
Remember, the Kübler-Ross model of grief goes through five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. What the Guardian is doing now could be viewed in that model as trying to bargain. We’ve recently had here posts from pro-believers which have also been trying to bargain. The underlying message is, “okay, we will stop insulting you, humour you, if you join our faith”.
I say, do not play their game. Do not accept their Trojan horse with gratitude. It isn’t actually meant graciously. They have no intention of giving people something, but of taking something for themselves: namely, a false sense of superiority. That is the real name of the game: feeling superior. Hence the frequent calls to authority (x thousand scientists, the majority of world governments, overwhelming consensus, etc.). Now that that is crumbling, now that they may actually face censure for continuing to insult those who merely happen to be on the other side of the epistemological see-saw, they are taking consolation in feeling superior because of their “magnanimity”.
Ignore the rhetoric. Look beneath for meaning and motivation. Now is the time for true agnostics to rise above it all and try to engage in an open, value-free debate. Which is, of course, what has been missing all along. Basically, I say, bugger that bag of chips; what I want is rational discourse that is light-years away from contaminating value judgements.