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
Well done Anthony.
Leading by example is, I think, the appropriate phrase.
””””Capn Jack. (00:42:50) : John Whitman, I get snipped here and there I dont take it personal. No biggee. JVK””””
JVK,
I appreciate your words. Thanks.
I really would by your some serious bar time in you were in Taipei. I feel that I’ve really been initiated now.
John
I wonder that it would assist science reporting in the media tremendously, to explain to the public what a paradigm is, and then frame all news in the context of the dominant paradigm, and alternative paradigms, if they exist.
What little I’ve read about the meaning of paradigm, is that, a group of researchers employ a set of methods which they believe to be the best means of discovering objective truths, and when they employ those methods, they do indeed discover truths or data. They then teach those methods to their students who in turn, will also believe that these methods are the best to use.
A different group of people may prefer a different set of methods, and their methods will reveal other kinds of data. They will teach this to their own students (if they can find any who haven’t already joined the dominant paradigm) and those students will continue gathering data.
Occasionally, as more data is gathered within a paradigm, the data may disagree with the paradigm’s model of reality. When then happens, it is the smartest and brightest individuals inside the paradigm, who may begin to privately question the paradigm from within. But the majority, who are following the paradigm out of a kind of, average, mediocre adherence to established methods, will reject the data as being erroneous.
The notion of paradigms acknowledges that you have to be an expert “in the field” (ie. inside the paradigm) to be qualified to employ the methods of that paradigm. But there is also an acknowledgement that other paradigms will disclose their own set of data.
The big problem is when a dominant paradigm makes claims that it knows more than can be revealed by the sanctioned methods belonging to that paradigm alone. People outside the paradigm can spot this more easily; “whoa! dude! untested computer models don’t foretell the future!”
Perhaps this is all a bit too complicated, but if you don’t make clear that separate individual paradigms each disclose their own kinds of data (computer models are fine for studying computer models), then when two paradigms come head to head, it looks like only one can be right and the other must be wrong. That’s a problem, and it leads to insane polarisation and stupid labels.
The way to deal with it, and the media above all should be capable of doing this — they employ many smart professionals — the media should explain that different researchers use different methods which disclose different kinds of information. Then the decision makers can take the sum total of all that knowledge, and begin to integrate it into a coherent picture of everything that is known. If I discover, by walking around fields, that most cows are white, and you discover, by walking around offices, that most suits are black, this is in no way a contradiction. And everyone would see the silliness of me saying, well, most cows are white, and therefore most other things, including suits, must also be white!
Climate researchers employed certain paradigms and those paradigms disclosed certain kinds of data. Let them focus on the data and the methods, as Climate Audit has done for so long — simply examine the paradigm from the inside and check it was done properly — and meanwhile other researchers can experiment with other methods, like cloud chambers.
I detest the notion that the cloud experiments were not worth doing because the other methods had already “explained everything”. That’s rubbish. That’s one paradigm claiming superiority, when at the end of the day it is merely one method amongst many.
JW
Blogs are open play of debate. Highest to the lowest.
My candles in blogging are 12.
Mea culpae is a religious term, not a debate term and not a science term.
Have a nice day, sorry to offend your prestige.
I aint your subbie and I aint your student.
I only hunt merminks, the sacred cows of the seas.
Laugh out loud.
@ur momisugly John Whitman (22:19:26) : “I have a limited ability to understand, I guess, because I cannot imagine here in the USA accepting a situation where I cannot say exactly what I think.”
Am I anonymous? I use an abbreviation of my real name (and am fully contactable via my email provided) but am very wary of using the full version anywhere at all on the web, for a whole range of reasons, including the fact that I a) could be readily identified by the web crawlers our government here in the UK undoubtedly uses to police us, b) work for an outfit that adopts and supports the AGW creed, c) prefer not to be searchable through Google (an untrustworthy and power-grabbing organisation IMO in respect of the issue at debate), and d) because I certainly CAN imagine the situation John describes, being the subject of a state that increasingly does everything in its power to spy on and control its populace’s thinking and free expression and is continually seeking ways of expanding that power.
That is the sad truth of the direction the UK has been heading in for some years now. Nor do we have an enlightened constitution that guarantees free speech (the most precious jewel of the US). We have no true constitution at all and only have a very limited democracy. Perhaps I’m a coward, though my own view is that I’m simply a careful and discreet realist, especially as my family depend on me. And, in person, I am very willing to debate my views with those who don’t hold them; they are not secret from those who care to enquire. I will fight my corner in live argument.
I came here first because I’m a natural sceptic (this is the normal UK spelling chaps) and have always questioned authority when it appears irrational or oppressive, as the AGW creed has always seemed to me. I’m not a scientist (classics trained) and hugely value the opportunity to observe and sometimes take part in debates here and, even more perhaps, value the opportunity to learn from the real scientists and experts who make this site so fascinating and rewarding. I’m a little sad if Anthony regards anything I may say “anonymously” as without much value (though I can cheerfully survive if that’s so) as it’s usually from the heart, probably often off-beam but without abuse. I can only thank him and his collaborators for providing a place where I can find some sane understanding and knowledge and I’m certainly not going to give WUWT up!
The Guardian may be calling a brief truce but I truly think it’s a smokescreen/displacement activity, until they feel safe to resume their frequently vicious and irrational attacks on those who disagree with their world-view. If they really change, all well and good – we shall see and I will be pleasantly surprised. And I’m very happy to be a denier, now a badge of honour.
berniel (14:51:56) :
[I’ve always been curious about Attenborough – avoiding the issue and then recently attaching his name to another issue instead (population)]
Attenborough is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (as is Porrit), an odious little crowd of misfits, misanthropes and malcontents, who believe that there are far too many of ‘other’ people, and that something must be done about it. Try their website, but it is a bit sanitised from what some of them say in private.
Sir Julian Huxley, former president of the British Eugenics Society, said in 1951, after the death camps were becoming known, that “the message of Eugenics might be unacceptable for a generation.” His successors are now pushing it with a vengeance, and AGW is useful to them.
Why don’t I want to be polite about these people? Yet another crowd of ‘intellectuals’ who are never wrong.
”””RichieP (02:39:13) : Am I anonymous?”””
RichieP,
I don’t know. I think only you know.
Just like you don’t really know if I am anonymous.
So, we could just be lying to each other. OK.
So, lets figure out a way in the early 21st century to verify to each othert that we are who we say we are. No problem. Shall we proceed? I am up for it.
John
While the AGWers continue to draw conclusions from “data” that has been demonstrated to be defective beyond belief, and which has been demonstrated to have been inappropriately manipulated, I feel that it is my bounden duty to treat them with the utter contempt which I believe that they deserve. To be polite to such as these would be to fail my fellow man.
””””Capn Jack. (02:32:25) : Mea culpae is a religious term, not a debate term and not a science term.”””
So this is debate?
So perhaps you didn’t understand the latin. I will try in english.
I made “a formal acknowledgment of personal fault or error” in suggesting change to you regarding anonymity here on WUWT. I really did.
Debate terms are what debaters use, if we were debating and I used the term then it is a debate term. Would you then start a subdebate during the debate to have my terminology stricken?
Yes, modern latin was (is) almost exclusively used by the Roman Catholic Chruch in Western Europe for the past 1500 yrs or so. Using modern latin does not make one religious, even if it in a common expression of the Church. Since I am not religious . . . . ?
Do you accept my apology or should we debate that too?
John
I object to being called a climate “sceptic”. Once we have won the right to be called climate realists, then surely the battle will have been won. So much hot air is wasted on this topic. Climate is one of the most chaotic systems known to man. By definition, therefore, it cannot be predicted. End of story.
Wonderful initiative, Anthony, you are a very civilised person who understands the meaning of adult responsibility and the harm derisory labels can do. It is my understanding that such labels are a device that allow the users to avoid meaningful intellectual discourse and also allows the users to dehumanise those they label. Reference the historic Nazi use of the term ‘untermenschen’ used to deny any Jew full membership of the human race. George Monbiot’s playing-card gallery in the Guardian is the most egregious use of the technique I have seen in recent times; this is still posted in the Guardian and if the Guardian journalists are serious, should be removed and apologised for with alacrity.
As to the question of posters using anonymity, I am very cautious about using my own surname on blogs due to both the high incidence of cyber-crime and the personal nervousness the ‘surveillance society’ here in the UK induces. I reside in the UK as a guest and I do not wish to prejudice that status. However, my real name is used in my email address, which is in the records of WUWT so the moderators or anyone alse who is an official of WUWT can contact me by email at any time.
James Sexton
“…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’ve always posted with my full name at WUWT. And yes, I think I can face a significant negative fallout for posting in science blogs, given the position that I am in.
To see the issue of global warming through the simple lens of “is the temperature rising?” is to set an extremely dangerous precedent. The overall tone of the “Mind your Language” article in the Guardian is condescension. I would hesitate to exonerate the Guardian, let alone the whole of journalism for that one piece.
Among those who characterize online debate as “vicious” and “vitriolic” are frequently journalists who never understood the internet. No quarter to them.
No more posting at WUWT for me. Have fun.
[Reply: don’t give up so easily. I’ve been snipped off and on, and I’m still here because I believe in what we’re fighting against. Also, no one will remember this particular incident by next week. We’ll all be off on another subject. ~dbs, mod.]
This is excellent news. I’m happy to be called a climate sceptic, as scepticism is – or once was – the fundamental basis of science. Scepticism doesn’t mean the automatic denial of anything. But it does mean that one does not accept something to be true simply because it comes from authority. Scepticism means looking at the evidence and asking awkward questions. If the evidence is strong and there are good answers for the awkward questions, then no problem.
Clearly, Galileo was a sceptic, and in an age when your beliefs could kill you. I’m happy to be with Galileo.
The use of ‘climate change sceptic’ was always nonsensical, as well as insulting. A major sceptical argument is that the climate is always changing. It is the IPCC who deny significant climate change before the 20th century. The hockey stick is the perfect symbol of climate change denial. How ironic….
Chris
Perhaps they foresee the eventual outcome when ‘deniers’ are proven to be correct – and do not want to elevate the status of ‘holocaust deniers’! – Although even demonising (or imprisoning!) ‘holocaust deniers’ on principal doesn’t seem right to me!
When the Guardian used the term “scientific consesnsus” to describe catastrophic warming I asked them, wrote a letter & attempted to put an online comment asking them to name 2 scientists not funded by government who have supported catastrophic warming. They didn’t reply or allow the question online or in print. They clearly know they cannot name more than 1 independent scientist in their “consensus” yet they have continued, repeatedly to use the term & to censor any questioning of it.
If this is “outrach” let them stay in their corral.
””””’Anand Rajan KD (03:39:56) :
[Reply: don’t give up so easily. I’ve been snipped off and on, and I’m still here because I believe in what we’re fighting against. Also, no one will remember this particular incident by next week. We’ll all be off on another subject. ~dbs, mod.]”””’
Anand,
dbs the mod is wise.
Look, I just got my first flame ever on the inernet tonight at the hands of noneother than the worthy Capn Jack. I am honored. Could be the start of a special friendship.
John
Usually, with so many comments to read through, it is more often the outrageous than the profound that gets picked and carried through the thread. There is a game played by many (labelling avoided) to see how quickly they can hijack the thread. The use or lack of a “real” name is like many of these attempts. If you feel that something has been written that you need to respond to – then do so. Otherwise ignore it or respond with LOL (my favourite). For me, the issue of what one is called in this debate (as we finally seem to have one, even if it is weak) is like the hijacked thread. Call me what you want, just stop shovelling the manure.
Many years ago I read about AGW and I was very sceptical of the conclusions of the “experts” and those supporting them. I did my own reading of the available research and found that I did not believe what they were saying. I was a “disbeliever” (which as others have said would make me heretic was this a religion – oh wait …). The evidence is the denier of the AGW/ACC theorem. I personally deny that there is a consensus. I deny that those believing in AGW/ACC have the right to cause such upheaval in the world. I deny that the correct scientific methods have been used. I deny that, because my degrees are in other fields than climatology, I have no say as to whether or not the statements of these “scientists” are correct. I deny that I enjoy putting quotes around words, but it seemed “appropriate”. Call me what you will, but it doesn’t mean I will stop trying to get to the truth and from spreading where I may. I prefer Un-believer, but denier will do.
Ken Harvey (03:03:51) said:
While the AGWers continue to draw conclusions from “data” that has been demonstrated to be defective beyond belief, and which has been demonstrated to have been inappropriately manipulated, I feel that it is my bounden duty to treat them with the utter contempt which I believe that they deserve. To be polite to such as these would be to fail my fellow man.
Well said Ken – I agree.
While Anthony, who I like and respect, tries to stop the “other side” of this debate from continuing to throw sand, I wonder if we are being too kind.
We “global warming deniers” started this debate being respectful, only to be vilified and ostracized by people who are now proven fraudsters and crooks.
A trillion dollars of public money has been misappropriated, funds that could have been used to ease human suffering and improve the planet. Instead, these scarce resources have been wasted. used to subsidize energy frauds such as wind power and corn ethanol.
The deliberate, coordinated vilification of “deniers” led to death threats against honest, outspoken climate scientists like Dr. Tim Ball.
Other “denier” scientists suffered worse outrages, that I am not free to reveal.
Serious crimes have been committed by the global warming alarmists and their supporters.
It is not up to us to be generous and forgive. We do not have that right.
I don’t think it’s true that “climate change skeptics (or whatever term you prefer) don’t question that there has been global warming.” Many clearly do, in this thread alone.
You can say that “many” don’t question that, or even “most,” but it’s simply not true that people on the other side are just making up the fact that this position exists.
Well, the Guardian’s reluctant agreement to limit or reduce the use of the D word is nevertheless good to see, even though it stems from the the paper’s recognition that they have been too all-in (as in Texas holdem) with AGW hype and had no where else to go after climategate and the continued bleeding of the IPCC. Ever gracious, Anthony should be appreciated for having opened the door to a dog with its tail between its legs. I don’t see helping the media to change over to more objective reporting as letting people get away with fraud. It is afterall, the media and there job is to sell papers, etc. The elitist scientists and the green and red mob who perpetrated this shamefull descent of climate science and tainting of all science are, as we speak and write, being taken care of by scientific bodies now speaking out about the issues and those who were deceived. Of course there is and will be whitewashing but I believe the main ones are essentially through – can it be that they will be flooding the scientific literature and giving papers at scientific gatherings after all this? No, I expect some retirements or career shifts. But Lord, they burned up an unbelievable amount of money (50B someone said somewhere) and how many B went into wrong technologies and huge government and private spending – well, lets let it be an education and hope the knowledge puts us on our guard for a very long time.
Moderator, my offering disappeared! I don’t believe I said anything too disrespectful.
[Reply: it’s been rescued from the spam filter and posted. Three minutes elapsed from the time it was submitted. ~dbs, mod.]
It is still very disturbing that the Guardian believes that few of us are skeptical of the science. Do they think we are few in number, or that we really don’t believe what we are saying because of all the money ‘big oil’ has been sending us? (I am still waiting for my check and its been 20 years!)
Frankly, I don’t think I have ever met an atmospheric scientist that is not at least somewhat skeptical of the AGW theory, at least in private conversation. Those that are more assured use the caveat that “Even if we are wrong, it would still be good to mitigate CO2” indicating that they may not be as confident about the science as they are pretending to be.
The Gaurdian might do well to send in an ‘undercover’ reporter to a conference and find out what people really think during the cocktail hour.
Skeptics…we are legion!
Bravo Guardian and believe me I don’t say that every day…!
Skeptics are not deniers.
Personally sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
In maths there is only only one law.
The law of axiom.
Our rules are subject to change, on a better axiom.
A better rule.
Semantics is not math and it it not science.
To see roller boards in statement and understand statement is an achievement.
But to see science this low, math this low is travesty.
Like a tabloid in a supermarket.
I actually have an old textbook on Eugenics. The popular view is that Eugenics was a WWII German phenomenon. Nothing could be further from the truth. The book is devastating to read. I also have read a civil war book written in 1864 by a military officer. In it he describes his take on the issues and his experience inside Washington. It also is a devastating book to read. Why? Both books clearly see these issues from the perspective of a benevolent view that is perfectly natural and even sanctioned by the right hand of God (more so the civil war tome). Taken literally (which I did not), it would surely jade your previous perceptions that if people are kind on the outside, they must be kind on the inside and would do no harm.