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.
@John Whitman (02:56:03)
“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.”
How to do that? Whatever string of characters I use to name myself, there’s no obvious way to guarantee that identity, unless posters here are registered and/or log in. On the other hand, if someone malicously hijacked my web handle, the change of style and tone might be an obvious sign but still not proof positive of anything. What do you think?
I really don’t see why the terms “AGW convinced” or “AGW unconvinced” is not sufficient to describe both sides of climate debate. At least it shows proper respect for people. GK
What, then, shall we call a “milliband”? Time to get on the other foot.
@ur momisugly Dave (07:00:48) :
“What, then, shall we call a “milliband”? Time to get on the other foot.”
A milliband: The time elapsed between the utterance of words critical of CAGW belief and the use by the believer of the term “Flat-earther” ?
Paul Daniel Ash (04:57:18) :
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.
And, on the other hand, we’ve now seen evidence that AGW is based on exaggerations and questionable data with Trenberth even admitting they can’t balance the energy budget. Clearly, the scientists have not been honest in stating their uncertainties.
Does that make anyone who still believes in AGW (like you) a complex climate denier?
It has been my take for a number of years now that the mindset of those who believe in and support CAGW is fundementally different than those who are sceptical. In my opinion it’s really quite simple:
The “Consensus” crowd, when trying to ge a handle on Sceptics, tends to ~erroneously~ focus on the “GW” portion of CAGW findng it easier to to just generalize and toss the word “Denier” around at anybody who throws up a “Time Out” sign. The direct message being that sceptics are in “denial” that the Earth has warmed, with the implication being that that “denial” flies in the face of an overwhelming MOUNTAIN of irrefutable, peer-reviewed evidence, supported by an international army of completely unbiased scientific organizations and all the scientists therin, that Mankind has caused said warming, and that warming is going to be 100% catastrophic.
The REALITY is that 99% of those labelled “Deniers” have absolutely ZERO problem with the fact that the Earth has warmed, or that CO2 does, in fact, have SOME effect. (the magnitude of which has yet to be determined)
Instead we sceptics tend to pretty much exclusively focus our attention on the “CA” portion of CAGW. Catastrophic?!! Really? No benefits, huh?Mankinds fault?? How do you know? Anything like this ever happened before without Mankind’s input? Oh… you want me to sit down and stop asking questions… why?
Our scepticism stemming from an ingrained and highly sensitive “BS detector” honed by decades of slimy political and activist propaganda. We don’t NEED to be a Ph.D in Animal Husbandry or Veterinary. Medicine to know BS when we see it. Likewise, we don’t NEED to be a “Climatologist” to understand it when we are shown poor climate science. When we are shown a steaming pile of bovine excrement and asked to call it a plate of waygyu steaks… we are, naturally, repulsed. When it is a person who’s authority is based on public trust that is the one holding the pile… we are appalled and outraged.
I dunno… it’s been pretty simple to me for a long time. I guess that’s what has frustrated me so much when dealing with the CAGW crowd.
Doc
To 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.”
WRONG, sir. On every point. There is more hard evidence for evolution than there is for almost every other major branch of science. It is better understood than the theory of gravity – we at least know what causes evolution to occur. It has been confirmed by empirical observation and rigorous experimentation from independent lines of research thousands – nay TENS OF THOUSANDS of times over.
Please cite ONE experiment which documented that CO2 is THE cause of ostensible global warming. There are none. All we have is a weak and indirect correlation.
Denying evolution is a religious issue – PERIOD. there are no exceptions. I know, I am also deeply involved in that issue.
Questioning the questionable scientific methods and conclusions inflicted on us by an unscrupulous cadre of advocating scientists is simply NOT being in a state of denial so stop trying to foist that label on us.
I agree with you that there are a lot of non-scientists who have two things in common – denying evolution AND denying climate change. They have no place in the serious debate.
THEY are not US. I think it folly to come to a web page which is frequented by many people who are educated in relevant disciplines and spout off that we are simply cretins who won’t ‘believe’ what you choose to ‘believe’. There is no belief involved here, which is what a denier trades on.
We want evidence produced through sound, tested and confrmed science. Produce it and we’ll join your parade. Don’t have it? Stop equating us with anti-evolutionist wankers.
Besides. If the community of practicing scientists have all concluded that the points we have been making these many years are significant enough to warrant position statements on openess and transparency, and if the perpetrators of poor science are being forced to concede the doubts we have been promoting for those same years, who in the world are you to hold out that we are just simply plain old unadulterated, ignorant, flat-earth, anti-evolution deniers? Wake up and recognize that the science community has awakened before you and is already conceding things need to be done differently. For the single reason that our concerns and questions are VALID.
@Paul Daniel Ash
Ifind your comment interesting. Interesting because there are ~SO~ many on the “Consensus” side that are in complete DENIAL of obvious FACTS. May I point out a couple?
1. No matter how you crack it: no warming since 1998, no statistical warming since 1995. Period.
2. Proof of warming DOES NOT equate to proof that Mankind caused it.
3. The premise of, “After plugging in everything we could think of, we still can’t account for the warming, therefore it MUST be Mankind!” ~ISN’T~ a scientific argument… hell, it’s not even a LEGITIMATE argument. It’s an argument from IGNORANCE.
4. You can’t appeal to your own authority.
5. The MWP did, in fact, exist and it was warmer than now.
6. There are no such things as “Tipping points” leading to “Runaway Greenhouse effect”.
7. In the same vein, there have been times in the geologic past when atmospheric CO2 ppm was 10x greater than now, it wasn’t catastrophic.
8. Earth is NOT Venus. Never will be… Ever.
9. Glaciers make extremely poor indicators of Global Warming.
10. The polar bears are doing just fine. Better than fine, in fact.
(Bonus) Climate Scientsts are human too, guess what? They can (and probably are) wrong about a great many things. They need to get off “the high horse”.
(Extra Credit) “Climate Science” is an INFANT science, Svante A. Arrhenius was a CHEMIST first, physicist second, and NEVER a “Climate scientist”.
Thise are just a few things off the top of my head.
Doc
Linguistic nuances are important for carrying messages that you might not want to convey openly. If I were called an un-believer or an infidel for not believing in AGW catastrophe, then those making the statement immediately draw upon the religious nuance.
But use of the D-word draws upon rather unpleasant nuances; which can be especially insulting for those from certain cultural backgrounds. But the nuances are also used to make the object of derision appear more “evil” than the literal meaning of the word in the eyes of the followers. It’s the first step to de-humanising opponents, a process which ultimately gives consent to actions against them as non-humans.
The word-game can be defused; usually with humour; associating different nuances with the word. Objecting to the use of the word tends to reinforce the nuance instead; which is fine if you wish to reserve it for that purpose. And it doesn’t disarm opponents in a free world.
@Capn Jack
Not to intrude… but umm, If I may, there are a NUMBER of “Debate terms” that happen to be in latin:
-argumentum ad antiquitatem
-argumentum ad ex nihilio
-argumentum ad hominem
-argumentum ad ignorantiam
-argumentum ad logicam
-argumentum ad misericordiam
-argumentum ad nauseam
-argumentum ad numerum
-argumentum ad populum
-argumentum ad verecundiam
-circulus in demonstrando
-dicto simpliciter
-non sequitur
-petitio principii
-post hoc ergo propter hoc
-tu quoque
Just to name a few…
Doc
Al Gore called us “Climate Deniers” the other day*
Does that mean we don’t believe the climate exists?
I’m so confused, I’m glad I have the “consensus” crowd to tell me what I think and believe.
/sarcasm off
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….”
My uncle was a buyer for the government at one time and then worked for Haz… he was fired for refusing to lie and black balled for years. I discovered the last company I worked for falsifying data that put people at risk of death from plane crashes (three planes did go down). I was fired within hours of bring the matter up to the plant manager and black balled. I have not been able to get a job since.
Alexander Feht has highlighted a very real problem. The personnel departments in corporations even have a name for it, it is called “being a team player” and team players are not skeptics of any type. There was a darn good reason for “whistle blower” protection laws in the USA, unfortunately the do not work in the real world.
I too find the “denier’ label distasteful since the way it is used is to imply that AGW skeptics are motivated by thought processes having equivalence to bigotry, but am able to shrug it off, given the nature of the source(s). The use of the label is a greater reflection of the personality of the persons using the label (i.e. arrogant in their position, agenda driven, as well as being unable to win their argument based on the science and the facts). In reality, the use of the label is nothing more than a “talking point”. If the warmists tossing out the label had good science to back up their position, they would debate based on the science. Al Gore refuses to debate Christopher Monckton, even though Gore has been challenged to a debate by Monckton. Instead, Gore appears on television spouting his pseudoscience, debating no one, and might as well have the word “denier” inked on his palm as a crib note.
Doug (16:52:39) :
“Deniers is exactly what they are. They are in the same league as those who deny evolution.”
Doug, I have read all the books by Richard Dawkins. Did you?
I can recommend “The selfish gene”.
The “AGW Theory” is not science. Its Cargo Cult Science.
When you too discover whatsa been going on in the IPCC process, you will probably be angry too. I hope so.
Regards, kwik.
I am a “Refutnik”.
@Doc_Navy (08:42:45) :
“3. The premise of, “After plugging in everything we could think of, we still can’t account for the warming, therefore it MUST be Mankind!” ~ISN’T~ a scientific argument… hell, it’s not even a LEGITIMATE argument. It’s an argument from IGNORANCE.”
You make several great points. For point #3, an analogy would be “Black Box Testing”, where you have a sealed black box with a power supply bus, a power supply ground, signal inputs and signal outputs, but you are not allowed to open up the box to look inside. By analyzing the inputs and outputs, you analyze the design, and if a defect or defects exist, identify them also. This is all without opening up the box. In the Climatology analogy, the black box has 1,000,000 input wires, has 1,000,000 output wires, and one large wire connects to the power supply (the sun). All of the signals on the input wires are varying due to each wire being connected to a unique random noise generator, and the power supply voltage (the sun) is also varying. Of course all of the outputs are varying too. The engineer has to determine what is inside the box, and to determine how each input is affecting the outputs and what causes them to change with time. Usually, the engineer is allowed to alter the input signals as he wishes, but in the Climatology analogy this is not allowed, except for a slow ramping upward of the DC voltage on the 300 green wires labeled “CO2”, superimposing the DC voltage onto the random noise. The engineer has at his disposal 2,000 analog meters with test leads, thus can only measure 0.1% of all of the wires. The testing is ongoing for several years, and most of the meters break down, and many are replaced with new digital meters having a different calibration. In the end, the engineer is left with only 500 meters. After collecting a lot of data over a period of several years (however much of the older data gets lost in the process 🙂 ), the engineer points to the green wires labeled “CO2”, and says “That’s the reason for all of the changes observed in the outputs. Why you ask? I can’t think of anything else.”
@ur momisugly Doc_Navy (09:06:29) :”Not to intrude… but umm, If I may, there are a NUMBER of “Debate terms” that happen to be in latin:”
Wonderful list! The ‘tu quoque’ is one we all must encounter frequently in reading of CAGW blogs and articles recently.
‘Tu quoque (“you too”). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one’s reasoning by pointing out that one’s opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, “They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!”‘
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Tu%20quoque
Relating to your update – the Dawkin’s story is more complicated than has been portrayed here or in the Times article (see the oldest comment on that article for an explanation, and indeed Dawkin’s apology on his own website). There are more details here http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/locked-entry-will-open-soon/
As I understand it, Richard Dawkins (or rather his website administrator) was criticised by the contributors to his online forum for announcing that the forum would be radically changed, much more heavily moderated and all previous threads deleted. The forum was soon after closed to all new comments. This was understandably very unpopular with forum members and the volunteer moderators who made their feelings known on other forums. The criticism was not from people criticising Dawkins’ ideas but from his supporters who were losing a much-valued resource. And the forum closure was not as a result of the criticism but the cause of it.
So let’s not jump to conclusions without checking the data…
El oh el. We’ve already won. This is the media’s equivalent of raising the white flag. Of course they know how to reach out to any group, to diffuse tensions etc – they don’t need to ask a blogger that. They’ve realized that we’re now the majority.
Carbon Dioxide (13:01:45) :
“Reading between the lines, I consider that that Prof. Dawkins is trying to tell us something which would be career suicide for him to articulate further.”
Even though someone is a great source of information on one subject, doesnt mean he cannot be mistaken on another.
For example; Isaac Newton was heavily involved in alchemy.
But still , the “Principia Mathematica” was great.
Noone is 100% right all the time. Maybe he realised he was on thin ice.
Still lots of fun reading his books.
@Doc_Navy (08:42:45) :
“8. Earth is NOT Venus. Never will be… Ever.”
Doc, your points are so “spot on” that I couldn’t resist commenting on #8.
Warmists have pointed to the fact that Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% CO2, then make the claim that this is why Venus is so hot (+460 deg C surface temperature, the “official” published value ).
[Anecdotal: As a junior high student in the 1960’s, my science class was taught that the atmosphere of Venus was thought to contain large quantities of Ammonia gas. In the 21st century, Ammonia isn’t even listed as a trace gas for Venus’ atmosphere. My how the “facts” have changed!]
What the warmists fail to say (at least via MSM conduits):
-Venus’ orbital radius is 0.723AU (Semi-Major axis), thus its solar irradiance is roughly 1.73 times that of Earth’s. A higher level of insolation means more energy reaching the planet system, thus more heat and a warmer planet.
-Venus atmospheric pressure at the surface is 93 bar, that’s roughly 92 times as dense as earth’s. Venus has roughly 2.33 EE+05 times as much CO2 (total mass) in its atmosphere as does Earth, even though both planets are very similar in size.
– Mars (much smaller than Venus) by comparison has a 95.7% CO2 atmosphere but has a mean surface temperature of -46 deg C. (The % by volume of CO2 for Mars is 0.99171 times that of Venus, an insignificant difference, but average surface temperature is +733 deg K for Venus vs. +227 deg K for Mars, a 69% difference)
There’s not even a correlation here between % CO2 and surface temperature. The warmists would argue that both planets would be cooler with less atmospheric CO2 (or no atmospheric CO2), but that remains unproven, and the burden of proof is on them. Until they can prove both correlation and causation, the warmists are busted. Mars’ cool surface temperature must be mainly due to other factors, such as:
– Mars atmospheric pressure at the surface is 0.6 to 1.0 kPA, which is roughly .006 to 0.01as dense as earth’s.
-Mars’ orbital radius is 1.524AU (Semi-Major axis),thus its solar irradiance is roughly 0.506 times that of Earth’s.
What does correlate in both cases is the level of solar irradience (directly proportional to average surface temperature) and atmospheric density (also directly proportional to average surface temperature). Warmists tend to ignore these two variables, at least as presented by the MSM, since these weaken the warmist’s position.)
There is also reason to be a bit skeptical of the official published Venus surface temperature of +460 deg C. The Soviets landed the Venera 13 lander on the planet in 1982. “The lander survived for 127 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 457 °C (855 °F) and a pressure of 89 Earth atmospheres (9.0 MPa).” [Source: Wikipedia].
On the surface of Venus, with a successful landing, landers fail when their limited cooling system capacity becomes exhausted. How could the Venera 13 lander have lasted for almost 4 times of that expected if it was truly subjected to nearly the expected temperature of +460 deg C? Electronic equipment in general does not tolerate temperatures in excess of the maximum design ratings. And limited cooling systems don’t just magically quadruple their capacity. I’m not the first person to raise this skepticism as regards Venus’ official surface temperature.
I agree with your suggestion about dialing back the rhetoric. It does get out of hand at times. However, I think I would like special dispensation when it comes to Gore or Mann. There’s just something about these two that prevents civilized dialogue.
“[…] 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. […]“
Completely agree, but hasn’t it been warming for more like 300 years? Granted, that is still “100+” but it was kind of fundamental to my originally becoming a sceptic that unless they could explain what caused the 1700s and 1800s changes and show that mechanism had not been working in the 1900s that I was reluctant to believe that the latter changes in the 1900s were even likely to be principally man-made let alone the 95% probability.
All scientists are skeptical, but only a few deny the validity of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
All scientists are skeptical, but only a few THOUSAND deny the validity of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
FIFY
Deniers is sooo 15 minutes ago …. now we’re “nutters”
”””’Gail Combs (09:28:56) : Alexander Feht has highlighted a very real problem . . . . . . a darn good reason for “whistle blower” protection laws in the USA, unfortunately they do not work in the real world.”””’
Gail,
First maybe we need to think about what anonymity is. I just made up this definition of the top of my head, “lack of information that would allow someone to be able to physically locate you or your assets”.
Perhaps we are talking across two different concepts in regards to anonymity on blogs:
1. Intent to Take Responsibility – We expect this of professionals and of, well, ‘responsible’ people. Cyber crime is a risk sure, but there are technical mitigations .Keeping technically updated plus being careful is wise. Be careful just like you are in the physical world.
2. Intent to Avoid Identification – Possibly are ~ 3 reasons to avoid identification.
2.1 One possible reason is that a commenter on a blog is trying to avoid identification because the person is scared of something [cybercrime, surviellence, etc] or someone [employer, paparazzi, gov’t, society, police, etc].
2.2 The other possible reason is that a commenter on a blog is trying to avoid identification for purpose of doing something they know is not legal/moral/responsible.
2.3 It is just plain fun to get outside yourself and playact. This reason is the entertainment value of anonymity.
I suggest we focus on paragraph 2.1 only, since I do not think the other areas are at issue in our discussion. NOTE: Regarding 2.3 “entertainment value”, on some social blogs this is a main purpose, on science blogs it probably is a minor incidental purpose.
Do you (and other commenters) think this is a fair framework to base our continued discussion on?
Reminder that my preference is have blog experiences with people who represent themselves with their actual identities. I do blog with people who avoid their identities, but that is not my preference.
Finally, of course, how could anyone know if a person is using their actual identities? But, of course, that question isn’t limited to cyberspace. I think we have to presume innocence in regard to claims/credentials of actual identity.
John