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.
‘In related news, the nastiness of debate caused one long time blogger to close his discussion forum.’
Missed this one, and I like to try it on for size.
What is the actual time frame in your reality for a long time, considering “long time blogger”? I know of people who have logged their time from the early 90’s, and they’re still logging their existence still. Most every one else tend to wink out of existence the moment they face like the rest of the planet who thinks otherwise.
Anthony
So was this all just crap from the Guardian? Their Climate Change Scepticism page still leads with their “Editors’ picks” “Top 10 climate change deniers – Monbiot’s royal flush: Cut out and keep climate change denier cards” “Monbiot’s top 10 climate change deniers”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism
Sea Change? I don’t see any change…
Regarding Dillon Allen (11:28:41) comments. Sorry I came late to this discussion, but Dillon’s comments touch on one of my personal pet peeves. Medieval scholars did not believe the earth was flat. This is a slur invented by later propagandists. Columbus argued that the accepted figure for the diameter of the earth was too large, and thus reaching the Indies by sailing west would be easier than any scholar believed. His voyages did not prove the world was round, as is often claimed — that was a well known fact; he in fact proved that the accepted calculation for the earth’s diameter was correct. In short, he was wrong and the scholars were right. However, by an interesting historical accident, his error in calculations turned out to be almost precisely the actual distance to the New World. No disrespect to Dillon intended here. 🙂 He is just the victim of what passes for historical education these days.
Sir, may I Translate your writing into Indonesian then post it in my blog?
REPLY: Certainly. – Anthony
One of my greatest pleasures (in an obviously pathetically unexciting life) was to find myself the butt of the Guardianistas’ collective venom. Now, through gritted teeth they will merely condescend to me. From exhilarating bullies to smug know-it-alls. Oh, the ennui! The lassitude! I shiver. I sweat. My teeth chatter. Gotta go over…to Real Climate…for…for…a…fix.
The Guardian might be shifting ground ever so slightly, but it seems that the Faily Telegraph has regressed with this story…
“Will polar bears make it back to shore?” “The future looks bleak for this polar bear and her cub huddled on a rapidly shrinking iceberg 12 miles out to sea. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7078673/Will-polar-bears-make-it-back-to-shore.html
This is the classic ‘polarbear-on-an-icefloe’ story that has cropped up incessantly over the last ten years. What I want to know is what have the journalist and her editor been doing over the past few months? During which the incriminating UEA emails have been exposed, Copenhagen failed, Pachauri’s melting Himalayan glacier claims debunked, IPCC errors revealed, FOI data access denied, and peer reviewing found to be inadequate. Not to mention all of the material on the Web which casts doubt on the AGW myths.
Seems like there are still many residual journos holding out, or being pressured in some way to keep spouting the standard AGW lines.
“”” toyotawhizguy (15:25:35) :
@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. “””
I would not be so quick to say that the long survival of the Soviet Lander on Venus gives cause to doubt the temperature of 460 deg C. I’m not defending that value, but think there are other explanations.
You say the lander was expected to survive for 32 minutes. A corllary to that thesis, would be that the lander was expected to survive at whatever the presumed temperature was at that time.
In comparing earth and Venus; CO2 wise, one has to allow for a number of differences.
On Earth at a mean surface temp of 288 K (15 deg C) the peak of the surface emittet thermal radiation spectrum (presumed approximatly black body like), occurs at about 10.1 microns; but the main operating CO2 absorption band runs from about 13.5 to 16.5 microns; at earth’s surface pressure. That 10.1 micron peak is right in the middle of a major atmospheric window, affected only by a narrow 9-10 micron Ozone band.
CO2 also has a band at around 4 microns; but only 0.1% of a BB spectrum energy occurs below 40% of the peak wavelength, so that has no effect on LWIR. 4 microns is also eight times the wavelength of the solar spectrum peak at about 500 nm; and once again the BB spectrum contains only 1% of the energy above 8 times the peak, so the CO2 4 micron band is essentially inconsequential on earth.
On Venus, at 460 C, the surface temperature is 2.55 times earth’s surface temperature; so the peak of its thermal emission spectrum would be at about3.97 microns, so it sits right on the CO2 4 micron band. About 8% of the energy is emitted above the 3.75 times peak wavelength of the CO2 15 micron band, so that absorption is also active on Venus.
Now the higher temperature of venus would result in a widening of those bands due to Doppler effect, which should go about as the square root of Temperature (K) so that alone would widen the bands on Venus by about 1.6 over what we see on earth, so one would expect the 15 micron band on Venus to collect somewhat more than 8% of the total sirface thermal radiation energy.
CO2 also has a strong absorption band at 2.5 microns which is 0.625 of the Venus spectrum peak, but the energy there is still only about 3-4% of the total; maybe more with the line broadening.
Then the collision broadening due to the high pressure on Venus will result in even more line broadening, so the combined effect of the Venus surface temperature and pressure, would be to make a CO2 atmosphere quite efficient in blocking outgoing LWIR in the 2-20 micron range.
If somehow, earth’s surface temperatures were to rise significantly, the 15 micron CO2 band would become less effective as the spectral peak moves to shorter wavelengths. At the highest present surface temps of about +60 C, or 333K, the emission peak would be about 8.74 microns, or 58% of the CO2 15 micron line. About 35% of the energy lies above 1.7 times the peak wavelength. The 4 micron band is only 45.8% of that 60 deg C peak, and there is still only about 0.3% of the spectrum energy there, so the 4 micron CO2 band has little effect even at the highest present surface temperatures.
So as earth’s temperature warms the CO2 15 micron band weakens, but the 4 micron band doesn’t kick in to any extent; so CO2 itself cannot drive the earth’s temperature “over the hump” to get to a place where the 4 micron band has a significant green house effect.
Even without the negative feedback from clouds, I doubt that CO2 could drive earth’s temperature past any “tipping point”. With earth’s water, nothing seems to have been able to get the temperature above the 22 deg ceiling that has existed for the last 600 million years, and has been earth’s mean surface temperature for most of that 600 million years.
So we currently are enjoying a rare cold snap, that has only existed for any length of time once before in the Carboniferous period; well based on temperature reconstructions of C.R. Scotese
Interesting, I never eally thought my quick list of facts would generate such great discussion. I have really enjoyed the posts. To add a little more to the mix:
(I apologise for the limited use of Wikipedia but they have a number of the Items I would have listed with a better write-up)
1. Unlike Earth, Venus lacks a magnetic field. Its ionosphere separates the atmosphere from outer space and the solar wind. This ionized layer excludes the solar magnetic field, giving Venus a distinct magnetic environment. This is considered Venus’ induced magnetosphere. **Lighter gases, including water vapor, are continuously blown away by the solar wind through the induced magnetotail.**
2. Venus’ Atmospheric makeup contains HUGE (in comparison to Earth)amounts of Sulphur products.
3. Current theory states that Venus’ “Runaway” warming was initially caused by the evaporation of all of its surface WATER due to it’s proximity to the Sun and aided by a lack of magnetic field (see #1) and finally enhanced by a greenhouse effect which INCLUDED volcanic gasses as major a component, in addition to CO2. This state of affairs still exists today.
*note* Before someone goes off on a rant that Sulphur Dioxide has a cooling effect on Earth’s atmosphere… I once again point out that VENUS ISN’T EARTH and vice versa. Sulphur Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas, it’s more powerful than CO2, and the quantities and chemical make-up of the Venusian atmosphere is vastly different from Earth. The cooling effect comes from the fact that ~ON EARTH~ SO2 dispersion is limited and it is highly reactive to the oxygen (oxidises) in our atmosphere, often quickly precipitating out after forming aerosols (sulphates). In other words SO2 doesn’t travel far and has a short residence in the atmosphere of Earth.
Venus is an ENTIRELY different scenario. There is no oxygen left in it’s atmosphere to oxidise, the residence time is pretty much infinite as the atmosphere of Venus is in a state of vigorous circulation and super-rotation, and these winds continuously keep the SO2 mixed.
Here’s a recent study about Sulphur Dioxide’s climate effect on the atmosphere of Mars. (I know, Mars isn’t Venus)
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ihalevy/mydocs/Halevy_etal_Science_2007.pdf
4. Venus lacks plate tectonics (this is different than vocanics) that would dissipate heat from it’s mantle (Like Earth Has). That heat is therefore conserved and adds to the heat/energy dynamo of Venus’ surface.
5. Venus has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and surface features, nor organic life to absorb it in biomass like Earth does.
Thanks.
Doc
Nobody denies the topic is contentious: