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.
As always, you set a fine example of not just tireless inquiry but behavior. Your example has helped me change my own tone (admittedly a work in progress!) in these debates. With daily outrage bombarding me, I can never hear often enough that I should take a deep breath and focus on the issues at hand. It’s easy for me to get side-tracked questioning other’s motivation, especially when it seems to be malicious. But motivations are very difficult to know with certainty, that’s why dealing with content is more productive.
Putting aside the emotions of guessing other’s motivation and focusing on content tests the character. That is why role models are useful to remind us how we aspire to behave. Dialing back is an important reminder for everyone and it is doubly important during the investigation of the scientists at the center of these controversies. If more investigations are to take place, a calm, reasoned and dispassionate climate will be necessary.
Agreed. I do not deny that the climate has warmed. I am skeptical about the “proof” that it is man-made and will result in catastrophic consequences. Especially in the face of natural climate shifts before mankind was even capable of widespread environmental impact.
So now if the two sides could agree to examine and clarify the bits we diverge on and leave politics behind we might all learn something new.
This is great news and a great relief. I am a life-long Guardian reader, and have been in line with most of its views. I am also a scientist and environmentalist. Therefore, I have found it bizaar to be lumped with the accusations of ‘right wing, head-in-the-sand denier. The vitriol by many Guardian commentators against sceptics has been astounding. Let’s see how it goes. It will be interesting to see if George Moniot complies with this policy.
I am not inclined to forgive and forget the past activities of the Grauniad. They knew all along what they were doing. Their derisive remarks against well qualified scientists, many times more knowledgeable than them, were always unacceptable and against all principles of good, impartial journalism.
They should just resign or better still close the journal altogether. I despise people of this type who deliberately denegrate professional scientists for their own political beliefs. While I congratulate Anthony for his ability to forgive and work with these very decietful individuals I wouldn’t trust them any further than I could throw them.
Their newspaper is in grave financial danger and remains solvent only because of Autotrader which they are currently advertising for all they are worth. No doubt for good reason. They must be desperate if they must turn away from their beliefs, beliefs they have held and enforced for many years.
I believe this is a step in the right direction BUT, I do take issue with this…
“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.”
how would they know that my (or any persons) skepticism is not genuine?
At least they did not change the reference to environmentally challanged.
Thanks for engaging with the media Anthony. Being able to viciously debate a topic with respect between the two parties is absolutely necessary if we are to step back from the brink and really figure out what, if any, impact we are having on our planet.
RE – Ian E (11:07:45) : p.s. to Messers Brown and Milliband : – Flat-Earthers is not very voter-friendly either?!
I have always found flat-earthers one of the most ironic labels. Is it true that I have denied that man is certainly causing global warming? Yes. So denier or denialist (if one likes to make up words) would not be completely inappropriate, it just brings a bad connotation with it. However, as I was taught… the consensus in science was at one time that the earth was flat. Only after some skeptics denied this conventional wisdom, foresook the consensus at great personal discomfort, and made the case did it come to be obvious to the rest of the world that earth was a sphere.
I remember a Guardian story from the early 1970s where they stated that Los Alamos, NM was the site of the first A-bomb test.
I suspect that most of the residents living there would have “denied” the accuracy of that story. You can “deny” the past, but you can’t “deny” a future which has not yet happened.
I agree that name calling is not good.
I am surprised, though, that these environmental journalists are so happy to go on record about their bias that ‘very few are genuinely sceptical’. This labels the majority of skeptics as disingenuous. This reveals an inherent bias which journalists should not have, and this indicates that the journalists are not aware that skepticism is a desirable quality in science. E.g. the first book on Chemistry (some argue) was called ‘The Skeptical Chemist’ (or some variation on that spelling – Boyle was British after all – and made up the spelling as he went – I am sure that the Guardian loved him) and pointed out some of the the problems with the ‘accepted’ ‘theories’ of the day.
Here’s the pertinent sentence:
“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.”
Heck, I kinda liked being a lonely nutter.
“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.”
Is there a reliable set of raw temperature data that shows the warming over the last 100 years?
Excellent.
An argument does not lose in force, rigour and validity when it is presented in polite terms – the more polite, the more forceful.
Shouters and those who use invectives have already lost the argument.
Sceptics don’t need to shout – the facts speak for themselves.
I’m not sure it’s gotten warmer. It hasn’t in Mississippi. Maybe everyone should go to their nearest Rural weather station that has a hundred year history, and find out if it’s warmer where they live. They might be surprised.
So, “Warmer” or “CAGW Alarmist” would be a “Climate Campaigner”? More aggressive types in political organizations (WWF, Greenpeace, etc.) would not be afforded this courtesy, much like the reservation of the denier word for explicit “GW deniers” (Palin, Rush, etc.).
I commend your attempt Anthony, but it is going to be complicated for all sides.
REPLY: Consider what used to be a war zone in northern Ireland over religion. Fiery rhetoric, deaths, bombs, destruction, yet solved today. Yes our issue is complicated, but still one that can be resolved. -A
There needsto be more and low threshold ways for people who got caught up in the AGW social movement to disentangle themselves from it.
Graciousness from skeptics towards those who are essentially victims of AGW promoters is called for.
Just think of what Joe Romm does, and then do the exact opposite.
Nice job Anthony, now if you can just get them to put the ‘K’ back in skeptic.
I don’t know what to call advocates without using the word though.
Perhaps a more friendly term for “Deniers” would be Heretics ( ha ha).
Not much change in the policies in the UK of Brown, Millibrown, Camerbrown or Clugg, our leading policticians. Its all green and you’d better like it or else.
Dont think I’ll be voting when the UK Genreal Election comes
It’s interesting to see that George Monbiot’s “cut out and keep” denier cards are still available on the Guardian here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers-monbiot-cards?picture=344343782
In my opinion, this was one of the low points in Monbiot’s career, but I am glad to see him now taking up some serious journalism, as in his recent piece on the feed-in tariff rip-off for Solar panels in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff
Still not going to read the Guardian or even click a link to a Guardian page as long as George Monbiot, co-founder of Respect along with his friend the narcissistic, closet Islamist, bar brawler buddy of Saddam – George Galloway, is still employed by them.
When Phil Jones denies that he did anything untoward regarding FOI etc., does that qualify?
Seeing a temperature trend that correlated reasonably with the ever-constant rise in CO2 (allowing for the various forcing factors etc.) would tend to show that we might want to look at CO2 as a cause and potential remedy for climate warming (if really desirable).
Seeing model results that can’t predict their own initial conditions leaves me truly “skeptical” as to the value and accuracy of such methods. Knowing that large $um$ are in play concerning the investigation, elaboration and modification of CO2 and it’s climatic effects is another cause for “skepticism”.
That global temperature changes is a given. That the current change is “unusual” is certainly verifiable but only with accurate and reliable raw data.
Being part of the solution means knowing exactly what the problem is.
Mark, Edinburgh (11:20:07) :
Mr. Watts and @Rhys Jagger 11.00.39
You should be aware that Guardian comments columns are heavily censored.
In particular they are careful to control informed and detailed sceptical comment.
Access is simply denied to commentators like “Bishop Hill”. I’m also barred possibly because my email address is interpreted as a paid fossil fuel industry lobbyist (incorrectly as it happens) .
Nonsense. I’m registered with a disposable gmail address and hardly ever have a post censored. No more than any other paper.
Might depend on the columnist though.
This is not a problem in Norway at ALL. Because nothing is mentioned about all this in the news anyway.
hehe.
Anyway, I think the foreign minister of Norway , mr. Støre should say; Im sorry saying what I said, and for making an alliance with mr. Gore.
And I promise to stop calling them the Carbon Cult!
If they repend.
I think what we are talking here is censorship, a great deal can be gleaned from terminology, sticks n stones.
I am not offended by the term “denier”, though it is misapplied. I am more offended by offense over labels. As far as I am concerned, EVERYTHING is open for question. It is when you stop questioning that you become a true denier.
And by Repend, I mean:
Remove all Carbon tax’es in Norway.Now.