Sea change in climate journalism: The Guardian and the D-word

Bernie Sanders compares climate skeptics to Nazi deniers 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33371.html
Thanks to Marc Morano for this link
Listen and call in to the Thom Hartmann radio show every Friday at noon EST. The first hour that day of the week is called ‘Brunch with Bernie’ and they take your calls if you’d like to talk with Sen. Bernie Sanders over this issue or any other.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/listenlive.php
Contact him here too:
http://sanders.senate.gov/comments/
His website:
http://sanders.senate.gov
Thom Hartmann is a walking, talking Al Gore clone… this is one of the main centers of where the progressive liberal lies & climate propaganda comes from. You can contact Thom Gore here.
thom@thomhartmann.com

Apart from the Holocaust denier connotation there is also the wild eyed religious connotation of labeling anyone who says things that contradict your belief as a ‘denier’.
In other words they might want to stop using the word for no other reason than to stop themselves looking unhinged.

This one apparently simple step is, in fact, a most important move towards a more rational, logical debate about what is happening to the surface and atmosphere of our insignificant celestial spheroid. For far too long the debate about the pros and cons of this topic has more closely resembled trench warefare than intellectual intercourse.
The Guardian editorial staff, having had a prod from Anthony, have recognised that name-calling benefits no-one and, in fact reflects badly on the name-caller. We should welcome such small concessions as this as being a recognition of the validity of our opposition to the proponents of the CAGW theory. We cannot be summarily dismissed any longer; there is too much genuine proof emerging, albeit slowly, that the model-predicted catastrophies are not occurring and the degree of anthropomorphic interference , if any, with the ever-changing climate is still a complete unknown.
We should now reciprocate this concession and refrain from counter-productive name calling. Let rational debate, which does become heated from time to time, take its rightful place. Extremism of any type is destructive in nature. We all must now concentrate on what rigorous, correctly scientifically-based examination and open debate can bring forth. Applauding a properly produced result is welcomed; gloating over another’s discomfiture is to be discouraged.
Anthony, this one seemingly small change could prove to be a very important concession from a newspaper as avowedly ‘green’ as the Guardian; I have no doubt that many of their readers are going to view this matter as some form of betrayal: they betray only themselves.

Amen to that.
And, to something else you said:

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.

You don’t stop building coal-fired power plants just because there might be a way of generating electricity that won’t have an impact on the environment through the acts of building dams or mining coal. You do keep on building the infrastructure you currently have till you reach what I call a critical mass of knowledge and capabilities, where new discoveries and innovations are possible. And economically realistic. The first person that discovers how to tap into the energy in which the universe is awash will become a billionaire many times over; but wishing for that to happen will not make it so, especially if we try to freeze everything we have now in place while we await that magical, mystical future discovery.

>>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.
Variations of this statement have been made by many of us so clearly and so often over the last few years that anyone who still does not understand this position is either not listening or deliberately misstating the facts. While I applaud the long overdue move by the Guardian (funny things happen when the “facts” change) to stop using the term denier some of the comments by the unnamed colleagues in the article lead me to believe this may be nothing more than an attempt to moderate the discussion not an acceptance that there are people of good faith who are genuinely skeptical.

I know of virtualy no one, warmist or sceptic, who doesn’t agree that the earth has warmed in the last 100 years
I know of virtualy no one, warmist or sceptic, who doesn’t agree that man plays some role in changing the climate, at least on a regional basis, through several mechanisms:
UHI
Land use changes
There are probably other.
Almost everyone, warmist and sceptic, agrees that CO2 should have some effect on the global temperature. The question is how large?
In fact, land use changes in some regions may be one of those important environmental issues that Anthony has characterized as “swallowed up” by the AGW debate.
So where does James Randerson get off saying:
“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 sense evidence at the Guardian of minds that have been closed for a long time, not willing to do any real investigative journalism. That’s a sad, scary and pathetic state of affairs. It suggests that we may reached the journalistic tipping point globally and it’s not tipping towards defense of democracy.
John

dont trust them. the gaurdian is a minority paper here. No one reads it. dont waste your time anthony

“If someone really does think that climate change is not happening – that the world is not warming – then it seems fair enough to call them a denier (and I’d love them to explain to me why comma butterflies are flying north to Scotland, for the first time in history, as fast as their jagged little wings will take them)”
So, Mr. Marsh still does, in fact think it’s OK to use the denier label in some cases. Because, in fact there has been no statistically-significant warming for the past 15 years, and some cooling since about 2001. But, in his book, anyone pointing that out would be a “denier”. I notice he also uses the “climate change is not happening” straw man, conflating it with the idea of non-warming, which is typical. He still doesn’t seem to get that nobody claims that the climate doesn’t change.

Kum,
You make a very good point about whether or not it has gotten warmer. From what I have learned studying the most reliable data from the US and the Arctic, I don’t see much indication that it is significantly warmer now than it was 70 years ago. Might even be cooler.

Nicely said by all, and a tip of the hat to those who can’t quite let themselves sign on. You start where you stand.
Referring to people by labels is a sure way of cutting off any chance of discussion before it’s begun. On either side there are nuts, true believers, earnest scientists, agnostics and every shade in between. It’s most productive to attack a specific argument, rather than a whole class of people (most of whom you don’t know).
I’ve tried to avoid doing so here. I’ll try harder.

“If someone really does think that climate change is not happening – that the world is not warming – then it seems fair enough to call them a denier (and I’d love them to explain to me why comma butterflies are flying north to Scotland, for the first time in history, as fast as their jagged little wings will take them)”
I may be misinformed (I’m NEVER wrong) but I thought these creatures used to reside in Scotland and disappeared (or moved off) over 110 years ago?

I was about to say is ‘warmist’ ok? I use it, affectionately, to apply generally to believers in AGW who think something should be done about it, a broad church of generally well-meaning people, from people who confuse recycling with action on climate change to, whisper it, Gavin.