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.
It’s a very good thing to try to stop calling people names. Even if we all do it from time to time… 😉
For what it’s worth, in Swedish, I usually call people from the other side of the fence “AGW-övertygade”, which would translate to “AGW-convinced”.
It’s the most neutral and precise description I’ve come to think of.
Which in turn would make us, not sceptics – since that probably could mean almost anyone. In fact i believe that quite a few AGW-convinced ones actually find it annoying that we should be the only sceptic ones, which in turn makes them “gullible” or worse… 🙂
So, i prefer to call myself “AGW-sceptic”. Can’t think of anything more descriptive and neutral. 🙂
I have 2 problems with this article.
First I find it a little bit condescendant from the Guardian notably “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”. So in fact they consider us (note that “us” is a variety of opinion and thinking) as sceptical not to say anti-science.
Then the second is the comment from Anthony about “My position has been that there is no debate that the earth has warmed over the past 100+ years”. Well actually for me there is a debate about that, just 2 recent news help make me sceptic (oups) about this statement and I would like that there is a debate about that. one news is the article from Hansen in the NYT in 1989 where he recognised that there was no warming in the USA between 1895 and late 1980s, the other one is from climate gate where it appeared that “there was no warming since 1998 and it is a travesty that we cant show this.
I will linked to that the work of the 2 MCs which showed that 1934 was the warmest year in the USA during the 20th century, the work from Anthony Watts about the validity of temperatures coming from the station in the USA, and the number of station across the world during the last century.
Yes I doubt that late 20th century is warmer than late 19th and than any other period in the last 150 years so I would like a debate about this.
“In related news, the nastiness of debate caused one long time blogger to close his discussion forum.”
To be fair, if Dawkins is going to dish it out, then he really needs to be able to take it. I’m not religious myself, but the guy has to expect some sort of backlash for some of the utterly insulting things that he’s implied about religious people.
How can anyone with senses deny that climate changes?
The motivation and meaning of this strange juxtaposition of two words has clearly been an attempt to associate those who oppose the carbon cult (thanks kwik!) as the equivalent of followers of a somewhat similar cult in the 1930’s.
Some, like Lubos at the Reference Frame, take pride in term being applied to them, as they feel they are compelled to deny the legitimacy of the fantasy of CO2 caused dangerous climate change.
I can sympathize with Lubos, but I agree with Anthony on this one though. Thanks for suggesting the idea to the Guardian. You probably weren’t the only (or first) one though.
An outbreak of humanity. Lovely stuff.
I seem to find the same pattern wherever I look in the climate debate: the AGW proponents are invariably the ones who use ad hominem, straw men, slanderous characterizations and doubts about motives as a debating tactic.
I see the same pattern in other reserch areas which have become politicized, for example in the social sciences, where those who have a political agenda do not want to discuss the science, but rather the political motives of the opponent. Obviously thinking that the opponent is just as politicized as him/herself.
But in climate science this is not the case at all. There may be groups critical of AGW for business- or political reasons, but the core of the skeptical movement is all about the credibility of science.
I think AGW proponents would be surprised to learn that most skeptics would in fact become alarmists over night, if only the science was credible and convincing.
Now this is the only thing that can bring proponents and skeptics together: a thorough and transparent reexamination of the scientific basis, without the secrecy, the scheming and the bias towards warming in every link in the chain.
But still they do not want to discuss the science. They have to be battled and fought from trench to trench, even when they are obviously and blatantly wrong. They will not let go of their “truths” even if science itself must be thwarted.
As long as the scientific process is in shambles, there will be conflict, because it leaves no room for a reasonable and believeable scientific discourse.
And this is why we are where we are today.
I’m wondering why no-one mentions the fact that according to the latest satellite data, this winter has been the warmest since recordings began. Or that last year has been the second warmest and last decade the warmest on record. It’s very difficult to not see a continuing increase in temperatures.
Anthony:
You’re quoted on Fox News again:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/
Most notably:
“What it boils down to, Watts says, is that some of the world’s top climate scientists have been crunching numbers that were altered by their immediate surroundings, rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC if there was insufficient data, then further adjusted to correct for “biases,” including the uneven times of day when measurements were taken — all ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than the raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect. ”
Good job.
And they got some nice B91 links for everyone to see.
Great Anthony, really great, indeed.
It’s not the end, but certainly, it’s the beginning of the end.
In fact, I see it as the one of the greatest moments
in this long and ugly uphill battle (enforced on us) since I
became a ‘denier’, oops sceptic, about seven years ago.
@Philhippos (11:07:28) :
“Being polite but absolutely firm with the opposition is without doubt the right policy to pursue henceforth. Keep to the moral high ground.”
WelI said, I do totally agree.
To nail down the divergence of opinions, would “sober on the science” be a sufficiently civil contrast with “high on the science?”
“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.”
The guardian have run a particularly nasty vicious campaign against scientifically sceptical people, particularly on their comments page where people who did not tow their editorial policy were kicked off for nothing much at all. E.g. my “crime” was to suggest that prof Jones had broken the FOI law!
They might “say” they want to “engage with climate sceptics” but I won’t believe it until I get an email apologising for their behaviour.
Just a tad O/T but there’s a bit up at FOX about a near and dear topic – weather stations – with quotes from the much beloved Rev …
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/
(BTW, after a couple weeks, it’s great to be back online, now that I’ve made the switch from my desktop tower & XP to a widescreen laptop & Win7)
Even the term ‘skeptic’ (or sceptic, for our friends across the pond) becomes a pejorative term, because it implies that one is nothing but a critic–or worse, a cynic. There are many who simply want to carry out and publish good science.
I think ‘naturalist’ is a much better term for those who take the view that much more attention needs to be placed on natural variations before we can say with any confidence which, if any, of the effects are anthropogenic.
I am not so sure the media are quite so innocent here. The telegraph had a report from Monckton years ago, and what struck me at the time was the basic historical evidence which did not appear un the mainstream press. Really that was what first convinced me there wasnt a case. Why scream about the arctic and not mention the antarctic? Why scream about greenland when it was known it was greener in viking times?
While I appreciate the gesture, I can’t help but think there is no way this would have happened 4 months ago. So, there is very little I see here other than typical CYA. They really haven’t taken off the blindfolds yet.
In any event, I think AGW is now old stuff. My new theory is AGD. In fact, I think it has more supporting evidence than AGW.
Global drying may be responsible for the current upward trend in temperatures. We all know that deforestation, swamp removal and other land use changes have a tendency to dry micro-climates. Throw in increased water table flow due to human usage and the global atmosphere has been drying.
The drying has led to increases in CO2 based on Miskolczi’s GHG theory. In fact, this theory better describes the near linear increase in CO2. While human emissions have increased exponentially, CO2 levels haven’t. Either there is an exponential CO2 sequestration mechanism or some other factor is relevant. Global drying represents that mechanism.
Now, where do I get my billion dollars to study this further? And, I don’t want to hear any nonsense from you AGD deniers … er, skeptics.
Only half kidding …
All scientists are skeptical, but only a few deny the validity of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Hence the terms which many will continue to use.
I spoke about this with Joanne Nova a while ago, and my position remains the same – even the term ‘sceptic’ is not acceptable (Denier is just plain slander). So, too, is the epithet “Climate Sceptic”.
We do not deny climate change, we are not sceptical that CO2 DOES indeed have a role in long-wave energy absorption. We are not sceptical that human activities DO indeed have some effect on climate. We do not doubt that we might have an accelerated impact as time goes on.
What we are sceptical about are the methods and conclusions of the erstwhile “main stream” climate scientists. Those who are now in the stall stage of the stall-spin-crash-burn-die sequence (they’ve been doing plenty of ‘spin’ but it’s not the same variety).
Look – in EVERY other branch of science, in all of which debate is tolerated, reporters say things like “ABC (scientist) says ‘this that…’ However, OTHER SCIENTISTS disagree, citing ‘the other thing’.”
That’s wht I want to be called. OTHER SCIENTISTS. That’s what we ARE. We are NOT deniers, sceptics, doubters, meddlers, interferers, snake oil peddlers. We are scientists. We are the OTHER scientists who always get quoted whenever a science story is reported and the reporter wants to offer both sides.
To call us sceptics puts us on a different, and lower, level than ‘scientists’. Anthony, YOU are a climate scientist. Why accept being introduced to the public as something other than what you are and what you are qualified to be recognized as – an equal player in the field.
I am a geologist, a university educator, a practicing professional, and a Senate-appointed representative of Pennsylvania on the national licensing board for PGs. I am equally as qualified as M. Mann to weigh in on the paleoclimatological record. I don’t want to be perceived by the public as The Sceptic. I want to be the Other Geologist. To be labeled ANYTHING other than scientists demeans our position in the public mind.
Ask the people in the Brights movement why they are willing to accept such a silly name for themselves. It’s because the word “Atheist” only has meaning in the context of theists. ‘Atheist’ means there is some deity(ies) which one doesn’t accept. It is the same – something must be true if one denies it. That same something must be true if one is simply sceptical of it. Something is not necessarily true if real PEERS (sensu stricto) are still researching the validity of either interpretation.
I believe use of a disrespectful term like ‘denialist’ is, perhaps, indicative of a fear that one’s own position may be unsupportable. On the other hand, I think that terms like ‘antagonist’ or ‘advocate’ would show respect for one’s opponent on a given issue without indicating a perceived weakness in one’s own case.
Is it something inherently Anglo-Saxon that I, being a Russian country bumpkin, am not capable of understanding?
Respecting your robber and asking him to be polite to you is a small step to… what, exactly?
Reminds me of the shrinks’ advice to women being raped: try to relax and enjoy the process?
Interesting that this is all come about after the collapse of the attempt to force a re-write the world’s economies with massive taxes.
Can there be a rational discussion when half of the world wants to beat the other half to a pulp with a giant carbon-trading stick? When the politicians (and some scientists) are using “science” in such an abusive way? When movement was spearheaded with lies(“inconvienent truth”) and the main visible leaders of the movement live such hypocrisy (Al Gore)?
I agree on the general discussion of science. Its everything else that has caused the problems.
Rick
I often hear this kind of statement and wonder on which scientific facts it is based. Given the problems with temperature measurement identified by the Surface Stations project, I believe it is correct to say that the supposed warming of the past 100 years is within the margin of error of the measurements
I think warming over the last 100 years is very debatable. And this is to say nothing of the problem of defining how to measure the temperature of the earth. Average together a few thousands sites? Satellite measurements of certain portions of the atmosphere? How about the earth’s core and the ocean depths? We can measure temperatures in any number of ways and average them together and plot trends but have little way of knowing if this is very representative at all of the “earth’s temperature”.
I think it’s a step in the right direction but it’s a half-step.
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”.
If they want to be as explicit as possible then they have to acknowledge that the term “climate skeptic” (or “climate sceptic”) is itself vague and misleading and actually meaningless. No one here is skeptical that there’s a climate or that climate changes. They don’t own the concept of a climate and that’s not what we’re skeptical about. What we are skeptical about, and what they do own, is the hypothesis of AGW, and more specifically catastrophic AGW as presented to this point. If the Guardian wants to be truly accurate, they should use the term AGW skeptic, where the term is focused clearly on the subject that is the basis of the skepticism: AGW as propounded by Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others. That would be the most intellectually honest way to handle it.
I know in the past non-believers in CAGW, myself included, have had to suffer ridicule and mockery from the believers of this cargo-cult scientific religion, but now the tide of rational science is turning in our favour we need to be careful be polite but firm in getting the point across.
Thanks, Anthony, for instigating a move in the right direction. A small step for a man, but a big step for mankind, I think.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” – Mahatma Gandhi
Although the denier label is offensive and deliberately so.
(This labelling is a brownshirt tactic to demonize one opponent.) , Lindzen mentioned in one talk that being called a “skeptic” implies that there actually is a valid case for alarm in the first place, which Lindzen and many others would contest. On this basis Lindzen shrugged off being called a denier. What he really should be called is “honest”
Instead of denier or skeptic, we should be called “honest” by the warmers if they themselves were willing to be truthful.
It’s an explicit propaganda strategy to loudly attack the other side accusing them of that which one oneself is most guilty of.
As a Prime example Noami Oreske tries to smear the “Honest” side as tobacconists, while she herself is guilty as hell of exactly what she accuses others of. She tries to claim the science was known and settled long ago.
Here’s an earlier video or hers that had the warmers having multiple orgasms
She spends a lot of drivel trying to argue ad hom on the basis of tobacconists, however she is doing exactly what she is accusing others of doing..and that is trying “control public perception” of uncertainty. In her case minimize the uncertainty wrt to AGW being “alarming”
It is an explicit (and effective) propaganda strategy to go on the offensive and loudly accuse others of that of which she herself is most guilty.
She went so over the top later in her smear job on Bill Nierenberg that even wikipedia Climate gatekeeper Connelly was taking her to task
Lies Posing as History
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/lies-posing-as-history-4709
Nierneberg, concluded: Oreskes is wrong
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/11/nierneberg_concluded_oreskes_i.php
Similarly there is “denial” going on and it is the warmers who are guilty of this. They divert attention from themselves by loudly accusing others.
cheers
brent
“shirley123 (12:11:47) :
VIDEO – Sticking it to all the Big Oil “sock puppets”! http://bit.ly/cS4OUt
2009 was the second hottest on record.”
Hi shirley1234. I didn’t watch your video, i’m on a bad connection, could you tell me what it’s about? And i get the impression that you are one of those who think that CO2 is a major climate driver, am i right?