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.
Tom G(ologist): thank you very much, I fully agree with you, that was with better clarity what I was thinking behind my first point.
Oh, i also do think one shouldn’t let the Guardian off the hook. They deserve to be ruined for good for all the hatred MoonBat spouted.
Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”
“Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
— Isaac Asimov
———–
I find myself in his camp. I will believe anything if there is sound reasoning, observation, and confirmation by independent observers. Until then, I deny global warming, dragons that have hordes of gold, little green men, and all the rest.
What? Somebody reads The Guardian? Why?
Progress at last.
And here I thought the “D” word was “debate”!
I should clarify the global warming. I deny that man has anything but a very secondary driver in periods of warming. I believe in global warming when the AMO is on the upswing and there is the PDO, and other well known and documented primary forcers.
Agree,well done again. The politicians need an exit strategy which allows them to save (somehow) face.
No doubt the environment section of the Guardian, plus science editors at all the MSM will read Lindzen and others about the strong arguments against AGW hypothesis. Warren Meyer’s excellent essay is a good place to start for those with limited science!
Lots of fun,however, owning up to being a denier, especially with strong ‘believers’, and then defining exactly what it is that you are denying ie in simple terms, poorly programmed computer models. A bit hairy after the Wales v France rugby on Friday, beer and discussion of firmly held views do not mix too well – fun though.
I enjoyed being a “flat earther” and a “denier”, its a pity they are changing their stance.
Most of the people who carelessly use the word Denier, including those journalists at the Guardian, are hoping that some of the Nazi guilt for unimaginable, dehumanising, regimented killing of countless millions, will rub off on poor souls like myself. What are they thinking of!
They need not fear I carry this guilt with me every day, as we all should. The World stood by and did almost nothing to prevent it. We still do it now, look around, over half the human race is governed by murdering gangsters. I have visited many countries, who are members of the UN, where if you speak up against the mind numbing poverty, injustice, religious intolerance that people have to endure you are got rid off permamently. I have seen parents carry their dead children up the streets in sacks, I have felt helpless, angry, ashamed.
But I have never seen anyone die of Climate Change, and I suspect I never will.
That is the lesson of history, that is the threat to our human civilisation.
So if I deny Climate Change what of it!
First of all, the word “climate change” is meaningless as the climate is supposed to change. I don’t know anybody who denies the climate changes. For all practical purposes, the climate has always changed and will always change.
Skeptics know the climate is supposed to change. The other side seems to think otherwise. When people use the word denier, they are trying to control and limit dissenting thought.
Well done the Guadian and well said Anthony.
I do try to be nice to them but I’m not taking my tin-foil hat off! No way.
Now where did I put that cheque from Exxon?
“The ’sceptics’ label is almost too generous a badge as very few are genuinely sceptical about the science”
I think that one sentence pretty much overrides The Guardian’s supposedly generous offer, and makes it perfectly clear that they still think we’re all a bunch of deniers.
Can anyone name one sceptic scientist who isn’t genuinely a sceptic?
Aren’t all scientists supposed to be sceptics?
I still don’t get it.
Jack
“Non-resistance to evil is resistance to good.” – Alexander Feht
RE: Skeptics: You might check out the meaning of the word “zetetic.” Of course, practically no one will know what you mean if you ever use it…
“They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.”
Do I detect a paradigm shift? A feeling of discomfort? A wondering if all those carefully worded statements by various Royal Societies might just indicate that those dead cert bets need hedging?
I’m sorry, but after reading David Marsh’s piece above, any of you who think anything has been gained by dropping “denier” or any of the other terms, is going to make any difference in the debate is dreaming in Technicolor.
Marsh’s piece fairly drips with condescending phraseology, and all that will change, is the increased use of the driveby verbiage the British are notoriously famous for.
Witness this little bit of prose from the opening paragraphs: …Yes, the recent cold snap in the UK apparently demonstrates that the notion that climate change is happening at all, let alone as the result of human activity, is one big confidence trick.
With due respect to the Express’s scientific rigour,”…
While the term denier and denialist may fade, the sneer will not. This fight is far from over. “Deniers” will simply be replaced with “Climate Sceptics”, but the allusions will continue as before. Until you can convince them to abandon camps and treat the discussion on the merits or lack of the facts, you’ve won nothing. This is nothing more than case of changing from beating you with a flail, to using a mace.
None who are genuine in debating the climate issue deny the science, if by that we mean the nature of GHGs. We are sceptical about the data, about how it has been collected, represented and been misinterpreted for personal status or gain. We are sceptical (or unconvinced) about the ability of extra GHGs to warm catastrophically. We are sceptical about the motives of politicians whom we suspect do not understand the complexity of the issue. Perhaps we could have a sensible debate about energy security without reference to climate change.
There is something I still cannot understand from the mainstream media and opposition parties. This was supposed to be the biggest and most expensive crisis to hit mankind, requiring a mammoth effort. And yet, I saw nobody in the mainstream media or opposition parties demanding cost effectiveness. Surely the first thing on your list when coming up with the biggest budget the world has ever known, at tax payer expense, cost effectiveness would have been high up there? You may accept the science if you don’t feel able to question it, but how many reports did you see in the media about the tax payer not getting value for money? Stifling dissent is one thing, giving governments a blank cheque is quite another, and the msm holding the government to account is a cornerstone of a democratic society.
I agree with and applaud the sentiment/effort although their apparent denial of our right to be sceptical maybe shows a possible half heartedness in accepting the proposals, dare I say theire sentiments are not robust ……
I trust that it isn’t impolite to suggest that we have to feel sorry for them for being duped for so long and they probably need time to adjust to the new ideas and possible fallout from the changes happening all around them.
Until such times as the science is truly settled, I will remain sceptical about the measured and manipulated data and I will continue to deny the assumption that the future can be accurately predicted !
I couldn’t care less what the Guardian calls real scientists and knowledge seekers on this issue or any other. I know that calling people names because of what they believe has never changed anyone’s mind. These days, I can hardly be bothered reading anything in the Guardian because of the poor standard of journalism. And when it comes to any article on global warming, the poor Guardian moderators may require regular hospital surgery to attach some sort of prosthetic device, their fingers having been worn down to bloody stumps by constantly hitting the “delete” key.
Kudos.
There are deniers out there, but far fewer than those who lazily use the term think. By akk means, use it if it is truly warranted, but I think papers will find it rare that they can use it accurately.
Sceptic, Skeptic, Septic, Denier, Denialist.
They can call me what they like but it wins them nothing.
Maybe it shames them a little and makes it harder to respect them since it is a form of ad hominem.
The only thing that wins the debate in the end is sound science.
All the rest is just so much hot air.
“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.” I think it essential to throw in the effects, too. Because it has been warming, we have seen non-growth in the violence of storms, gentle rise in the sea level, no drastic spread in malaria etc etc (read AR4 WG2 to continue the list). None of the dire threats have come to pass. Something must be wrong. Could it be the models, perchance?
“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
The blogger this refers to is Prof. Richard Dawkins.
Now, this may not endear me to American conservatives, but I have been a fan of Dawkins and his crusade for secularism and evolution in the teeth of opposition from the religious right.
His book- The God Delusion, is excellent and pulls no punches nor it pander to those who feel the need to stick up for God’s hurt feelings.
Howevee, on BBC Radio 4 over Christmas there was a short series of talks by eminent scientists on evolution. (These talks were in the form of “letters” to Charles Darwin on the 200th aniversary of his birth- how his writings have influenced them and how the world has changed, further research etc, since Darwin’s day.
At the end of his letter, Dawkins compares Evolution as settled science to AGW and how this has become “settled”.
He gives no real evidence of this, but disturbingly for a militant atheist, states the “you have to believe in it”.
This is man whose book (God Delusion) systematically dismantles Man’s habit of inventing supernatural beings to explain natural phenomena and anything else that defys explanation at the time and tells us not to believe in nonsense explainations, based on belief in invisible, unverifiable but convieniently invented gods, goblins or assorted demons.
But Dawkins says (in “Letters to Darwin”) “you have believe in it ” (AGW) without any real evidence. However, on his website, Dawkins states that he has “no strong feelings either way” towards AGW.
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.
Lets hope that the mad invective from the RealClimate people that has been aimed at David Adams and Fred Pearce will stiffen the resolve of the Guardian environmental journalists. See for example RealClimate or the comments to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-climate-science-emails-select-committee-hearing
These sort of attacks can only help anyone sceptical of the AGW climate science. These journalists took the AGW people at face value and now see the levels of abuse that result from even mildly critical coverage of their heroes.