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.
For my part, I’d much rather be called a “Denier” than a “Skeptic” because the latter has connotations like “I have seen, but I have doubts”. Whereas my true position is that “I have seen” and “there are minimal doubts” that the whole thing is a monumental con trick, or at best, a monumental mistake.
So what should I be called?
As a scientist looking at climate change, I would actually quite like to be known as an “AGW scientist”. But that title has been usurped by the MSM to describe the clique of IPCC funded individuals whose agencies seek to tell us we’re wrecking the planet.
So, where do we go from here? Seems to me that we need a new plausible title.
I’d love to hear your suggestions (if Anthony doesn’t object).
How does anybody fancy something like “AGW Truth Seeker” (or something similar)? Corny, I know, but you see the sort of thing. (We can work on this.)
S
” Jose A Veragio (13:26:22) :
Good work Anthony.
That offensive piece Monbiot’s royal flush: Cut out and keep climate change denier cards that has typified the Guardians coverage, still taking pride of place on just about every Guardian page remotely connected to Climate Change, makes a mockery any supposed change of heart ‘though.”
Curious, look what Monbiot says about David Bellamy:
“He [Bellamy] maintains that “since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.” This is odd because he stopped making TV programmes in 1994. He was making public statements in support of mainstream climate science until at least 2000.”
Here’s what Bellamy says:
“My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?” It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children’s program Blue Peter, and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn’t think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line, and I wasn’t doing that.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677
Did somebody predict a “negotiation” stage?
I have never really been bothered about the denier handle, but I am aware that quite a few are. The only one that really annoyed me was being called a “flat-earther” by The Moron (Gordon is a Moron, a piece of prophetic punk rock)
How about: –
Seeker – someone making a search or inquiry; “they are seekers after truth”
The ’sceptics’ label is almost too generous a badge as very few are genuinely sceptical about the science
This statement invalidates the Guardian’s position wholesale. Reminds of something Rob Wilson or Judith Curry would say.
Don’t worry about the terminology.
The eventual outcome will define the long term meaning associated with it.
A time will come when we will look back on ‘denialist’ as a badge of honour – belonging to the people who were there to defend science in its darkest hour.
I suspect many who are most entrenched on the ‘post normal standard practice’ side of the ‘debate’ right now will have quietly turned their coats inside out by that time, and will fondly recount their valiant battle against the corruption of science to anyone who will listen.
Anthony: for all the years I have been following your web sites, I have seen very few lapses to name-calling on your part or by those you invite to post. You are one of those whom I call a gentleman – in the finest sense of the word. I will not subscribe to any web site (or news program) where nastiness is the norm. My compliment to you is that I visit here nearly every day.
I hope you grasp the fact that it often takes decades to change entrenched, bad science. You (and others like McIntyre) have shortened that time frame dramatically. Thanks.
Essentially this site (and ClimateAudit even more so) is a peer review site. Peer review done in live-time via the web is fascinating to see and fun to participate in. I’m really hoping other sciences will see the value of this and start turning to it as a way to really share and debate information. If they follow your web site’s example, it could be an exciting (and fun!) step forward for science.
Mike (13:17:17) :
So, do you all agree to stop calling AGW a “hoax”? I do not know if that term has been used on this blog, but it certainly gets used a lot.
I would tend to call Inhofe a denier and Lindzen a skeptic.
In terms of debate, one needs to distinguish between scientific debate and public debate. There is no scientific debate on the veracity of natural selection driving evolution, but there is certainly a public debate. There is very little debate amoung professional climatogists the AGW is real and series. Even Lindzen says humans are responcible for about 1/3 of the obversed GW?
Personally, I’m skeptical of Lindzen’s guess.
The question about warming is also moot. Even if there is no warming doesn’t mean AGW is false, and likewise, warming itself does not mean AGW is true. The only thing that matters is whether the sum of our knowledge is sufficent to understand climate.
In cancer research a lot has been learned over the last 50 years. Much more time has been spent in this research than has been spent studying climate. Still, we have no cure. What does that mean? It means we KNOW that we still have more to learn. In climate science you have nothing to measure your knowledge against. You simply have assertions by some climate scientists that they have enough knowledge to make their assertions.
The fact that some people believe these assertions and some people don’t is usually based on many factors. I think experience has caused many people to doubt that our knowledge is sufficient to understand climate. It doesn’t help that many of those making the assertions have been hiding data, massaging data and attempting to control the peer review process.
PS. The real debate in climate science is about sensitivity. It is what determines whether any severe problems are even possible. In that area there is much debate. If you don’t understand this, you have on blindfolds.
Anthony,
It’s my impression that some consider ’sceptic’ to be on par
with the shorthand concepts of “know nothings” and in the
lowest form, “Troglodyte”.
One one side of the debate, ’sceptic’ is a badge of honor,
with centuries of saying “Prove it.”. The other side seems
fixated on depicting the “sceptic” as being willfully ignorant.
Debates alway seem to come with lapel pins and labels.
May we continue to call the trolls “trolls” ?
REPLY: Troll is usually applied to somebody who posts anonymously, and I’ve used the term since it started on early BBS’s and not in climate debate. -A
“Climate Skeptics”…. I don’t believe that ANYONE is skeptical that climate exists!
Speaking of the Guardian, what’s happened to George Monbiot ?
Have you seen his latest piece,
Are we really going to let ourselves be duped into this solar panel rip-off ?
Championing the little guy, who’s being ripped off by big Government !
Decrying the incredible inefficiencies of Solar & Wind power !
Astounding.
Are he & Lord Monckton really just kindred spirits.
Rational discussion is returning to this field of science. Why? Because the truth is winning out, and the proponents of AGW are running scared. Some have crossed the line, and should be prosecuted. The politics are slowly being weaned out, and without this political support, I suspect the hypothesis of AGW and it’s doomsday effects will be proven wrong or have none to minimal impact. Proven cost-effective technology in service or in the design stage, should once again take a front seat, to solve real pollution problems.
Amazing what good can come from just a little leak/hack.
There’s no victory here. There term “climate sceptic” simply doesn’t fit reality. I am most certainly NOT sceptical that climate change occurs naturally. Also, “denier” is a useful term for differentiating hyperpartisan clowns, who pollute serious discussions about natural climate variations. I advocate use of the term and dismiss frivolously-based coercion to reserve use of the term for very narrow contexts (which have absolutely nothing to do with the climate discussion). Others may disagree – no problem with disagreement – it is normal. The term “climate sceptic” is just going to mislead the public into thinking, “What idiots! They think climate is static! They MUST be political hyperpartisan nut-jobs.” We can’t settle for this. “Nonalarmist” makes WAY more sense – it conveys the truth – i.e. “This person simply is not alarmed about climate change” (which includes natural climate change …something we’ll have to keep endlessly pointing out, of course). Having conveyed all this, I will add that I respect the host – (I disagree publicly out of a sense of responsibility).
“Three cheers for democracy, then. But what about faith in the academics’ authority?” – Amy Turner
What? You’re kidding right Amy? Faith?
Belief is thinking something is true or false when you have no evidence for it being so.
Faith is believing something is true or false even when you have tons of evidence that it is not so. With faith you don’t care about evidence since your “faith” will carry you instead of the hard objective reality.
Amy Turner is asking us to rely upon “faith” to trust “in the academics’ authority”? You’ve got to be kidding.
Maybe if Phil Jones and Michael Mann et. al. were forthcoming when asked the first time with their data and program source codes they might have been afforded some respect as a scientist. However, that ship sailed a long time ago by their own decisions taking with them any hope of any “faith” or “respect”. Their bad decisions have lead them to bad scientists.
Furthermore, “faith in authority” is a logical fallacy when it comes to science. It’s just really bad thinking on Amy Turner’s part to appeal to authority. It shows that she doesn’t comprehend the scientific method at all. Science and scientists are supposed to be questioned about their claims, that is how science progresses.
Clearly Amy Turner would rather science be a religion with blind faith in beliefs just based upon the high academic priests pronouncements that it’s true. It’s a sad day for alleged science journalism Amy Turner.
Oops, that should be:
Their bad decisions have lead them to BE bad scientists.
This is a welcome shift in the Guardian stance on AGW, but is I think more designed to damp down some of the impetus of those who have demonstrated the flaws and misdirections of the IPCC/CRU/AGW camp. The Guardian journalists can see that a lot of traction has been gained by the opposition to the AGW belief over the last few months, and that certain major UK media, The Times, and The Telegraph, in particular have been active in exposing the deceit.
The Times and Telegraph both have circulations higher than the Guardian, and a readership with higher educational attainments than their own reader base. I suspect that the Guardian readers have mostly arts or sociology backgrounds, whilst the others have a mix of socio, arts, economic, and of course science backgrounds. The weight of informed opinion is clearly not in favour of the Guardian.
In the past, the Guardian has not held back from using single local weather events to justify AGW. The floods last year in the UK were blamed on AGW, the hurricane Katrina also, and a hot summer in 2003 was also given the weather=climate journalistic spin. Yet in their article, when the Daily Express uses the recent very cold winter to question AGW, they say:
“With due respect to the Express’s scientific rigour, is it appropriate, do you think, to dignify such claptrap as climate change scepticism? ”
So most dangerously, the Guardian are still not aware of their own hypocrisy, nor indeed of their possible culpability in misleading the public with their unquestioning, uncritical, and unjournalistic AGW stance.
The real problem with us “Deniers” is this:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/410397/dilbert_the_knack/
When ever I meet a fellow “Denier”, 90% of the time I ask..”Are you an Engineer”. About the only “engineers” who are AWG cultists (heh, heh, my term for them..call me Dogbert) they say, “Yes, how did you know?”.
Max
Guardian: “they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause …”
On this side of the House, we have a particular view about who believes any old rubbish to suit their cause.
Guardian: “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”
I give you the shaft of the Hockey Stick. This is a well documented claim that the climate had not changed for more than a millenium …. bringing us neatly back to those who will believe any old rubbish.
Good for them.
If the high-profile skeptics would like a chance to reciprocate, then giving coverage (and deploring the phenomenon it descrbes) to this would be a pretty good place to do it: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying
Opps, Charles can you fix the problem?
The real problem with us “Deniers” is this:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/410397/dilbert_the_knack/
When ever I meet a fellow “Denier”, 90% of the time I ask..”Are you an Engineer” they say, “Yes, how did you know?”. About the only “engineers” who are AWG cultists are computer engineers(heh, heh, my term for them..call me Dogbert)
Max
My take is that this is an incremental step, in line with Dr. Curry’s of last week, rather than a sea change.
A sea change would be for the media to start saying “‘alleged’ climate crisis”, and to label AGW promoters as extremists or political supporters of AGW, etc.
A sea change would be for politicians to critically review the claims and methods and procedures of AGW promoters, while the promoters are under oath.
We are not there yet, but things are changing.
The sea may not be changing, but the tide is turning.
“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.”
Very few are genuinely sceptical? Oh please, O-Guardian! There were enough genuinely sceptical scientists (and people in general) BEFORE the Climategate revelations. Now AFTER those revelations I would hope MOST people are sceptical. And if they are not, then it is they who are in denial.
As far as I am concerned “denier” is in the same category as the politically incorrect term for“black” yet It is acceptable for politicians and the media to call me a “denier’ but it is not acceptable for me to use the politically incorrect term for “black” to describe Obama.
Pot met kettle. The hypocrisy is sickening.
I am afraid I agree with Alexander Feht at (11:20:06)
You are dining with the Devil who wishes to have the appearance of occupying the moral high ground, and you are granting that moral high ground to the Guardian in the way you are dealing with them. CAGW has been a fraud knowingly used to manipulate the public for over 35 years. It has done much harm including killing thousands if not millions of children through starvation.
“Using United Nations global poverty statistics as a base, it is now clear that United States and European Union biofuel policies will significantly contribute to the early, avoidable deaths of between 10 and 20 million people in the year 2008 alone…. Two years ago the price of corn was only $2 bushel, but expanding ethanol production has pushed corn prices up to over $6 a bushel today, … In the year 2007, the USA alone turned enough corn, soybeans, and rapeseed into biofuels to satisfy the yearly caloric needs of over 250 million people. The World Bank states that staple food prices have increased by an incredible 80% in the 3 year period from 2005 to 2008, and that 33 nations now face political instability as a result. There have been food riots in at least 20 different countries, even in wealthy Italy.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_christop_080410_the_great_biofuel_fa.htm
Here is the evidence that CAGW was a fraud done for political reasons:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
— in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome
Ask the writers at the Guardian how they feel about contributing to the deaths of thousands of children in their frenzied support of Global Warming. Are they going to apologize to the families of all those children? Are they going to make monetary restitution when time proves CAGW to be the biggest science fraud put over on a gullible public?
I would really like to hear an answer to these questions from the Guardian staff. I think it is about time the media has its feet held to the fire when they contribute to the deaths of millions because of irresponsible reporting.
OK, should global warming “alarmists” will now be called “advocates?”
I expect there will much opposition by those who have called themselves “sceptics” about many other issues because from my observations they mostly support AGW ideas and severely criticize those who don’t. We’ll be accused of trying to camouflage ourselves with *their* label.
the ‘D’ word is only a symptom of a much bigger problem.
read the Guardian’s piece – how many times does it mention ‘climate change’? why doesn’t the article discuss the misuse of the generic ‘climate change’, which should be ‘catastrophic anthopogenic climate change’.
it is not by accident that the generic terms – ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ have been adopted by the entire MSM. their use is unscientific, dishonest, and propagandistic, and has ennabled the MSM to portray skeptics of CAGW as ‘deniers’ of natural processes. skeptics argue over access to data, interpretation of data that is available, degrees of warming, what it means, what should or shouldn’t be done, etc.
ridding news stories of the ‘D’ word means nothing if the MSM continues to use these generic terms.
Sage Journal: What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”
Lorraine Whitmarsh
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
The findings point to important qualitative, as well as quantitative, differences between public understanding of “climate change” and public understanding of “global warming.” Furthermore, the latter term was found to evoke more concern than the former. As discussed in the article, these results have important implications for both researchers and communicators
This version was published on July 1, 2009
http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/401
September 2004: The Social Simulation of the Public Perception
of Weather Events and their Effect upon the
Development of Belief in Anthropogenic
Climate Change
Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, D-
21502, Germany
Simon Shackley, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, University of Manchester, M60 1QD
Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 58
In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf