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.
The Guardian was sponsored, leading up to Copenhagen by Shell Oil, E.ON coal, and nunerous other companies to promote carbon trading. They are still doing it, even though the adverts are gone.
They don’t believe what they are writing, they are being paid.
It’s a good and welcome start though their environmental editor’s pro-AGW stance is evident from the comment, “On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence.” The only thing you can deny is that which is irrefutably true and the evidence presented to-date leaves too many questions unanswered or wrongly answered to say CAGW is irrefutable.
Bishop Hill posted some curious notes about a meeting of press and others at Oxford Uni last Friday. Dunno the status of these notes (verbatum? quotable?) but there are some interesting insights into the views of journalists:
DA of the guardian:
I used to think sceptics were bad and mad but now the bad people (lobbyists for fossil fuel industries) had gone, leaving only the mad.
DA: The meaning of sceptic is very specific. It’s not taxi drivers or people who don’t want to pay higher electricity bills. It’s someone who knows better and takes a contrary view for pathological reasons. No journalists believe that climate science was undermined by the emails.
DA: We can no longer call people deniers. We need a new term. Some people have suggested “climate creationists”.
BJ of the Sun
We need to present the sceptical [point of view]. Last year we just printed press releases on AGW if they came from people with the right credentials; that won’t do any longer.
FH of Financial times:
A short-term disaster is needed to guarantee coverage as people aren’t good at processing information about there being no ice at the poles in 30 years. Or get David Attenborough as the front man because everyone trusts him.
[I’ve always been curious about Attenborough – avoiding the issue and then recently attaching his name to another issue instead (population)]
If you read the article at the end they state
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/climate-change-scepticism-style-guide
“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). A final quotation, this time from George Jean Nathan: “The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of scepticism.” Let’s hope no one’s burned down the forest to build a motorway or drill for oil.”
Some may have noticed that I have not commented much for the past three months. This is for the exact reasons Anthony eludes too above. (Quitting smoking has had more than a little to do with it as well)
Enough slander. Time to get back to sound methods. I too am encouraged by the Guardians tone.
A hoax is an intentional attempt to deceive or defraud (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hoax). For most AGW supporters, that certainly is not the case. People are generally misusing the term when the refer to AGW as a hoax or fraud.
But the sincerity of the climate scientists and non-scientists supported AGW is not really the issue. The veracity of the claims is what is important.
For instance, what is the factual basis for the claims that recent warming is unprecedented? Is the claim unequivocal or supported by the preponderance of the evidence?
It is, but only if you out-of-hand throw out the mass of evidence that indicates otherwise.
Anthony,
The current global warming supporters/protagonists do not stop at just it is warmer, and it is, to a large extent, because of humans. They also go on to expound on unproven theories about what it’s effect will be on the people and the other living things ( crops, polar bears, etc, etc ).
re J.Peden (13:41:41) :
I’ve long called it “Sceance”
cheers
brent
To put it bluntly, in the current frame of reference, I have no problem with being called an AGW denier. I wear it as a badge of honour!
I am not interested in the tortological twaddle that comes from ‘the other side’, nor in their concessions at this late stage in the collapse of their fraudulent belief system.
They do not owe me an apology for calling me a denier, they owe me an apology for being wrong from the outset…
As far as I am concerned the AGW believers are the deniers not me!
“I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can’t think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause … We badly need a new term for general use.”
How about calling them ‘mistaken, IMO.’ The only reason that won’t work for this proud fellow is that he wants a term that allows him to ascribe motivations — “they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause” — of which in most or all cases he has no actual personal knowledge. That’s the rub Mr. Marsh if you are listening to us. What users of this term are after in the first place is an insulting term to characterize those who disagree as tendentious enemies of their own righteous cause. It is self-righteous disrespect for disagreement.
It was the least the Guardian could do. Just 6 months ago sceptics were declared deniers, believers of the flat earth etc.
Nonetheless I believe one should give someone a chance to retreat.
“berniel (14:51:56) :
[…]
[I’ve always been curious about Attenborough – avoiding the issue and then recently attaching his name to another issue instead (population)”
Don’t know about the opinion Attenborough has, but he has been used for an AGW film by the BBC where some apprentice scientist impersonator youngster shows him, i don’t know, some hockey stick shaped graph printed in huge size on the floor and a befuddled Attenborough goes along that graph that shows a dramatical and possibly catastrophic upswing… Maybe he had to do that given the employer. You find the snippet on Youtube.
“The Truth About Global Warming”
”
[I’ve always been curious about Attenborough – avoiding the issue and then recently attaching his name to another issue instead (population)]
”
Indeed.
He saw what happened to David Bellamy, who used to work at the BBC, where he still does and presumably still wants to.
I use the phrase AGW believer.
Accurate,neutral and easy to understand.
Climate skeptics? What – skeptical there is a climate? The funny thing is how this’ll probably also re-highlight that earlier, fatuous, intellectual sleight of hand involved with the consensus building style change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’.
But i they start up with creationists instead, they’ll have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt they are truly malignant wankers.
“On that note let me say that we could all (and that includes me) benefit from the dialing back of the use of labels”
Ok. I sometimes labeled AGWer as ‘pushers’ since they often seemed to be pushing it on kids while they themselves did hertical things such as drive big cars.
I didn’t see anyone else use the term. But I provide it here to make sure no one else uses it during this armistice. ( Also in case they need to use it after armistice )
By objecting to the labels ‘denier’ and ‘denialist’ you allow certain elements (who actually do deny that the atmosphere isn’t warming and/or that there hasn’t been an increase of CO2 and/or that human emissions of GHGs cannot have any influence on the atmosphere’s temperatures) to hide behind the larger group of so-called skeptics. The rise of these elements has further been made possible by an ongoing PR campaign to discredit AGW theory and climate science in general in order to delay action on AGW and maintain the status quo for financial and/or ideological reasons. This PR campaign is more difficult to discern if it can be hidden under the guise of skepticism.
So there has to be a subdivision in the term ‘skeptic’ into two categories: genuine skeptics and … . What would you suggest, Mr Watts? Inactivists, delayers, pseudo-skeptics, climate creationists?
Likewise, there has to be a subdivision on the other side into warmers and alarmists, in my opinion. The former being scientists and people who are genuinely worried about the possibility of AGW becoming a serious impediment to society and economy, the latter being enviro’s who scream the end is nigh and polar cities should be created to save the chosen few.
So in my terminology, you have a spectrum of alarmists and warmers on one side, and lukewarmers (skeptic of catastrophic warming any time soon) and denialists (skeptic of whatever threatens their world view) on the other. I believe it would be a good thing if everyone would honestly say to what category he or she belongs (especially the bloggers who have an influence on public perception) in order to increase transparency.
For the record, I myself am an alarmist in many ways. 🙂
Sean Peake (11:18:55) :
Ian E: Quite right, though I’d rather be called a flat earther than be flat headed (or with a low sloping forehead at minimum) like the many rabid politicians. The former is kind of quaint and endearing, the latter, well.. says it all.
There exists in this world a virtual cataclysm of cleverness disguised as plain language. However, like any code or encryption – once deciphered it provides endless illumination about its creators.
Flat earth belief is founded in scripture and embraced with a vengeance by the Church (yet deny it to this day.) One of its more elegant spokesmen Cosmas Indicopleustes, claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch. In his famous “Topographia Christiana,” Cosmas described it thus:
“We say therefore with Isaiah that the heaven embracing the universe is a vault, with Job that it is joined to the earth, and with Moses that the length of the earth is greater than its breadth.”
Flat headed conservators find their origins in the pulpit where they confound their cleverness with an absence of clothing.
It’s nice to see they’re actually considering counting people skeptical recent climate “science” part of the human race again, but obviously they’ve a long, long way to go.
“On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence.”
This is the problem. Exactly, what (insert any/multiple swear words) evidence is he talking about? The consensus certainty of our increasing temps? Wait, no, it’s the increase in the amount and force of the hurricanes. Or the “evidence” that we’re all going to drown when the Arctic will certainly melt? Maybe it is the evident Himalayan glacial melt. I fear, they are giving skeptics some ink, but they’re not even reading the material they’re printing.
Here’s my comment to Mr Marsh of the Guardian:
Dear Mr Marsh,
I have concerns about your conclusions:
“Rather than opening itself to the charge of denigrating people for their beliefs, a fair newspaper should always try to address what it is that people are sceptical about or deny.”
In the climate debate, I’d be suggesting that we should be focussing on the science. It’s not about belief, its about science, and the climategate emails showed that correct scientific method was not followed. This has required faith, or belief, since the science is not replicable. Steve Mcintyre tried to replicate Phil Jones’s work but couldn’t, and was not given access to the raw data or code, once he expressed concern.
• The term sceptics covers those who argue that climate change is exaggerated, or not caused by human activity.
How about “sceptics” are those who want to see the evidence, before advocating for a particular point?
• 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’m a died-in-the-wool greenie, always have been, and I have seen evidence that the climate is changing, but even Phil Jones has agreed that the world’s average temperature has cooled over the last few years. The world IS currently NOT warming. I’d also suggest that you should check the evidence on the butterflies. I couldn’t find any, but did see that it’s range has generally increased considerably throughout the UK in the 20th century. See here. If they have flown north the last couple of years, how do you know that its global warming causing them to do so? Does this make me a denier?
Calling anyone names is silly and pointless. The climate debate should be about science and evidence. Names add nothing to the debate.
Should point out also that the guardian is the propaganda rag aimed at young adults ( clue in the name ) , and so is jealously guarded. the AGW movement is out to capture young people’s minds more than the old peoples.
Like others have said, I don’t expect there to be any real progress with these people, they’re only doing this denier – skeptic retraction PR stunt so as to look. They’ve no intention of getting at the truth.
One word from one paper. Not so much a “sea change” as a “pond change”.
“On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence.”
I hear that a lot, but that really needs clarification. Which evidence, and which people? Almost to a one, skeptics I’ve come across agree that the world seems to be warming about one degree per century since the LIA. After that there isn’t much to ‘deny’. Do they mean doubt about temperature records? Doubt about temperature reconstructions? Belief that the MWP happened? Belief that the IPCC acted as an advocacy group? Doubt about the predicted magnitude of forcings based on the increase of temp due to CO2? Maybe its worse than that and I just don’t know of enough wacko skeptic blogs..?
Ideally I would like to see casual statements like that become a bit more specific. If they mean the fringe, it isn’t news (since BBSs the internet has had trolls, nothing to see). If they mean the majority of content (hit wise) then it is an issue.
I don’t worry about the non scientific fringes of people who are worried about AGW, or even the advocacy groups so much (WWF, Greenpeace). It is the mainstream scientists (real climate, emails) that are acting very unscientific in both the science and the attitude towards science. On the flip side, the mainstream skeptics and skeptic blogs tend to be very open, explain methodologies, supply data, post code, acknowledge and retract errors…
If you have another Enron (which imo we have here), its fine to tone down the passion — but its very hard to meet them halfway on the facts.
berniel (14:51:56) :
(…)
DA: The meaning of sceptic is very specific. It’s not taxi drivers or people who don’t want to pay higher electricity bills. It’s someone who knows better and takes a contrary view for pathological reasons. No journalists believe that climate science was undermined by the emails.
————
Reply: “pathological reasons”? He actually said that? The reason no journalists believe that climate science was undermined by the emails is simple–anything you see can be ascribed to their version of “climate science”. You wait and see; the next Ice Age will be considered the product of “climate science” and all of you people that contributed to the CO2 level will be terminated. However, these self-righteous journalists have been completely scooped by bloggers on the Internet. That realization has really gotta hurt! (Booker is a “journalist” and he understands what the emails said.)
DA: We can no longer call people deniers. We need a new term. Some people have suggested “climate creationists”.
————-
Reply: I still prefer the term “climate realist”. It is the AGWers who are turning out to be the “creationists” (something out of nothing).
BJ of the Sun
We need to present the sceptical [point of view]. Last year we just printed press releases on AGW if they came from people with the right credentials; that won’t do any longer.
————-
Reply: Yup. “right credentials” now means “wrong science”. Who here would even consider buying a used car from any of these “credentialed climate scientists”?
I really like Dr. Richard Lindzen’s position – he says that to the extent possible, he is a denier, not skeptic. Using the the term skeptic implies that the warmists have presented a logical and reasonable case for AGW, but that he has reservations about certain aspects. That’s not the case – they are wrong, and he denies any validity to their arguments.
His explaination is at the 6:00 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VYbJsaA0Fo
Regardless of what Anthony and the Guardian think – please don’t call ME a skeptic, to the extent possible, i’m a denier.