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.
“[I’ve always been curious about Attenborough – avoiding the issue and then recently attaching his name to another issue instead (population)]”
I was also rather bemused by Attenborough’s series on population, because although he doesnt actually mention AGW, he discusses the doubling of the size of humankind since the early 60s, the exponential increase in food production and pressure on water resources since 1970.
He then talks about the effect of the projected 50% increase in population over the next 40 years and how this will impact on the worlds resources.
The impression one gets is that it is the truely unprecedented number of people wandering the face of this planet and the demands that places on it that is the cause of the symptoms ascribed to AGW, not CO2 emissions etc.
Interestingly, in an earlier Attenborough series “The First Eden- Man and the Mediterrean world” he discuses the rise of Classical civilisation and the colonisation of the Mediterrean basin by inumerable Greek cities, supported by a agricultural hinterland- anf their subsequent decline due to the land being over exploited and deforested, the soil being washed into the sea, silting up once prosperous harbours and the cities abandoned and totally forgotten, leaving the area easy prey for the advance of Islam in the 7th century.
Getting back to his recent series on population, Ithink one would forgiven if this was in reality a sideways swipe at the AGW religion, and one which the fluffy politically correct would find uncomfortable with, that the climate change which they see everywhere is in fact really the consequence of the doubling of the population in the developing world.
The problem is, theres simply too many of us.
If the Guardian and other MSM types can use the language ‘alarmist’ vs ‘skeptic’, that sounds balanced.
The alarm is either valid or not.
If there is nothing to be alarmed about, than we can move on and get the details right for the record later on.
If there is something to be alarmed about, then let those who think so make their case openly and respectfully, and convince those who are now skeptical … and vice versa.
But balanced and non-pejorative labels are needed from the start if there is to be any useful dialog. Until neither side is presumed to be correct by the media no fair discussion can occur in their reporting.
“Flat earth belief is founded in scripture and embraced with a vengeance by the Church (yet deny it to this day.)”
And yet, the spheriodal shape of the Earth (and even its diameter to an accuracy of 30 miles)was known and proven in Pagan times.
John Galt (12:49:16) :
The climate does change, which makes climate change an overblown half-truthed non-issue. Perfect for political storms.
It looks as bad as a car that has been painted with a can of Krylon.
And for those who haven’t noticed, the commenter at the Guardian…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/climate-change-scepticism-style-guide?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:2e5894e5-6042-4794-8c07-be63d41e4642
…with the greatest number of recommendations is Lubos Motl, a skeptic, a point he is very clear about.
It is unfortunate that the paper still has those who cling to old notions :
“On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence.”
This to me is the very heart of the matter. Interpreting and wanting to discuss the ‘evidence’ is not the same as being in denial of a ‘truth’. It is about where you draw the line between ‘truth’ and ‘interpretation’. If something is not a ‘truth’ then you cannot be accused of being in denial.
A small circulatiob rag that is sinking fast.
I don’t care what they say or think.
This is a war to get at the truth, I
Do not fratenise with the enemy. Sorry old chap.
I never much minded the pejorative ‘denier’ because it was pretty mild compared to the rest of the stuff I’ve been called.
==================
This is a storm in a tea cup. I have worn the badge of ‘Global Warming/Climate Change Denier’ with pride, more now than ever.
well now – the gruniad is going to stop insulting rational skeptical scientists and people who understand science ?
The next thing you’ll be telling me is that the socialists who work for the gruniad will propose the lowering of taxes; the shrinking of government and that they will start campaigning for the reduction of the nanny state.
They speak with forked tongue; they will be sniggering in their oh so superior ‘we know best’ attitude of total delusion.
They have no interest in truth – they never have; else they would be condemning the entire corrupt 3rd world instead of supporting those anti-democrat anti-western governments who seem to wish for nothing but the end of the west.
No I am not convinced by them; I suspect they will type skeptic with the same hate and disdain with which they previously typed denier.
I however will continue to attempt to avoid falling into their trap of meaningless name calling.
Medieval Catholic Christian proof of the existance of God-
“God must exist, because if he didnt, those who prey to him would be wasting their time”
Does anyone else see the inane childishness of what passes for logic in this statement reflected in some of rhetoric churned out as “evidence” for the existance of AGW?
In fact if anyone wants to call me ‘A IPCC Denier’, feel free.
Its a circular argument for simpletons, which assumes its own conclusion (ie the existance of God/AGW) is acceptable as supporting evidence for itself.
@Mark, Edinburgh (11:20:07) :
Re, Censoring on CiF.
Yes – on Monbiot’s column today asked him whether he had ever responded to Peter Taylor’s (author of the excellent “Chill”) request to debate AGW with him. This was deleted. The Guardian’s line on AGW is, regardless of their decision to stop using a profoundly abusive term for those who do not toe their party line, is that it is a fact, and cannot be denied or doubted in any way.
Piss poor, frankly, piss poor.
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
“He went on to describe his disbelief at the blogosphere’s vitriol and tendency to overreact to trivia and concluded that “there is something rotten in the internet culture”.”
There are trolls who, having nothing of substance to offer, resort to hurling insults. “Insults is all they got”.
On usenet it is customary to use kill files to filter out known trolls.
My advice is forget them. It’s not like they are going to convince anybody that they have anything to offer or that the target of their insults is some how lessened. Kill file them and remember the usenet adage, “Don’t feed the trolls”.
Mike Ramsey
The use of the word, denier, is more than disgraceful and should not be used in such a trivial manner. I will note that the editor is right when he says that some skeptics are in denial. The point he misses is that many AGW advocates are in denial, too.
Thanks for your keeping WUWT discussions on a more civil level.
Actually, it was an interview by David Attenborough quite a few years ago that first made me question my skeptic attitude towards AGW: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/attenborough-climate-change-is-the-major-challenge-facing-the-world-479459.html
The persecution of heresy has always been a sign of the admition of weakness of the orthodox position.
@Carbon Dioxide.
> anf their subsequent decline due to the land being over exploited and deforested, the soil being washed into the sea, silting up once prosperous harbours and the cities abandoned and totally forgotten, leaving the area easy prey for the advance of Islam in the 7th century.
The reason that cities were abandoned, and much of the Byzantine Empire fell easily to Islam, was not deforestation or overpopulation or falling agricultural production per person.
The real reason: The population was shrinking. Fast. Because of an unprecedented epidemic of disease – worse than the 14th Century’s Black Death.
This was known as the Plague of Justinian, and was form of bubonic plague (spread by fleas on rats). It started in 541, and there new outbreaks continued periodically until 700. It probably killed 50%, perhaps 60% of the population of Europe, and probably an even higher percentage of the Byzantine population.
@Carbon Dioxide
The reason that much of the Byzantine Empire fell to Islam, was not over-population, deforestation, resource depletion or anything like that.
The reason was about than half the population dropped dead within a few short years from an outbreak of epidemic disease.
It was called the plague of Justinian, and began in 541. Outbreaks continued until 700. It wiped out more than half the population of Europe.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
I distrust the Guardian completely, not only for their stance on AGW but also for their shameless and agenda-driven censorship of their Comment Is Free (sic, ha!), that it will take a lot more than an editorial meeting to convince me. They’re very nervous with an election coming up and a hostile Tory party hull-up in the offing. They know they need to be careful about who they upset over the next few months. We need deeds not words from them.
I’m with these guys:
@kwik (13:06:36) :
“stephen richards (11:26:02) :
“I am not inclined to forgive and forget the past activities of the Grauniad. They knew all along what they were doing. Their derisive remarks against well qualified scientists, many times more knowledgeable than them, were always unacceptable and against all principles of good, impartial journalism.”
HEAR! HEAR!”
I seem to recall who started the name calling, is Al Gore going to buy in?
But what is now needed is real science.
Mr Anthony Watts
I have to strongly object to your line of argument. Mr Mosher and you, in recent times, have pushed the idea that there is much common ground between the scientific intelligentsia in the anthropogenic warming camp and the other side – for which the shorthand ‘denier’, unfortunately or otherwise, has been employed. And therefore the pejorative term ‘denier’ is unpleasant and what not and comes in the way of building bridges across whatever differences there might exist between the two sides.
The same idea has been advanced by Dr J Curry in a different context, to which Mr Eschenbach took exception to.
Your Guardian letter also contains another note of reconciliation when it states:
“…many who simply want the science to be right and reasonable solutions enacted would be a watershed event in mending fences.”
I don’t presume to tell you the history of the idea of anthropogenic warming. and about how it came packaged with full-blown certainty from the very first day it reared its head. The study of climate has its concurrent birth with this idea, or at least took off in a substantial manner hand-in-hand with the idea. Every penny spent on climate research, every dime sunk in this effort has the tainted handshake of global warming theory to date. With very few exceptions. Does it mean that the scientists involved in individual papers and projects are dishonest? Hardly. But the endeavor of the study of climate change, as many sciences in their infancy are, is still a pseudoscience.
This endeavor therefore does not deserve, or require reconciliation. I am sure you are aware of the trillions lined up to be invested in ‘alternative energy’, ‘renewables’, ‘clean energy’ and the like under the pretext of the hockey stick. Those investing in this area or those hoping to deprive the hard-earned wages of citizens around the world – the blood and sweat, in these hare-brained schemes – are biding time and waiting for the tide of skepticism to recede. The very skepticism that broke the handle and the blade of the hockey stick.
It would be a monstrous error at this point to conclude that any skeptic requires recognition of any kind from the advocates of anthropogenic alarmist warming or their apologists.
Global warming theory does not have a science dimension alone. To characterize it as a Jones vs McIntyre saga would miss the point completely. Do not call us deniers? What next? “Hey, how come you didn’t send me a e-card on Al Gore Day?”
The warmers are responsible for calling their opposition ‘deniers’. Let them live and die with its usage. It damages their cause every time they use it.
What “reasonable solutions” are we talking about here, Mr Anthony? Wind and solar power? Cap-and-cap? Artificial trees?
There are no solutions to the global warming problem. Let’s not pretend
Regards
Anand
REPLY: Object all you want, I don’t much care about anonymous opinion. But I do think you read too much into one line, by “reasonable solutions” I embrace efforts to reduce all airborne pollution, not just targeted ones. Efforts to reduce soot will also reduce NOx, CO2, CO, O3 and others. We shouldn’t focus exclusively on CO2 IMHO. Witness improved air in California’s big cities. I also embrace energy efficiency, which has similar benefits. – Anthony
Mike Ramsey (16:22:08) : ……”My advice is forget them. It’s not like they are going to convince anybody that they have anything to offer or that the target of their insults is some how lessened…..”
Agreed, I guess, in some social circles, insults simply don’t happen. I’ve never been in one of those. If some troll, or person in front of me for that matter, hurls an insult at me that has no substance, then I know I’m effectively articulating my argument. It’s basically saying, “while I can’t argue with you on the facts, I’ve got nothing to counter with other than, ‘you suck’. I think sometimes people over react to the provocateurs and take personal something said in a very impersonal venue.
That being said, threatening someones children (an example cited) is way over the top, and I truly hope the law has dealt with that person in the most severe way possible.
Want a good laugh? Scroll up and count how many times the word “warmer” is used to describe someone pro-AGW.
If I’m a “warmer”, does that make you a “non-warmer”? That sounds suspciously like someone that doesn’t believe the Earth has warmed the last 100+ years…
It’s ridiculous to see a an article like this, on a website that does nothing except actively foster the vitriole and ignorant mean-spiritedness already polluting the science community.