From an editorial from nature.com, and published in the journal, they seem to think the d-word is proper vernacular.
Volume: 467, Page: 133 Date published: (09 September 2010) DOI: doi:10.1038/467133a
The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.
…
There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research.
…
The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse — a suspicion of elites and expertise.
Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea Party’s leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama’s promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.
==========================================
They say in a sidebar that: “The country’s future crucially depends on education, science and technology.”
I don’t disagree, but we also need to separate science from the global warming ideology that has hijacked it. The current backlash they speak of has in fact been brought about in part by allowing this to happen. I’ll point out though that the sort of idealogy we see in the global warming movement doesn’t seem to pervade other sciences, at least until somebody demands that one of the science organizations embraces or endorses the cause. That’s when the dissent starts. For example:
American Physical Society rejects climate policy plea from 160 physicists
Dissenting members ask APS to put their policy statement on ice due to Climategate
Witness Nature using the word denialism, born of the politically nurtured global warming ideology. If Nature’s editorial staff was not indoctrinated to at least some of that ideology, I wager they’d have used a different word. And they wonder why there is dissent while at the same time they use the word to insult people. I encourage subscribers to call them to task on this use of the word.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Sponsored IT training links:
Looking for useful E20-520 prep resources? Join today for HP2-E28 online training program and pass HP2-T16 exam on first attempt guaranteed.
vigilantfish says:
September 9, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Eric Anderson says:
September 9, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Eric, you are too right (no pun intended) – CAGW climatology is not the only ‘science’ that is this ideological…
Hmmm… Eugenics, pre-WWII, would give CAGW a good run for it’s money for being a very ideological driven “science”.
Hmmm… Eugenics like CAGW was beloved of the progressive elites as it provided a framework for increased control over individual lives.
After all, forced sterilisation is a very deep intervention into someones life. For some background google “Margaret Sanger Racist Eugenics”.
This (Nature using the Denier word) is very sad. I too lean much more to the left than right on most issues, but like Jimbo hold truth (i.e scientific objectivity) much higher than political predilection. And there’s no doubt that climate science has become politicised to such an extent that it has now been inverted / subverted beyond recognition, even in this Orwellian world.
I have always found the alarmists’ use of the ‘d’ word deeply ironic, when it is they who have and continue to deny the solid science (backed by decades of archaeological and anthropological evidence) for the MWP. (Likewise they always seem to look away when it comes to the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan, and the Holocene Optimum, and lets not mention the Vostok and Greenland ice core data which corroborates all these optima and makes complete nonsense of the claim the slight warming of the late 20th Century was ‘unprecedented’, or indeed, a problem.
If it is any consolation, it is not only climate science that has been corrupted beyond repair; the pharmaceutical industry has had effective control over the medical science with regard to the funding, peer-review and publishing of vaccine safety studies for many years, and they also maintain very close links with government in terms of vaccine regulation and marketing. Hence the many severe reactions now being reported by young girls following the HPV (Gardisal & Cervarix) vaccines, which should never have been granted a license. I have not looked at the agri-chemical companies so closely but it seems they also have much too free a hand (and government influence and funding) when it comes to the licensing of pesticides; e.g. ssc’s comment at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7980954/Bee-decline-already-having-dramatic-effect-on-pollination-of-plants.html . The UK Met Office must be high on the list, but perhaps the best example of pure ‘political’ interference in a scientific institution has to be NIST, and their laughable attempt to re-write Newton’s Laws (with extensive use of computer modelling, and guess what – they won’t publish the data or code!) to explain the mysterious and very sudden demise of building 7. As I say, we live in a very Orwellian world, and Nature using the denier word is no longer to be unexpected (doesn’t make it any less offensive though).
Good to see Eisenhower’s 1957 address being mentioned above, an amazingly perceptive speech, how right he was about the dangers presented by the “scientific-technological elite”, not to mention the military industrial complex. (And more evidence that WUWT isn’t just populated by those on the right of the political spectrum!)
Well, Nature has finally dropped its mask and showed itself (or its editor) that politics is their main business and that the left side of the road is the way to go.
Not that we haven’t known that from long ago, but now it is official.
And we thought that science was an important part in the debate!
I admit to not reading the prefacing comments because I needed to vent a bit about the trash that is being written in the name of Science. This editorial has nothing to do with science or its defense. Its a political hit piece – supposedly in the name of science (or junk/sloppy/or weak science).
Science is not defended in the political world with political statements like this. Science is defended by skeptics of the realm who undertake whatever observations and analyses are necessary to disprove someone else’s hypothesis. Apparently that is frowned upon today because the “Climate Science Industry” can’t defend its work with observations and data. This new Industry is so cloistered within its funding parameters that it can’t collect data to prove its “Models”. What a joke! It will get worse in the coming years.
This piece is offensive to real science and should be catalogued.
The article accuses conservatives of being ideologues and some of them indeed are, but deliberately lumping all ‘deniers’ into the conservative camp demonstrates the writers insincerity and leftist bent.
Worst still is that it is published in a science journal, ultimately serving to undermine their own credibility.
Both the left and the right are responsible for many things including statism and bureaucratic ascendancy but I find it even more reprehensible that the left claim to be objective, progressive, humanitarian, scientific etc; when these virtues are merely a front for the hatred of capitalism, religion (except Islam) and its subversion, ultimately having the potential to coerce through these so-called fine principals.
The real issue here is that large bureaucracy and institutionalism has the power to coerce, collude and persuade, and THAT is the problem. The predominately left climate community are guilty of it and the apathetic machine which is corporatocracy is guilty of it. But most of all, government greases the wheels for large conglomerates because they will always side with populism and lucrativeness.
Anu says:
September 9, 2010 at 8:51 pm
………………
REPLY: Ya know, “geronimo” …….. – Anthony
Damn you Anthony, you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard!!!!
Geronimo eh? Absolute classic. (anyone whose been frequenting the sea ice pages will understand the meaning).
I don’t align myself with any political party. So to say it’s all “right wing” is unfounded.
Severian (responding to Owen)
As I read it, I think you missed the point of his post – the “badmouthing” refers to the quoted article using the d-word to describe those questioning AGW dogma.
And I expect the “exacting and elegant experimental work” refers to that performed by none other than our distinguished host and contributors.
As I read it…
🙂
Countering bad science is not remotely the same as being anti-science. Nature is itself responsible for delegitimizing real science through blind political advocacy, ad hominem attacks, and especially editorial censorship of true scientific debate. It is Nature that is racing toward the dustbin of history, not science.
It is sad to see a science publication grovel and pander to the party in power, but when you depend on government handouts you bend which ever way the political wind blows.
Looks like Nature is going or has gone the way of New Scientist. It’s disappointing how the term ‘right wing’ is increasingly being deployed as a catch-all term for unsavoury viewpoints that don’t tow the official line. The semiotics are clear, people who disagree with us are a small step away from being crypto-fascists.
AGW scepticism is driven by honest appraisal of science, it is not a ‘left’ or ‘right’ issue.
R. Shearer says:
September 9, 2010 at 7:26 pm
“Of course, some of my previous beliefs were proven wrong. I used to accept the belief of AGW and I never thought we would have a President as bad as Bush.”
________________________________________________
Boy were you wrong!
You need not look much further than the Texas school board.
Reading many of the comments on the Nature website put a smile on my face. Aim at foot. Fire. Hilarious.
And no significant temperature rise in 12 years. It’s a travesty.
@R. Shearer who said:
“As a scientist, politics had almost nothing to do with me becoming an AGW skeptic except that when I saw G.W. Bush jump on the global warming bandwagon I decided to do more investigation myself.
“Of course, some of my previous beliefs were proven wrong. I used to accept the belief of AGW and I never thought we would have a President as bad as Bush.”
Surprise!
I’m sorry if someone posted this reminder already (no time at the moment to read through everything), but don’t you guys recall the Nature “D-word” editorial from December 2009? It was pretty classic (and quite pathetic):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html.
It used “denialists” 6 times (and “denialist fringe” to boot) as well as other special treats including the “slang for a clever technique” and “contractual restrictions” defenses.
More nuggets: “e-mail theft,” “harassment that denialists inflict,” “paranoid interpretation,” “conspiracy theories,” and of course, “robust.”
Having re-read last year’s rant, I thought it worthy to revisit Nature’s editorial policy about availability of data:
http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/availability.html
Cheers!
Nature should get back to being a journal about scientific issues and stop its political grandstanding. There are many scientists of all political persuasions who are genuinely sceptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming and there should be proper debate over this issue in journals such as Nature and Scientific American.
ddc your not alone we have a prime minister in australia worse then your president
Bush was the brunt of many jokes yet Obama has done nothing different in his term as president. I find the lack of criticism towards him interesting to say the least.
Anu says:
September 9, 2010 at 8:51 pm
REPLY: Ya know, “geronimo” I get rather upset when people accuse me of “missing” things when they themselves don’t understand what’s going on here, especially when you play the roll of anonymous troll. You see there’s a thing called copyright and fair use. Fair use says I can copy a few paragraphs and provide a link, but not the whole article. Your complaint (and subsequent copying of more of the article) therefore is denied.
Read the policy page about changing handles. – Anthony
A google search shows you seem to be confusing me with a “geronimo” that thinks AGW is not happening:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/u-n-climate-chief-resigns/#comment-321849
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/16/the-bbc-may-drop-met-office-for-forecasts/#comment-292254
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/19/bonus-quote-of-the-week-the-new-scientist-rocks-our-world/#comment-434017
etc…
I can assure you, that person is not me.
I post here as Anu, the Sumerian god of the sky (drawing a contrast between the very earliest attempts at Civilization to understand the climate, and the Science we have today). When I first posted, I didn’t know you frowned on “Names” like Anu, Smokey, and Amino Acids in Meteorites.
My main interest at WUWT is the Arctic sea ice summer melt – if you think my opinions, and correct prediction, is “trolling”, then I’ll take my Comments elsewhere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/06/sea-ice-news-21/
REPLY: And you still don’t get it. Other posters did though. Heh. -Anthony
I may not have the greatest grasp on grammar but the differences between your, you’re there, their and they’re is elementary. Just sayin’.
I’ve started calling warmists “Climategate Deniers”. Perhaps we should all give them a taste of their own medicine!
I’ll just say that I believe in stemcell research, embryo research, abortion and evolution. I don’t believe in creationism or the bible.
I do believe in our kids being taught science not bullschitt, and I trust the influence of blogs like WUWT to keep the mainstream media off balance.
Maybe some regulars won’t like me for that, but that’s me. I’m just trying to say it’s impossible to define a *denier*. We come from all walks of life, and for the record, my voting history is left/green, until I challenged them.
SamG says:
September 9, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Bush was the brunt of many jokes yet Obama has done nothing different in his term as president. I find the lack of criticism towards him interesting to say the least.
Oh come now, Obama has done somethings very differently; he has apparently played more rounds of golf, and had more holidays than Bush did in his first year. But when it comes down to it there is very little in terms of difference between Bush/Obama and the Dem/GOP administrations; [snip . . conspiracy theories need proof or endless ping pong starts and this site has plenty of other much more productive debate going on. . mod kab].