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.
Jimbo says:
September 9, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I am sceptical of AGW’s wild claims and I am not right wing. For me it is not about right and left but about getting to the truth.
———————————————————-
Hear, hear!
Mod (Kab) – I am truly shocked that you think that my suggestion that Bush and Obama were both primarily funded by the military industrial complex is a ‘conspiracy theory’. But no big deal.
It is very difficult for believers to give credence to contrary views.
For Nature the CAGW theory has informed their publications for a decade. That they were wrong, or that the science is not, in fact, settled, is a conclusion too horrible to be entertained.
What to do?
The simple minded answer is to say that the whole damned thing is political with the intelligent on the side of CAGW and the dumbos in denial. But, as the facts mount up contra the CAGW position that political position begins to fail.
In the end a cooling climate, increasing ice caps, broken hockey sticks, crappy IPCC research, lower than expected hurricanes and the rest of the evidence will reduce Nature to embarrassed irrelevance.
Science is hard and it is fact driven. Nature’s mindless embrace of CAGW theory will simply sideline it in any serious discussion of the data and the science.
About time.
Jimbo says:
September 9, 2010 at 5:26 pm
………”I am sceptical of AGW’s wild claims and I am not right wing. For me it is not about right and left but about getting to the truth.”………
Exactly correct, I am well to the left of most people I know.
However I am smart enough to know that objective reality is independent of your political standpoint.
At some time in the future the climate will do what the climate does and a great number of people who let politics guide their science will look pretty stupid.
No offence but I don’t understand the attraction to the left. Surely, if you omit what the left has appropriated, i.e. faux-egalitarian principals; then all you are left with is a political ideology that is utterly divorced from human nature and at odds with guiding principles.
I shouldn’t ask because I know this is O.T. but it may help to know that pure capitalism has not been reached as of this day therefor socialism is merely a reaction.
Well, we don’t have Tea Parties here in Britain (except in the literal sense) and, like Bryan above, I’d describe myself as generally fairly left-wing politically and most certainly not a Conservative. But I AM a rationalist and of sceptical mind in all areas of my life, interested in truth and reason and “objective reality” both in science and in politics (a tall order in both cases currently). I certainly don’t fit Nature’s alleged demographic but I can recognise lies, deception and the stench of self-interest when it smacks me in the gob repeatedly. If this fight against irrationality isn’t won we will descend again into medieval mindsets – people like Romm and Hansen are already there.
Shortly after the Obama administration took office, the Department of Homeland Security released a report linking right-wing extremists, like those opposing (increased) federal government control, with domestic terrorism.
Nature and others are linking Climate Change deniers, like those opposing the Obama administration’s plans to regulate carbon (dioxide), with right-wing extremists.
Therefore Climate Change deniers are linked to domestic terrorism.
Antony,
You say:
“I’ll point out though that the sort of idealogy we see in the global warming movement doesn’t seem to pervade other sciences”.
“seem” is the key word here as the GW scam is by no means alone. We have been very lucky so far that a bunch of sceptics have got together and expose the corruption before it has been able to take root and become part of our cultural perception thus allowing vested interests to profit from our collective blindness. This kind of things has in fact already happened and a good example is the “trans-fat genocide”. While there are doubtless implementational difference between countries the ideology has formed our Western cultural perception, a view perhaps best expressed by the phrase “polyunsaturates are good for you”. We are inundated by this propaganda on a daily basis here in the UK. What we are not told is that most polyunsaturates in our diets are actually trans fats, the oils in which they are found having been passed over a hot nickel catalyst at 260 degrees celcius, along with hydrogen when partially or fully hydrogenated. In Europe recent legislation now makes the labelling of hydrogenated vegetable oil content mandatory, but not trans-fat content. This has allowed manufactures to avoid labelling as “hydrogenated” simply by turning off the hydrogen! This of course increases the number of trans isomer bonds and makes such processed oils even more dangerous. This increase in danger was overseen here by the Food Standards Agency who are now actively participating in genocide against the British people. Meanwhile on the medical front line doctors, dieticians and of course the Pharmaceutical companies use deception to encourage their victims to consume trans-fats. For example after being diagnosed with CV disease or diabetes you are given stern lectures about not eating saturated fats and how you should concentrate on eating those excellent polyunsaturates which you can find in sunflower oil and rapeseed oil (canola). These are extremely high in trans-fat content.
In the UK and USA trans-fats are both the single biggest cause of death and profits for the entire medical establishment killing at least 250,000 people a year here in the UK. The symptoms of trans-fatty acid poisoning include obesity, diabetes, CV disease and Alzheimers etc. etc. etc. Google tfx.org for more info.
I have no doubt that most people in the system know not what they do. They are living in a belief system and will never have checked out the abundance of scientific research which tells them they are killing people. What we have here is an established system of profiteering corruption which is now deeply engrained in the Western culture. It is a good parallel to the system of profiteering corruption envisaged by the prime movers of the AGW swindle.
Thank you for your part in tackling this monster before it gains hold and when you are successful might you consider taking on the trans-fat genocide?
JM
I well remember Harold Wilson’s declaration of Labour’s motto of the hour, “The White Hot Technological Revolution”? All starry eyed I voted for it, thinking at last some rational government, but of course like all revolutions: “La révolution dévore ses enfants”
Don’t trust what any of them say.
I’m never really sure what people mean my right-left. I generally call myself a liberal (UK definition). I’d recommend having a go on the http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
It splits left-right into 2 categories socialist-capitalist and authoratarian-anarchist which are scales I can understand. I’ve just completed it again and it agreed from with my views 2 or 3 years ago where I’m a slight left-libertarian (about where they put Gandhi)
The AGW supporters prefer to use the term ‘denier’ as the opposite implies an upholder of the truth – themselves.
Whereas, the opposite of the term ‘sceptic’ is ‘dogmatic’, which could not possibly be themselves, of course.
It is not just Nature which is baffled by people holding views contrary to their own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7993756/Prince-Charles-baffled-by-extraordinary-climate-change-scepticism.html
The last comment is a gem:
“”And I would say to all these sceptics – alright it may be very convenient to believe that somehow all these greenhouse gases we’re pouring into the atmosphere just disappear through holes conveniently into space, it doesn’t work like that.”
This is just part of the last, great political push of the Left to test the high water mark of this phase of societal engineering. It’s sort of like the Battle of Gettysburg where the South tried one final push to win. In this case, journals are deciding which side to support. Today, the UN leadership is in private meetings on how to force climate change as the vehicle to take “the world’s agenda” and “redistribute wealth”. Nature just came down, completely, on the side of power, elitism, control and money.
What will happen now? The bulk of the UN will join with the “non-deniars” and make one big push before Jan 1, 2011 to get the US Congress to jump onboard. It’s critical for them to try since by January, the Congress will become outright hostile to the “non-deniars”. The cresendo, this round, will be the Lame Duck Congress. Just remember, they passed Obamacare at Christmas last year. Don’t party too much this fall-early winter.
I was upset enough with Nature over this putrescent editorial to register and post –
A note to the editors of Nature –
Sadly this editorial is receiving wide and somewhat negative coverage across the internet. This would appear to be due in part due the use of the phrase “Denialism over global warming”. I would like to point out to the editors of Nature that “Denier” is seen as a term of vilification amongst those skeptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. “Anti Science” is also a term viewed as offensive by those CAGW skeptics worried about the supplanting of the traditional scientific method with what is referred to in the popular vernacular as “Post normal science”
As the editors of Nature and it’s readers would no doubt be aware, the unproven hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hinges on water vapour feedback from minor CO2 radiative forcing. Research that has been based on empirical evidence rather than computer modeling has indicated that any such feedback may be neutral to negative. It is looking increasingly likely that the catastrophic CO2 warming hypothesis is incorrect.
I would like to advise the editors of Nature to distance themselves from the use of offensive terms with regard to the CAGW debate. Due to the significant expenditure on what is increasingly looking like a non problem, it is likely that a major blame game is about to begin. We do not live in the age of Big Brother. Rather, due to the internet we live in the age of Little brother, and Little Brother is watching and recording. When looking for those to punish for what may be the world’s largest hoax, the vengeful will only have to search the internet for terms such as “denier”, “denialisim”, “contrarian” and “big oil shill” to identify the guilty. As I indicated before – Little Brother is watching and recording. Be a little more careful 🙂
I will be fascinated to see if this passes moderation at Nature or any of it sinks in, but no harm in trying 🙂
They are trying to redefine science as their religion. To those without a scientific background they are the equivalent of scientific priests. Their problem eventually is that applied science works – and is seen to undisputably work, and the more they protest the more the applied scientists get dragged into the argument. People respect science because of the achievements of modern technology, not articles in nature. Under normal conditions this kind of science would be of no interest to me – it is too inprecise with too few real world applications (because of the imprecision). How many farmers would base next years crop based on this stuff? If that was their goal maybe it could eventually attain a stronger claim.
“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.”
Oh, tell that to the environmental left who are against oil, petro-chemicals, E-numbers, genetically modified foods, nuclear power, fertiser, etc. All stuff we rely on otherwise we would return to the caves and slaughter each other in the name of tree gods and objects in the sky seen and unseen.
And the leftwing never seem to have a problem with the spread of anti-science Islamists because they need aggrieved immigrants to vote for leftwing parties.
“science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”
That sound like Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore’s words, not Limbaugh’s.
This is the bit I find both hilarious and tragic.
“Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations …”
“test this assertion by running their simulations” ?!?!?!?!
These people really seem to believe whatever the computer says.
Further to my previous post, I note that Nature has indeed published my vitriolic and somewhat provocative comment. As a consequence I now find that I must dial my cynicism down from 11.
peakbear says:
September 10, 2010 at 2:10 am
I took that test and ended up almost exactly dead centre.
I think the correct spelling would be “cynicism”. A super moderator would be able to sort that out? yes? Maybe??
[maybe 😉 …. bl57~mod]
It is understandable that there would be an anti-scientist notion in the land; that should not be confused with an anti-science streak. Indeed, the former comes about because those who would wrap themselves in the prestigious mantel of “science” have in too many instances revealed themselves as self-interested charlatans, rather than as people to whom science – real science – matters.
This wide ranging attack on anyone who might conceiveably question the view of the politically motivated wanna rulers of the world is shameful.
Let us be clear, scientists are first and foremost people, individuals who share in all of the vices and virtues of the rest of humanity. They are not, just because they work in the field of science, somehow magically superior, even if they are intellectually able. Indeed from their recent conduct they are worse than the average in some respects because they have openly used their position and authority to deride equally emininent and articulate individuals who openly question from the standpoint of fact and understanding.
If we are to progress as a species then we must base our future on reasoning. That is, or should be the forte of the true scientist, political leader or commercial executive. Shutting someone up simply because they are contradicting your cherished notions is little more than childish. It gets us nowhere.
In fact by lumping together and dismissing all those concerned enough to question the various behaviours of ruling elites and authorities in such a way as to imply they are nothing more than morons simply exposes the weakness of this article. It is entirely rational to look at those at the head of affairs, be they commercial, political or scientific, and evaluate how and what they are doing. The majority of ordinary folk may struggle to understand the details, but most are savvy enough to recognise a stitch up when they see it.
The day to day realities suggest that there are those determined to use these issues in a way that cannot be conducive to a decent prosperous future. The future I want for my sons. I am looking for the solutions we are able to devise if we put our minds to it. I certainly do not need to be pointlessly labelled by some obnoxious phrase issued by an ideological zealot determined to reduce us all to penury.
peakbear says: September 10, 2010 at 2:10 am
I’m never really sure what people mean my right-left. I generally call myself a liberal (UK definition). I’d recommend having a go on the http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Interesting test. Although some of the questions are like polls, ie. worded inappropriately, I’m probably what it indicates – a slightly economic right wing libertarian. I don’t see anarchist anywhere though ;~D.
Economic Left/Right: 2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28
Opps. My previous post was in response to:
peakbear says: September 10, 2010 at 2:10 am
I’m never really sure what people mean my right-left. I generally call myself a liberal (UK definition). I’d recommend having a go on the http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
[added it to the previous post for you… bl57~mod]
Konrad says: September 10, 2010 at 3:35 am
I was upset enough with Nature over this putrescent editorial to register and post.
Konrad says:
September 10, 2010 at 4:08 am
Further to my previous post, I note that Nature has indeed published my vitriolic and somewhat provocative comment. As a consequence I now find that I must dial my cynicism down from 11.
Well played!
Lucy Skywalker says:
September 9, 2010 at 5:34 pm
“They have everything upside-down, accusing others of their own sins.”
They could repent by acknowledging that the prospects of global cooling are far more serious than global warming.