UPDATE: Some new data has come to light, see below.
As Bishop Hill and WUWT readers know, there’s been a lot of condemnation of the way John Cook’s Skeptical Science website treated Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. recently when he attempted to engage the website. Shub Niggarath did a good job of summing up the issue (and demonstrating all the strikeouts of Dr. Pielke’s comments) here, which he calls a “dark day in the climate debate”.
As the issue found its way through the blogosphere, the condemnation of the technique became almost universal. Pielke Sr. tried again, but finally resigned himself and gave up trying to communicate. WUWT received some criticism from SkepticalScience as a rebuttal to the issue of “Christy Crocks” and other less than flattering labels applied by the Skeptical Science website to sceptical scientists whom they don’t like. They objected to the category I had for Al Gore, (Al Gore is an idiot) which I created when Mr. Gore on national television claimed the Earth was “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”. I thought the comment was idiotic, and thus deserved that label.
In the dialog with Dr. Pielke this label issue was brought up, and I found out about it when he mentioned it in this post: My Interactions With Skeptical Science – A Failed Attempt (So Far) For Constructive Dialog.
I decided the issue of the Gore label, like Dr. Pielke’s complaint about labels like “Christy Crocks”, was valid, and decided immediately to address the issue. It took me about an hour of work to change every Gore related post to a new category (simply Al Gore) and delete the old one. I then sent an email to Dr. Pielke telling him that I had taken the suggestion by Skeptical Science and Dr. Pielke seriously, and changed the category, with the hope that Skeptical Science would follow the example in turn. You can read my letter here.
Meanwhile Skeptical Science dug it its heels, resisting the change, and Josh decided that it might be time to create a satirical cartoon, about how Skeptical Science’s proprietor, John Cook had painted himself into a corner not only with the labeling issue, but because Bishop Hill had caught Skeptical Science doing some post facto revisionism (months afterwards, logged by the Wayback Machine) making moderators inserted rebuttal comments look better, which in turn made commenters original comments look dumber.
Of course the original commenters had no idea they were being demeaned after the fact since the threads were months old and probably never visited again. The exercise was apparently done for the eyes of search engine landings.
Both WUWT and Bishop Hill carried the cartoon.
I figured, since Mr. Cook makes part of his living as a cartoonist, he’d appreciate the work. While he has since removed the reference to his cartoon work from his current Skeptical Science “About us” page, it does survive on the Wayback Machine from December 2007 like those previous versions of commenter web pages that have been edited. A screencap is below:
The cartoon where he spoofs Mr. Gore is something I can’t show here, due to copyright limitations (there’s a paywall now on Cook’s sev.com.au cartooning website) but it does survive in the Wayback Machine here.
So point is, like me, even Mr. Cook has spoofed Mr. Gore in the past, he’s an easy target, especially when he makes absurd claims like the temperature of the interior of the Earth being millions of degrees.
While we haven’t (to my knowledge) heard from Mr. Cook what he thinks about Josh’s latest bit of cartoon satire, we all have heard plenty from Skeptical Science’s active author/moderator “Dana1981”
While we could go on for ages over what was said, what was rebutted, etc, I’m going to focus on one comment from Dana1981 that piqued my interest due to it being a splendid window of opportunity for us all.
Dana wrote in the WUWT cartoon thread:
dana1981 Submitted on 2011/09/24 at 5:42 pmPlease, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”
Dana probably doesn’t realize the magnitude of the opportunity he opened up with that one comment for his beloved Skeptical Science website, hence this post.
For the record: this was my reply:
REPLY: On this we agree, folks please stop using it. Now Dana, would you agree to stop referring to people here and elsewhere using that other distasteful WWII phrase “deniers”. You’ll get major props if you announce that. – Anthony
Note that this wasn’t the first time I admonished WUWT commenters on the issue,I also said it as a footer note in this thread:
Note to commenters, on some other blogs the Skeptical Science website is referred to as SS.com with the obvious violations of Godwins Law immediately applied. Such responses will be snipped here in this thread should they occur.
Dana is obviously upset about the “SS” abbreviation, due to the immediate connection many people have to the feared and reviled Schutzstaffel in World War II. I understand Dana’s concern first hand, because when I first started my SurfaceStations project, I had a few people abbreviate it as SS.org and I asked them to stop for the same reason. I suspect that like me, when Skeptical Science created the name for their website, they had no thought towards this sort of ugly and unfortunate abbreviation usage.
But this distaste for “SS” as an abbreviated label opens up (or paints a corner if you prefer) another issue for Skeptical Science – their continued serial use of that other ugly and unfortunate WWII phrase “deniers” in the context of “holocaust deniers”. Of course some will try to argue there’s no connection, but we know better, especially since the person who is credited with popularizing the usage, columnist Ellen Goodman, makes a clear unambiguous connection:
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate” on the Wayback Machine here
Skeptical Science authors, moderators, and commenters know that people involved in the climate debate here and elsewhere don’t like the “denier” label any more than Skeptical Science like the “SS” label.
The big difference though becomes clear when you do a site specific Google Search:
A similar search on WUWT for “SS” using the internal WordPress engine search yields two results, Dana’s comment/my response, and another commenter asking about the issue which is fair game. The other handful of “SS” references Dana 1981 were removed from the thread per his request (click to enlarge image):
So, since Dana1981 has not answered my query about the use of the word “denier” on Skeptical Science and since there is such a huge disparity in usages (thousands versus two), I thought this would be a good opportunity to bring the issue forward.
In addition to their own sensitivity over ugly and unfortunate WWII labels, Skeptical Science has two other good reasons to stop using the term “denier”.
1. Their own comments policy page, which you can see here on the Wayback Machine (Feb 18th, 2011 since I can’t find a link anymore from the main page, correct me if I am wrong), emphasis mine:
No ad hominem attacks. Attacking other users or anyone holding a different opinion to you is common in debates but gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words ‘religion’ and ‘conspiracy’ tend to get deleted. Comments using labels like ‘alarmist’ and ‘denier’ are usually skating on thin ice.
Interestingly, the first appearance of the comments policy page (Jan 17, 2010) said this:
No ad hominem attacks. Attacking other users, scientists or anyone holding a different opinion to you is common in debates but gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words ‘alarmist’, ‘religion’ and ‘conspiracy’ are usually skating on thin ice.
So clearly they have moved to address the use of the word “denier” in policy, which seems to have appeared in March 2010, but strangely I can’t find any link to the comments policy page on their main page today that would allow users to know of it. Again correct me if I have missed it.
2. The other good reason is their recent Australian Museum Eureka Prize award (Congratulations by the way to John Cook) which has this to say in their code of conduct policy
Not calling people you disagree with on science issues “deniers” with a broad brush would be consistent with both Skeptical Science’s and The Australian Museum policies on how to treat people. Mr. Cook might even ask the Museum to remove the phrase from their press release (2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prizes Winner Press Release pdf – 1,419 kb) since it clearly violates the Australian Museum’s own written policy:
While he and Dana1981 may not realize it, there’s an excellent opportunity here for Mr. Cook to redeem himself and his Skeptical Science website in the eyes of many.
My “modest proposal” is simply this:
Make a declaration on your website, visible to all, that the use of the word “denier” is just as distasteful as the use of “SS” to abbreviate the website Skeptical Science, and pledge not to allow the use of the word there again. Update your own comments policy and ask the Australian Museum to adhere to their own policy of respect on the treatment of people, and remove it from their press release as well. As Eureka winner, you are now in a unique position to ask for this.
In turn, I’ll publicly ask people not to use “SS” in referring to your website, and to ask that in the future the phrase “AGW proponents” is used to describe what some people call “warmists” and ask the many bloggers and persona’s I know and communicate with to do the same. I’m pretty sure they would be thrilled to return the gesture of goodwill if you act upon this. I’ll bet Josh would even draw a new cartoon for you, one suitable for framing. (Update: Josh agrees, see comments)
You have a unique opportunity to make a positive change in the climate debate Mr. Cook, take the high road, and grab that brass ring. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony
——————–
UPDATE: Tom Curtis in Australia in comments works mightily to defend the use of the phrase “climate denier”. One of his arguments is that the word “denier” has a long period of use, going back to 1532, and of course he makes the claim (as most AGW proponents do) that “we shouldn’t be upset about the phrase” because there (and I’m paraphrasing) “really isn’t much of a connection”. He didn’t accept examples such as the one Ellen Goodman made in 2007 that really propelled the phrase into worldwide consciousness via her syndicated column.
So I thought about this for a bit, how could I demonstrate that the word “denier”, by itself, has strong connotations to the atrocities of WWII? Then I remembered the ngram tool from Google Labs, which tracks word usage over time in books. So I ran the word “denier”, and here is the result:
Note the sharp peak right around WWII and afterwards, as books and stories were written about people who denied the horrible atrocities ever happened. No clearer connection between WWII atrocities denial and the word “denier” by itself could possibly exist. It’s a hockey stick on the uptake.
Curiously, the phrase “climate denier” is flatlined in books, probably because many book editors rightly see it as an offensive term and don’t allow it in the manuscript:
UPDATE2: In comments, Tom Curtis now tries to claim that “holocaust denial” is a recent invention, and thus the peak use of the word “denier” after WWII has no correlation with the war. This updated graph shows otherwise:
As would be expected, the word “Nazi” starts a sharp peak around 1939, and then starts tapering off after the war ends. In parallel, and as the war progresses and ends, the word “denier” starts peaking after the war, as more and more people denied the atrocities. But as we see in the Jewish Virtual Library historical account, “denial” started right after the war.
Paul Rassinier, formerly a “political” prisoner at Buchenwald, was one of the first European writers to come to the defense of the Nazi regime with regard to their “extermination” policy. In 1945, Rassinier was elected as a Socialist member of the French National Assembly, a position which he held for less than two years before resigning for health reasons. Shortly after the war he began reading reports of extermination in Nazi death camps by means of gas chambers and crematoria. His response was, essentially, “I was there and there were no gas chambers.” It should be remembered that he was confined to Buchenwald, the first major concentration camp created by the Hitler regime (1937) and that it was located in Germany. Buchenwald was not primarily a “death camp” and there were no gas chambers there. He was arrested and incarcerated in 1943. By that time the focus of the “Final Solution” had long since shifted to the Generalgouvernement of Poland. Rassinier used his own experience as a basis for denying the existence of gas chambers and mass extermination at other camps. Given his experience and his antisemitism, he embarked upon a writing career which, over the next 30 years, would place him at the center of Holocaust denial. In 1948 he published Le Passage de la Ligne, Crossing the Line, and, in 1950, The Holocaust Story and the Lie of Ulysses. In these early works he attempted to make two main arguments: first, while some atrocities were committed by the Germans, they have been greatly exaggerated and, second, that the Germans were not the perpetrators of these atrocities — the inmates who ran the camps instigated them. In 1964 he published The Drama of European Jewry, a work committed to debunking what he called “the genocide myth.” The major focus of this book was the denial of the gas chambers in the concentration camps, the denial of the widely accepted figure of 6 million Jews exterminated and the discounting of the testimony of the perpetrators following the war. These three have emerged in recent years as central tenets of Holocaust denial.
These books and the reaction to them clearly account for the post war peak in the word “denier” [at least in part, the word denier also is used with nylon stockings which came into vogue during the period – see comment from Verity Jones] . My point is that the peak of the word “denier”, is associated with WWII and the atrocities committed that some people did not believe, and wrote about it. Unless Mr. Curtis wishes to start disputing the Jewish historical account, clearly the peak is related and I find it amusing he is working so hard to distance the word from this association with WWII. Sadly, it is what users of the word do to justify their use of it when using it to describe skeptics, which is the whole point of this post.
==========================================================
Note to commenters and moderators – extra diligence is required on this thread, and tolerance for off topic, rants, or anything else that doesn’t contribute positively to the conversation is low.
Tom Curtis,
“Climate realists” will do nicely, because it is a factual designation. But more importantly, in this age of feelings it allows the labeled to self-designate. You wouldn’t agree that others can use the n-word to label African-Americans, would you? Well, would you??
So from now on, it’s Climate Realists. OK? Thanx.
I dont even know why there is discussion surrounding this. I am an “AGW Skeptic”. Or a “CAGW Skeptic” and thats how I want to be referred to if a grouping is required in discussion.
The number of people who simply dont believe in AGW at all are relatively few and you dont need to “cater” for them. Afterall I would never entertain the idea that I should call AGW proponents “Doomsayers” for example because its extreme and not what AGW proponents are about on the whole.
Smokey, “denier” has never to my knowledge been used in a purely pejorative way in the same way that the N-word has. Search as you may, you will find no examples of people saying “Denier lover” or the equivalent with the intent to insult, they way the N-word was used. Therefore your analogy is inaccurate. Further, as your chosen name implies that your opponents are “Climate realists”, it is not a name you can adopt consistently with a principle that groups should get to choose their own name. Nor would ever so butcher the language as to call the DDR democratic, or you a realist.
TimTheToolMan, this is probably a wasted effort, by why not test your claim to skepticism?
http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com/2011/09/simple-test.html
Or is that claim not one you choose to be skeptical about?
REPLY: Well, when you stack the deck up front by saying “so-called skeptic” what skeptic would want to participate? That’s an immediate “GO AWAY” sign. – Anthony
Anthony: “I tend to think that the strongest reaction to something frightening happens at event time…”
I’m not sure in what sense the Holocaust could be called “frightening” to deniers, who are not being threatened with extermination. Certainly, at the time an atrocity is occurring, people who are threatened with destruction would become frightened and might well engage in denial as a form of self-protection.
And it’s not uncommon for people to express disbelief in things that seem impossible or inexplicable. But that’s not the same sort of denial as a refusal to accept the evidence for something because it conflicts with an established worldview.
We’re talking here about bystanders, not victims, to what had become an historical event. I doubt very much that Holocaust denial is motivated primarily by fear of the event.
“I would expect atrocity denial to follow the same course: discovery, proliferation of the issue, publication of outrage/condemnation, and then a fade of the issue.”
Except that the evidence shows that Holocaust denial didn’t happen that way. Far from fading, denial grew from small beginnings throughout the post-war period, along with its practitioners, and peaked possibly somewhere in the 1990s. Since then its fortunes have waned, but there was certainly no precipitous drop from 1950, as suggested by your ngram.
To make your assertion fly, you would need to show an extensive literature of “books and stories…written about people who denied the horrible atrocities ever happened” in the immediate post-war period. Without that evidence, all you have is a correlation of doubtful value.
Anthony, the test will be entirely fair and above board, and correct answers published for all to see. If you disagree with the answers you can even publish a blog about it. I suspect most so-called AGW :”skeptics” (would you have preferred I use the D word?) will not take the test because they know their “skepticism” is only name deep.
REPLY: No, they won’t take the test because it screams bias in the intro wording. It’s kind of like that test at Greenfyre where he writes much like you do then congratulates himself on the number of days nobody has responded. Like I said, you have a big GO AWAY sign on it, of course you’ll dispute that because you are not capable of recognizing what your own bias does. – Anthony
“why not test your claim to skepticism?”
Are you suggesting that because I’m a “skeptic” that I would automatically agree with what Plimer has claimed? Wow…you really dont understand scepticism. Here’s a clue. Being a skeptic doesn’t in any way mean taking the opposing side.
To answer the question is “I dont know” because I haven’t looked into it yet. If I put the time in to research it then I’d have an actual answer for you along with my own understanding of the uncertainties inherent in the data.
However lets see where you stand.
Is it true that the majority of observed warming since 1950 is directly attributable to anthropogenic CO2?
TimTheToolMan, you have answered only two out of three questions, and those answers duck the issue. If your claim was to be merely agnostic towards AGW, that would not be a problem. As it stands, neither your response, nor your prejudging the nature of the test shows much skepticism.
Tom writes “If your claim was to be merely agnostic towards AGW, that would not be a problem. As it stands, neither your response, nor your prejudging the nature of the test shows much skepticism.”
As I said, you dont actually know what it is to be a skeptic.
Yeah, that was how I took it too–as “a snarky diminutive.” I’ve not seen “warmista” used in a context where warmist political leanings were involved, particularly. Thanks for the analogy to “fashionista.”
I wonder if there are other -ista suffixed words around that would establish that “warmista” is just part of an established set of faint-derogatives, not an analogy to Sandinistas. The latter seems fairly far-fetched. I think there’s a way to google for words with suffixes, using the * wildcard before “ista”.
Aha!–according to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ista :
So “warmista” is just a slightly sneering way of referring to a warmist–i.e., one who follows the principle of, or believes in, warmism (CO2 emissions are threatening the planet).
OTOH, now that some persons on the Other Side have Taken Offense and imputed a nasty motive to its users, I guess we can’t use it anymore, regardless. This is analogous to what’s happened with “denier.”
That’s funny, he didn’t ask one of the commenters on his blog to stop using the acronym SS, even when the comment was responded to by two moderators.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sks-responses-to-pielke-sr-questions.html#63269
I guess he doesn’t care when the reference is on his own blog. Even when John Cook responds.
Tom Curtis says:
“Smokey, ‘denier’ has never to my knowledge been used in a purely pejorative way in the same way that the N-word has. Search as you may, you will find no examples of people saying ‘Denier lover’ or the equivalent with the intent to insult, they way the N-word was used. Therefore your analogy is inaccurate. Further, as your chosen name implies that your opponents are ‘Climate realists’, it is not a name you can adopt consistently with a principle that groups should get to choose their own name. Nor would ever so butcher the language as to call the DDR democratic, or you a realist.”
False rhetoric. The issue is whether groups should have the right to self-designate, or whether haters like you should have the right to officially label them by whatever derogatory term that suits you. But you do not have that right. You recoil from the term “skeptic” because the only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. And of course, you are no skeptic. So you reject that straightforward label, and flounder around for an alternative that satisfies your hatred. But you do not have the right to issue your labels.
Groups have the right to self-identify. Outsiders like you do not have that right because you are not a member of the group. This principle applies across the board. A few decades ago women self-designated by insisting they be referred to as “Ms” rather than “Mrs” or “Miss”, and the world followed suit. So either refer to scientific skeptics as skeptics, or as Climate Realists. Since you are uncomfortable with “skeptic” because it denotes scientific honesty, please use “Climate Realists” from now on. Anything else is derogatory name-calling and identifies you as a hater.
Brendan H says: September 27, 2011 at 10:55 am
Sorry, Brendan … Butz is an American, not Canadian! Ernst Zundel (a former landed immigrant in Canada, but never a citizen) did much to “popularize” Butz’s pseudo-academic tract by including it in his (extensive) catalogue of publications.
It is worth noting that when Deborah Lipstadt published Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory in 1993, she wrote in her preface:
So, I think it can be seen from the above that those who would label their opponents “deniers” (as Goodman urged in 2007) are, as Dennis Prager observed in response:
It can also be seen that it’s not just the label that is being offensively applied, those who use it have also misappropriated Lipstadt’s perfectly legitimate descriptions of – and responses to – the work and words of Holocaust deniers. Such misappropriation seems to be demonstrated by (inter alia – and most currently) the failure of the powers that be from SkS to respond to Anthony’s modest proposal.
Very sorry if my piece of satirical wordplay offended some. In my own country and on other blogs I have frequented it would, I hope, have been appreciated as “a sustained comic polemic”. Perhaps I should have flagged it as such with (sarc)?
In the UK wordplay is recognised for what it is – an attempt at wit and humour rather than the personal attack on himself that Tom Curtis has tried to make of it. I’m afraid you have been taken in by his “misdirection”, mods!
In ENGLISH (but obviously not AMERICAN) sceptic is spelt with a C (do Americans know this?) – hence the whole rationale for my attempt at humour. How true the remark that the UK and USA are “two nations divided by a common language”!
For the same reason that I deprecated the the attempt to introduce the “scoring” or approval rating of posts that Anthony toyed with a while back, I also deprecate the use of “sarc” to alert the humour-challenged that they are crossing an intellectual boundary. It represents a dumbing down – sorry, Anthony! I do expect, perhaps wrongly, a certain level of insight and intelligence in readers here rather than invidious “offense-taking”.
As someone until now unaware of the obviously poisonous local ramifications of KKK culture I simply included this acronym, along with others, as a good example to suit my case about the aggressive connotation of the letter K. So, I must plead ignorant to the impact of substituting k for c on a more highly sensitized US readership. My apologies.
Lastly, how can wordplay and ridicule be out of bounds as a legitimate tool of criticism especially on a thread specifically devoted to the politics and propaganda of the Climate Wars? C’mon, lads, lighten up!
I still love Anthony and Willis! WUWT is my first stop every morning. Keep up the good work!
For those who wish to see my deleted post they can find it here – pigeon-holed under “Humour”!
http://radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=hahaha&thread=1098&page=1
I had no idea use of the K** acronym was such a sore point in the USA. Why? You happily discuss Holocaust denial ad infinitum but a mention of K** gets deleted? C’mon, lads, lighten up and get a sense of proportion!
My deleted spoof, my misunderstood attempt at a sustained comic polemic, was a good example of “two nations divided by a common language”, Anthony.
In ENGLISH sceptic is spelled with a c not a k. Do Americans know this ?
If anyone wishes to view my censored, so-called “rant” they can find it here, pigeon-holed under “humour”, where it belongs, note! http://radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=hahaha&thread=1098&page=1
Never forget ridicule is a legitimate and potent weapon in the armoury of any propaganda war, and particularly in the Climate Wars. Correct me if I am wrong but this thread IS about climate propaganda, isn’t it? Or is it about trying to occupy the moral high ground? Oh, dear, what a forlorn hope that would be, Anthony! Stick to the science is my advice.
= = =
Tom Curtis
You don’t like the term ‘skeptic’ in the ‘candidates’ category, yet that is the most widely n0n-perjorative position and most appropriate name from the perspective of the philosophy of science and the history of science. Skepticism is a well-respected aspect of modern science.
Your list categories and list selections looks like manipulation toward your bias. Your categories and lists might be non-fiction for the denizens of Skeptical Science but at WUWT it is high humor that looks funnier than Josh’s cartoons.
John
Hro001: “Sorry, Brendan … Butz is an American, not Canadian!”
Yes, my bad. Canadians and Americans tend to look and sound the same from a distance, although I suppose Canadians are also technically (North) Americans.
“The deniers’ recent activity has fostered enhanced interest that gives my work unanticipated relevance.”
This comment from Deborah Lipstadt supports my substantive argument that Holocaust denial was a growing phenomenon throughout the post-war period.
“So, I think it can be seen from the above that those who would label their opponents “deniers” (as Goodman urged in 2007) are, as Dennis Prager observed in response:
‘[Equating] those who question or deny global warming with those who question or deny the Holocaust [and ascribing] equally nefarious motives to them.’”
I don’t see where the quote from Deborah Lipstadt supports the claim of moral equivalence. Perhaps you could outline your argument.
John Whitman,
Obviously you and I disagree about the science, and we disagree about which side takes a properly skeptical approach to the evidence as well. What you don’t seem to get is that it is absurd for you to insist that I use a name for you and people of similar beliefs that, in effect, says that you are right. If you give yourself such a name, I will simply not use it, and won’t trouble myself too much of you take offense at the name I do give you because you will have obviously decided that the way to win an argument is through propaganda rather than reason.
Like it or not, calling yourselves “skeptics” has that property. In addition to an ordinary, but descriptively poor meaning where “skeptic” means the same as “doubter”, there is another meaning to “skeptic”. A skeptic by this second meaning is somebody who is not credulous or gullible, but rather, who examines claims carefully taking full account of the evidence, and accords belief no further than that evidence warrants. And like it or not, that is what many of the opponents of “warmists” mean when they call themselves “skeptics”. I have even seen a number of opponents of “warmists” make the straightforward linguistic argument that because they are called “skeptics”, their opponents are not properly skeptical, and therefore are simply credulous and gullible.
Whether or not you are fool enough to make such an argument (which I doubt), by calling yourselves “skeptics” you make that argument by implication. If you are the skeptics, then those that oppose you differ from you in that respect, and hence are not skeptics but rather credulous and gullible (or worse).
Now you may be happy to use such a tendentious label for yourselves. But you are a fool if you expect your opponents to use it as well, so that they refute themselves by the name they give you. You are also a fool to think that, if you insist on tendentious labeling that your opponents will take much trouble to be neutral in their labeling.
You take great trouble to point out just how funny my categorization is supposed to be. Frankly, that just tells me that you just don’t comprehend the issues involved – that you are unable to think outside your personal box in any significant way. That would be a shame because you are at least attempting to engage the issues. If, in the end you fail, it would suggest that any attempt at a mutually agreed classification is doomed to failure
Tom Curtis says:
“What you don’t seem to get is that it is absurd for you to insist that I use a name for you and people of similar beliefs that, in effect, says that you are right. If you give yourself such a name, I will simply not use it, and won’t trouble myself too much of you take offense at the name I do give you…”
So instead of the self-designation of Hispanics, it’s OK if I call them “Spicks” or “Greasers”? And call Chinese “Chinks”? And people like you can call scientific skeptics “Denialists”? And your likely n-word for African-Americans? According to you, if any of those groups take offense, it wouldn’t bother you in the least. Could you be more dispicable?
When this subject came up maybe six months ago, someone asked what those questioning CAGW claims should be called. Anthony said, “You can call us skeptics.” That is the most widely used self-description of those of us questioning the evidence-free claims of catastrophic AGW. Further, we are not asking for a “mutually agreed” label. We are asking that you use our own identifier – whether you like it or not. It’s ours, not yours. The pejorative “Denier” has been proven beyond doubt to intentionally associate scientific skeptics with Holocaust deniers. It is pure unscientific propaganda, deliberately intended to demonize honest scientists. It is dishonest anti-science.
You also say: “A skeptic by this second meaning is somebody who is not credulous or gullible, but rather, who examines claims carefully taking full account of the evidence, and accords belief no further than that evidence warrants.”
That is exactly right. You simply don’t like the fact that most of us carefully examine the CO2=CAGW claims and conclude that there is no credible supporting evidence directly connecting an X rise in CO2 with a Y rise in temperature, and that there is zero evidence of any kind for runaway global warming. At this point catastrophic AGW is simply an unproven conjecture. You also don’t like the universally accepted fact that the only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. It is very telling that the alarmist crowd hides out from debates [which they invariably lose], and that they hide their data, methodologies, metadata and code from skeptical scientists who want to verify their claimed findings. That refusal to cooperate with other scientists was frankly admitted in the Climategate email leak. Climate alarmists ignore the Scientific Method, which requires transparency. They are simply being dishonest.
So you squirm around trying to avoid calling us exactly what we are: skeptics. We are not credulous or gullible – those terms are reserved exclusively for the eco-contingent that swallows Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth hook, line and sinker. I suspect that subset includes you.
Tom Curtis says:
September 28, 2011 at 9:11 am
—————–
Tom Curtis,
Thank you for your considerable reply.
Let me try a go at what I think the about the essense of the logical, heirarchical and historical context you and I are using to name concepts.
You are skeptical of my science and even skeptical that I can be called a skeptic. Strong historical and cultural tradition there.
I am severely critical of your approach at categorizing and listing new names for people who you consider deniers. Strong historical and cultural tradition there.
You can list your ‘candidates’ for a substitute for your word denier. I find absurd, however, that it appears the basis of your selection of candidates is that the new names show the same pejorative implication for the people whom you formerly considered deniers but with the potential Holocaust implication removed. Your intent is just to switch names without any change in the view of such people. I can only smile at that transparent naming shell game involving a pea that is your original view people who do not agree with you climate science. The smile tends to lead to chuckles then laughter. Therefore my humor reference.
Suggestion – If you think I and others are deniers (without the Holocaust implication) then the most logical approach is just keep using ‘denier’ with a simple qualification that excludes possibility of implying the Holocaust. There are many clever people on the blogosphere who could contrive a new term with denier at the root but ruling out Holocaust implications.
Suggestion – I strongly recommend if you want a non-pejorative new word for a reference to people who do not agree with you in the climate science realm then try independent critic or just critic but best is of course skeptic. But I sense that you do not want a term for us that is not pejorative; sigh.
John
1. A use of the “ista” suffix by our side is “carbonista.” It seems obvious to me that this was being used in the “fashionista” sense, like “warmista.”
2. There’s a need for a replacement for “denier,” which is out-of-bounds to some on Our Side (scoffers) because of its Holocaust connotations. My tentative suggestions upthread of “purblind” and “blinkered” aren’t good enough, for the reasons I gave there. So how about “denialist”? (It’s longer and an extra syllable, but that’s a small price to pay.) Or, better, “ostrich.” There–problem solved! (Although it’s a milder term than “denialist.”)
3. There’s a need for equal-weighted pairs of terms for both sides. For informal use how about these, implicitly prefixed by “CAGW” or “climate change” (understood as being a shorthand term for CAGW). The spicier pairs come first, the more neutral ones last:
Hotheads, Wolf-Cryers, Chicken-Littles / Flat-Earthers, Dissimulators, Dissemblers
Alarmists, Warm-mongers / Ostriches, Denialists
Believers (implying “true believers”), Crusaders / Curmudgeons, Cynics
Activists / Refuseniks
Warmists / Naysayers
Advocates / Dissenters (or Disputers or Deviationists or Dissidents or Disbelievers)
Mainstreamers, Consens-istas / Contrarians, Skeptics, Protest-ants, Heretics
Proponents / Critics
Roger Knights,
I regard “denialist” as being every bit as unacceptable as “denier”. It is still a vile pejorative, with ‘denier’ as its root word. I prefer Anthony’s common sense suggestion: “You can call us skeptics.” [“Climate Realists” is OK with me, too, but “skeptic” has caught on, and I doubt that CR would at this point; too many competing suggestions].
Would anyone [except demonizers like Tom Curtis] call Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses by another name, just because they may disagree with the message? Curtis is trying to set the agenda here by assigning his arbitrary rules, which apply only to skeptics, as I made clear in my response to him above. Curtis is a hypocrite who applies one standard to people he hates, and a different standard to everyone else. Dispicable, no?
But “denialist” isn’t directly associated with Holocaust deniers, so the suggestive aura or connotation is 90% lacking. Anyway, my preferred synonym was “ostrich.”
(Note that Lindzen calls himself a denier–and he’s Jewish. If he doesn’t think the word is inherently vile, it isn’t–not necessarily.)
Each side has lots of terms for the other side. In different venues, different terms are preferred or allowable. In best-behavior venues, or when engaging in discussions with the other side, it’s best to avoid inflammatory terms. So, in those venues, fairly neutral terms would be Warmists or Consensus-followers or Mainstreamers for their side, and Contrarians or Dissenters or Critics for ours. “Skeptics” has become the accepted term, and for that reason we ought to go with it, I guess. But actually it’s too mild, because it implies agnosticism or suspended judgment, with a slight dubiousness; but we’re really disbelievers. We’ve made up our minds.
In “home territory” venues it’s OK–or at least it’s unavoidable–for commenters to be disrespectful about the other side and employ nicknames and zingers that express what we really think of The Other Side. We think they’re “making it up,” or are only in it for money, or for dictatorial political power; so you will often find terms like “climester,” “climesci,” “fraudster,” “watermelon,” etc. used here on WUWT. They think we’re “refusing to see” the overwhelming evidence out of perversity (crankiness) or normalcy-bias, or are only in it for the money (pawns of big oil), or for our short-sighted consumer-convenience, or are blinded by our free-market political dogma, or by religiosity (God will take care of the problem).
Such abusive spiciness is an ordinary part of debate about political/social matters. (And literary matters, and musical matters, and artistic matters, etc.) Certainly no ‘side” will refer to the other side by a term with a positive connotation, like “realist.”
But religion (and racial identity) is different, being almost always something that a person inherits, something that he is very sensitive about, and not something (nowadays) that is threatening to others (unlike political and social movements and groups). Our side can’t object to name-calling, because our group is not like a religion. When blocks of people are doing the wrong thing politically or socially for the country or humanity (in their opponents’ eyes), it’s normal to deride them vigorously. There’s nothing wrong with doing so, except when it’s out-of-place for the venue.
(A few informal and disrespectful names have caught on for certain religious groups: Shakers & Quakers (Society of Friends). Methodists and Mormons are informal terms.)
Anthony and many others here believe that “denier” is beyond the pale of discussion anywhere, in any venue, like the N-word. Curtis was mainly trying to demonstrate that there’s no word that “does the work” for his side that “denier” does. (“Ostrich” does, IMO, just about.) His request was for a synonym for his side to use that isn’t “beyond the pale.” He wasn’t trying to get us to rename ourselves by this synonym, or to get neutral parties to refer to us thusly, or to deny us the right to our own moniker among ourselves. So I don’t think it was despicable, or even objectionable.
If his side wants to call us ostriches, let ’em. It’s “climate” (of opinion) progress of a sort. (Up from “denier.”)
John Whitman,
Thankyou for the suggestion of “critic”, which has now been added to the list of candidates.
I find your reference to me as a “demonizer” objectionable. I will point out to you that every suggested name on my list was suggested by an opponent of “warmists” on this page. I would also point out that my list of “candidated terms” includes such terms as “challengers”, “rejectors”, and “dissenters” which, so far as I know, carry no negative connotation at all. Seeing you regard me as a “demonizer”, you can no doubt point out the negative connotation of these words. If you are unable to do so, It is you who is attempting to demonize me rather than I who is attempting to demonize you.
Given that the purpose of the list is that opponents of “warmists” should vote on an acceptable terms which, given sufficient agreement I would henceforth use, the presence of even a few such acceptable terms makes it clear that my purpose here is not to demonize, or “… to demonstrate that there’s no word that “does the work” for his side that “denier” does”, but rather, as I have maintained from the start, to arrive at a mutually acceptable term to replace “denier” in my usage.
Given the steady stream of abuse that has been directed at me for the attempt; and given that there is a very obvious feeling that only tendentious terms like “Skeptic” are considered acceptable by you and many others, I doubt there is any point in my attempt.
Tom, do you agree that many if not most people on both sides think that any one-size-fits-all word for them is unacceptable? Do you agree there are degrees of “demonization” (the concept) from a benign lumping of lots of different people for no particularly good reason, to general insinuations about their competence (rather than specific critiques of what they said), to generalizations about their motivation? If not, do you agree that there are degrees of generalization when characterizing the opponents of AGW? What makes generalization useful? Is it useful to lump people who dispute CAGW (i.e. low sensitivity proponents) with those who dispute AGW (e.g. GHGs don’t cause warming)?
What makes you think that imprecision like the lumping example is a good long term strategy for a public debate? Do you think you can just say “this list of people really all are alike and need to be ignored, so don’t listen to any of them under any circumstances” and that will work long enough to “win”?