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.
REPLY: That’s OK, but let’s wait and see what happens before we pass any final judgements. Always give your opponent an option. – Anthony
——————-
Anthony,
You have a level of respect from me that cannot be reduced by my disagreement with you about a non-open and revisionist element of the blogosphere involved in the climate science debate.
My Chinese wife of 31+ years has said to me, consistently and to my benefit, that per her culture I should never force a person that I am dealing with into a situation (corner) where they do not have a face saving (honorable) path to exit from.
I understand, and my wife would agree, that you are offering a certain blog that kind of exit. I disagree with terms of the exit, too generous. Negotiation is expected? N’est ce pa?
Good luck.
John
I have long felt that the name calling on this web site tended to obscure the actual information. If a person posting a “name calling” type of comment gets the message that this is not welcome, I think the signal-to-noise ratio will improve. What any other web site does is irrelevant.
While I dislike the implementation of the SkS site, the underlying idea is actually good. It would be wonderful to have a site that presented the best CAGW proponent arguments alongside the best CAGW skeptic arguments, as well as ensuing counter-arguments from each. The general approach could be broadly modeled on the format of formal debate and judicial briefs.
Instead of one side taking it upon itself to represent both points of view (a sure invitation to straw men as seen at SkS), I think a group moderated, side-by-side wiki format could work well. Each side of each topic area (for example “Cloud Feedbacks”) would have a volunteer moderator along with as many contributing authors as choose to volunteer. Both sides would have their own publicly viewable wiki-style discussion pages and a threaded forum for public comment and feedback. The moderators would agree to adhere to a basic code of conduct such as no ad hom etc.
As one side expands or updates their case, the other side is notified of the changes (all changes are visible wiki-style) and can prepare their response. Sections and paragraphs would have a consistent numbering scheme and a link to counter-arguments would automatically be embedded after relevant paragraphs. This would serve to prevent misquoting or out-of-contexting by either side (or at least blatantly expose it). Readers would have the option to rate which side’s argument they felt was best on a topic by topic (or even sub-topic) level, providing the opposing sides with valuable feedback as to how well they are making their case.
The beauty of such a system is that it becomes fairly self-regulating. No system can prevent one side from making ad hom attacks or straw man arguments but a system can make such bad behavior immediately obvious to readers and thus ultimately counter-productive to their case. As arguments and counter-arguments are traded, each will naturally become more refined as weak or spurious points are countered and the remaining points of true contention are expanded. This would be great because today so much of what is available has a signal to noise ratio that is abysmal.
If someone were to create such a system, I would certainly donate to support it because I think it would become a valuable resource for both sides to see the best of the opposing arguments. Certainly there are some personalities that would refuse to participate in discourse on a truly level playing field, where they can’t have the last word and weak arguments are exposed, however there are many more who have the confidence and integrity to put their best arguments head-to-head against the best counter-arguments.
A laudable aim, Anthony, but futile. John Cook is so wedded to the denier meme that he has even written a book about it, entitled “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand”:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1849713367/
I wouldn’t expect a response any time soon. Anyway, if Cook expunged all the instances of the word “denier” and its derivatives from SkS, there wouldn’t be anything left…
our PM uses the word when refering to sceptics, so I dont see this blogger caring too much about what is said here. giving these people credit by posting about them is the wrong way to go. they are not a misinformation website by chance, so are not likely to ever care about truth or decency.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/politial-heat-rises-over-climate-denial-with-pm-accused-of-drawing-parallels-with-holocaust/story-e6frg6xf-1226026163930
Here, I think, is what you’re facing. You are suggesting that reducing the amount of labeling will raise the debate. This is a very obvious strategy, it has been chosen many times before, when it comes to small communities, it can actually work.
Where, however, does it end? The behavior you’re trying to alter here is the behavior of applying a label to those who are different or disagree with you. Simply removing a word does not remove this behavior, those with weak arguments and a desire to be heard will simply find another one, perhaps less applicable to history, perhaps with less negative connotation, but a label none-the-less. All it takes is a label for the perception of those attached to it to become negative very quickly. Luddite was just an old word used hundreds of years ago. However, when attached to those among us who shun cell-phones, it becomes something akin to “hick” very quickly.
The situation we have is an argument wherein all the details have been hashed and re-hashed and screamed and shouted between the parties before many many times, and still there is no resolution. The lack of resolution is what leads to labels, not the existence of historical analogues.
I wish you luck attempting to engage those who cannot admit error in disarmament talks. It will do nothing, I fear, to bridge the theological divide (that word chosen deliberately).
Anthony, I applaud your attempt at communication with the [snip – AGW Proponents], but they are clearly beyond redemption. (Religious terminology deliberate).
Seriously, their use of the DENIER term is not unfortunate, accidental or mis-understood; it is part of a conscious COMMUNICATION STRATEGY to marginalise all critics of the [snip – AGW proponent] Belief.
REPLY: No argument there, but always give your opponent an option – Anthony
Today Skeptical Science, tomorrow Joe Romm? (I think not)
Anthony, You are to be commended for taking the high road. You have a lot more patience than I do dealing with these people who obviously cannot be trusted to fairly represent anything except their own agenda.
To those quoting the bible about being kind to your enemy, there is also a verse that says “don’t throw your pearls before swine”. Sometimes it’s very tempting to just throw heaps of burning coals.
Way to go Anthony, although I think it’s a safe bet nothing will change. Look at the change of language in post conflict situations – Bosnia, S. Africa, N. Ireland. Using less inflamatory language is a good thing.
I’ll happily delete all references to “warmists” and “alarmists” from my site and change to “AGW proponents”. I’ve aspired to present a more neutral stance (at least as far as language is concerned) for quite some time. Trouble is when I do I have a tendency to fall off the wagon.
REPLY: Northern Ireland was a conflict that got resolved, so there’s hope – Anthony
First, a point about “the obvious violations of Godwins Law”, excuse me, Godwin’s law, since when is there ACTUALY a Godwins LAW? Is it, then a scientific law, has it been tested using the scientific method, is it even falsifyable, can an experiment to verify or falsify it even be designed? Or, perhaps, it has been drafter by Congress and signed into law by the president then? No? Then why do we except it as an inviolate “law”? Are we simply to accept that it as a “law” without question, simply because Godwin said so? Are we to accept that CAGW is also true, simply because Al Gore said so? What’s the diference, is there one? Since when do people in THIS web site simply accept something as so true that it is called a “law” simply, well, just because? Can anyone present an actual, verifieable reason why this can even be called a “law”.
And then, what if someone starts sounding and acting like an actual Nazi SS, and I call them on it, am I “breaking the law”? If I can’t call them on what they are actually saying and doing, what am I to do, dance around the subject, ignore the elephant in the room, censor myself and never talk about the truth obvious to everyone? Does this sound ridiculous, it should. If I “break this law”, can I even be arrested, tried, convicted, sentanced? Perhaps it is a scientific law, will I be rebutted by peer reviewed scientific experiments in major publications? The answer is, of course, no. The answer is, since “Godwins’s law” isn’t, obviously, a real law of any kind, I see no reason to be bound by it.
Conversly, of course, I see no reason to call someone a Nazi SS unless they actually use words and actions that are identical to actual Nazi’s. Calling them that simply because I don’t like them, or don’t want you to like them, isn’t science, which is what this site is all about, it is, in fact, reverting back to the pre scientific method of “scientific discourse”, which was all about tricks of rhetoric, such as ad hominem attacks on the person with the idea, rather than actual experiments to verify or falsify the idea itself.
So, I am quite willing to not call Sketical Science “SS’, TEMPORARILY, FOR NOW, depending entirely on their ACTIONS. If, however, they continue to use the word “denier”, and continue to use revisions of history to make commentators look bad, and in other ways actually sound and act like SS, then I reserver the right to, in the future, call them exactly what they are acting like. To do otherwise would be frankly dishonest. And for this site to suggest that, if they sound and act like SS (I said IF) we follow some non existant, undrafted, unsigned, unverified “law” and apply CENSORSHIP to cover up an obvious truth, well, then, this site is no better than the CAGW sites that censor any opinion other than their own.
So I would say to Skeptical Science, the ball is in your court, if you don’t want to be called SS.COM, well, that drop the Nazi word “denier”. Or, continue to use it, continue to actually ACT like Nazi’s, and I see now reason to not use the word SS to describe you.
As for allowing or not allowing words like “SS” or “Nazi” or “regilgion” or “conspiracy” on this site, there is a difference between moderation, done by moderators, and censorship. If I use such words purely in ad hominum attacks on people whoes ideas I don’t like, to basically say “he’s igly and his mother dresses him funny so you shouln’t listen to him”, well, you can snip that comment, that is moderation. If, however, I can call then a Nazi, and supply historical examples to prove it, and you snip that, that is NOT moderation, that is censorhip.
And speaking of which, here is a little bit of history for you:
Albert Einstein’s response to the 1931 pamphlet “100 authors against Einstein,” commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, said, “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.”
Sound like anyone you know?
Never spent any time in a foxhole huh?
(Privately, methinks that line of thinking is the height of ‘self deceivership’ [sic]. I think Mosh is big enough to take the criticism otherwise I would not issue it. )
.
Can we expect a Joe Romm post entitled “WUWT becomes incrementally more like Skeptical Science (no acronyms there ) as Skeptical Science becomes incrementally more like WUWT”
Now, that idea is profoundly chilling.
John
The warmist-skeptic “war” is based on diametrically opposite positions on a more moral than techncial plane. It is difficult to argue heatedly when you show public respect for the other; that is the basis of insisting on civil discourse in the courts. If you stick to the fact and are not allowed ad hominem attacks, the case for-and-against becomes reasonably easy to decide.
This is, of course, why the Sk-S and others , including David Suzuki and Al Gore, do not wish to stop using inflammatory comments and references. There is no theatre in which to sway your audience with rhetoric and passion if you must stick to facts and behaviour our Moms would find acceptable. Rabble-rousing is exciting, profitable and successful when cogent arguments might fail.
It is a brilliant tactic to insist that your own side behave civilly when the others do not. There is no moral high ground when all rant and rave. CAGW has become the issue it has because the warmists have claimed the moral higher ground, i.e. what they do is for the benefit of humanity and the biosphere in general. If they are called to behave in that way as well, they lose their emotive powers of persuasion. Of which politicians and celebrities have a great deal, in direct contrast to their technical powers of persuasion.
Blogs were initially invented for the sharing of technical information. Then they became vehicles for personal views and positions. It is good that the trend, in some quarters, is back to the roots of knowledge and understanding. It is not a position that Skeptical Science would do well in if they had to. SkS and others are based on moral outrage. Take that away from them, and they are little more than mouthpieces for those with ideology rather than science to promote.
Good on you! Verity..
Anthony,
The very first problem with your proposal is that your assumptions about the use of the word “denier” are incorrect. If I look up my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary I am informed that “denier” is Middle English, ie,, the language of Chaucer, for “one who denies”. The next entry informs me of the first modern use of the word, – 1532. I do not believe anyone will be so obtuse as to believe the use of the word in 1532 was a reference to holocaust denial.
What has happened is that a perfectly ordinary english word has been used of a morally obnoxious group. After that, other people of whom the word might normally have been thought to apply have then objected to that word based on a supposed implied implication of moral equivalency. While I cannot speak for all “AGW proponents” (another obnoxious and inaccurate term), there has never been any implication in my use of the term “denier” of a moral equivalence between “AGW deniers” and “holocaust deniers”. In fact I used the term for several months without making that connection before somebody (falsely) claimed the connection was intended..
My problem with ceasing to use the term “AGW denier” is twofold.
First, I do not believe the existence of holocaust deniers is reason to impoverish the language. Just because holocaust deniers exist is no reason to use the term “denier” exclusively in reference to them. If we are to accept the logic that “denier” should not be used because of its association with holocaust denial, then we also ought not to use the term “national” because of its association with the term “National Socialist” as in the Nazi party. Likewise we should cease to use the term “democratic” because of its association with Stalin (through the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and Kim Il-Sung (through the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). On the same basis we should also object to the use of the term “People’s” and “Republic”.
Once you decide to exclude descriptive words because of unfortunate associations, you are on your way to limiting thought by limiting language. The Minitruth of “1984” beckons down that path, and it is not a path I will follow. Indeed, my suspicion is that many of the people I would normally describe as “AGW deniers” find the term offensive not because of any holocaust denial association, but because it is accurate.
Second, I do not have any other useful short descriptive term for those I would normally call “AGW deniers”. I know that they call themselves “AGW skeptics” or something similar, but that term is tendentious and attributes to them a virtue I do no see much displayed by their reasoning, ie, skepticism. Using that term would put me in the same position as a Christian who is told to call a group “The Virtuous” because that is their self descriptor, when that group frequents prostitutes and regularly blasphemes. A Christian faced with that demand will rightly reject it. (Please note: the analogy is merely to make the point clear, and is not in anyway an imputation of moral equivalence.) For similar reasons, I call Randians (ie, the followers of Ayn Rand) “Randians” rather than the undeserved term, “Objectivists”.
However, I understand that the term “denier” does genuinely cause some “AGW Skeptics” offense, and am happy to drop it … on one condition. That condition is that you find a suitable, non-tendentious descriptive title for those who call themselves “AGW Skeptics” and who I call “AGW Deniers”. If you can find such a term, and pesuade your fellow “AGW Skeptics” to adopt it so that people will understand to whom I am referring, I will adopt it also, and drop the term “AGW denier”. If you do not come up with such a term, I will continue to use the descriptively accurate term “AGW denier” rather than the tendentiously false term “AGW Skeptic”.
Finally, speaking for myself (which is all I do here), I have no objection to the term “warmist”. I know it was coined with the deliberate intent to belittle the opinions of those that you would describe as “warmists”, but it is descriptively accurate, and those opinions are correct. Therefore I wear the term as a badge of honour.
In contrast, I object to the term “AGW proponent”. I may be a proponent of the theory of AGW, but I am appalled by the prospect. I wish fervently that I was wrong. Unfortunately, evidence indicates other wise.
Tom Curtis.
REPLY: Hello Tom, thank you for commenting. Please read above in comments. Prior to Goodman, Monbiot and others explicitly linked the terms “holocaust deniers” and “climate deniers”, prior to those events, your pointing out the definition would be correct. I’ll leave the discussion of your ideas to the group as right now my focus is not on you and your website, but thank you for the insight. I can revisit your ideas after the first issue is resolved. In the meantime the group can offer ideas and discussion – Anthony
I can’t imagine that you truly believe that SkS will stop using and moderating the use of the term “denier”.
REPLY: As we saw once on Climate Audit, there was a brief message, “A miracle has occurred”. Never discount the possibility. – Anthony
EXTREMELY good advice in any dealing (incl bear attacks save maybe for Grizzlies or Polar bears where you’re hosed in any case) …. a cornered animal is generally going to be a ‘fighting’ animal, the human species being not much different in this regard.
While on this subject, it would be fair to mention Fighting Fair to Resolve Conflict and the associated ground rules (quick excerpt of a few of the applicable rules):
Remain calm. Try not to overreact to difficult situations. By remaining calm it will be more likely that others will consider your viewpoint.
Express feelings [thoughts] in words, not actions. … If you start to feel so angry or upset that you feel you may lose control, take a “time out” and do something to help yourself feel steadier – take a walk, do some deep breathing, pet the cat, play with the dog …
Deal with only one issue at a time. Don’t introduce other topics until each is fully discussed. This avoids the “kitchen sink” effect where people throw in all their complaints while not allowing anything to be resolved.
No “hitting below the belt”. Attacking areas of personal sensitivity creates an atmosphere of distrust, anger, and vulnerability.
Avoid accusations. Accusations will cause others to defend themselves. Instead, talk about how someone’s actions made you feel.
Avoid “make believe.” Exaggerating or inventing a complaint – or your feelings about it – will prevent the real issues from surfacing. Stick with the facts and your honest feelings.
Establish common ground rules. You may even want to ask your partner-in-conflict to read and discuss this brochure with you. When parties accept positive common ground rules for managing a conflict, resolution becomes much more likely.
.
“The exercise was apparently done for the eyes of search engine landings.”
Which is why I place absolutely no trust in electronic media. I have seen major name newspapers revising content without acknowledgement, sometimes months after original publication. Content is purged, too, never to be seen again.
It is very difficult to send a printed page captured on microfilm down the memory hole, it is very easy with electronic archives. Future historians and other researchers are going to discover that our archives from this era are unreliable. The picture they get in the future may be completely different from the picture presented at the time.
but cook must protect the narrative from intrusion of harmful ideas.
the end justifies any means.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Venetian-chastity.JPG/450px-Venetian-chastity.JPG
steven mosher says:
September 25, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Steve, I don’t really think that using SkS will obtain skeptics any ‘better’ treatment from those who follow the path of warming. I do agree that the shortened name appears derogatory, but for the most part commenters do not use it that way IMO. Nevertheless I am willing to try to avoid apparent derogatory terms – though as posted earlier, I can’t see how alternatives can be avoided!
As the saying goes , there are many ways to skin an animal (apologies to all animal lovers out there – but I wouldn’t want to offend feline admirers specifically! – you get the point? had I used the traditional phrase! – it is JUST a phrase!)
I cannot see for a moment that it will make them (or us) ‘listen’ to arguments any more intently – and respecting ‘them’ as opponents because we ‘treat ’em nice’ will not make their words any more valid in the scientific sense. I am impressed at Anthony’s offer – but sad that this is a PC thing and not a ‘science’ thing……..it’s still worth a try….
I honestly suspect that ‘resistance is futile’ however.
Certainly, they couldn’t object to the term “hotties”, could they?
Fully agree with WUWT retaining the moral high ground. I regularly engage with an alarmist on a football website and every now and again find myself dragged down to his level. Apparently I am a conspiracy believer with no scruples.
Why did they choose the name Skeptical? Dishonest in the choice of name. I went there on first exploring this thinking I would find real skeptical arguments and then found they didn’t even have the decency to engage in real argument, but were dishonest in the forum by manipulative censoring and editing. I can imagine they were amused by the SS as they were in choosing ‘skeptical’. And now they’re upset and playing the victim??? SS it is. Stinking Science is what they produce and any who want to dance to their new victim tune can do so, I won’t.
Mr. Watts,
You are quickly slipping into censorship levels… with your personal “climatological political correctness”. Even if you have tripled your “moderators’ army” you will not change/correct the world, IMHO.
Regards