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.
My guess is that the ‘denier’ name-calling will actually ratchet up in response to Anthony’s stand-up proposal.
Anthony:
The term “Alarmist” is descriptive of those who use alarming rhetoric to advance their CAGW views. The term “Warmista” is directed at the trendy AGW folks who are just following their peers, but who don’t know the facts. Neither of these terms is in the least way insulting. I see no reason to stop using them.
As far I am concerned the other side can use whatever terms they want to descibe me. I am pretty sure that history will find me on the right side of this issue. Their insults do not raise my blood pressure. Their actions however . . .
Kev-in-Uk says:
September 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm
[Much as I agree with your sentiment, Anthony, Sir – I do think this is somewhat too PC for me—
Of course, the downside is that further ‘terms’ will be coined….and add to that the fact that when someone says any approved ‘new’ term – we will REALLY know what they mean! Ergo, it is really rather pointless – IMHO. —
Take a typical expletive – re-writing it as xxxxing this or xxxxing that, doesn’t really help in the readers interpretation – it’s just the bloomin presentation for the sake of those easily offended! —
Again, whilst I do think you are making a good proposal – I fear that realistically it will NOT defer the vitriolic style outpourings from various sides – but merely deflect them into alternative language?]
Kev-in-Uk
I couldn’t agree you more. We are far far too PC these days. In the end clarity of expression is far better than the mealy mouthed obfuscation of one’s intent for the sake of avoiding offence to some thin skinned idiot. As for initials substituting for or taking on meanings of concepts or other words, I think there is far too much of this anyway to the extent that one needs a reference book of initials to read any passage written. To take offence therefore for the use of initials of one thing because it is also the initials for another of which one disapproves is absurd. And those who berate others because they themselves took offence based upon such nonsense are pathetic fools and should be ignored.
Douglas
Kev-in-Uk says:
September 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Kev, I’m as anti-PC as anyone. But I don’t see this as an issue of political correctness. I see it as an issue of politeness. I call people what they prefer to be called. Some years ago I used to call people “warmers”. A couple of people objected. I changed to the more neutral term “AGW supporters”. For example, if for whatever reason you don’t want to be called “K-i-U’ for “Kevin-in-UK”, mine not to reason why. I won’t call you that. It’s simple politeness.
w.
Thanks Willis, simple politeness sums up what I’m going for here. Anyone reading in any sorts of other motivations (PC, political ploy, censorship, or dozens of other possibilities) has missed it.
When John Cook first started out, he was polite. I actually lauded him for that once. But he and his website has morphed into something that hardly resembles that. I’m hoping he’ll remember. – Anthony
It is nighty nite time here (at my age anyway).
Two departing observations:
First, I was born (literally) and raised on a small mom/pop owned farm. The maxim was never to eat your milking stock or your seed corn. What is WUWT’s seed corn? Is a compromise with a non-open and revisionist blog like eating an open blog’s seed corn/milking stock? I would say yes.
Second, consider what a certain owner/moderator of a non-open and revisionist blot is observing here. If that person sees major opposition against Anthony’s modest proposal by Anthony’s commenters then would that person be inclined to accept Anthony’s proposal for disruptive purposes? I would say yes.
Ugly?
I never did like Neville Chamberlain diplomacy.
John
I used to enjoy going to SkS to get educated on Cimate Science and read the latest papers but lately it has changed to a dumbed down version of RealClimate.org. I foung this out early last year when I wrote an American Thinker piece here and then SkS wrote a piece here and let’s just say there was plenty of ad hominen although I tried to keep it above that. The AGW team is losing their message and they know it so they are resorting to attack and bully methods. Get used to it, they’ll not go down without a fight.
Some thoughts on the “d-word”…
It is intended as an insult. By agreeing to be insulted, we play right into their hands.
It is inaccurate. “Climate d-word”? A person who doesn’t believe we have a climate? “Climate Change d-word”? There are some folks who seem to think that the climate never changed until humans came along and changed it. Curiously, they’re the ones who are calling us that! Most folks agree that we have a climate, and that it’s been changing for some time. “Catastrophic Climate Change d-word” might be closer, but extreme weather events are often catastrophic, so even that’s shaky.
Regarding former Vice-President Al Gore, I think I’ve commented “I hope the poor man gets the help he clearly needs!” I hereby withdraw that comment.
Good try, Anthony, and I hope it works out, but I’m (how can I put this?)… an s-word!
Best,
Frank
Hmm… so how should designate an AGW Catastrophist in abstruse if gentlemanly terms? We suggest calling certif(iable) members of the Green Gang such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. not “Warmists” but “APPs.”
Nothing pejorative about APP, an abbreviation for “apophenic pareidolic” (a dizzying label fraught with implications). Confronting serial Climate Cultist asininities, just reply deadpan, “Yeh, there’s an APP for that.”
I wouldn’t waste my breath on SkS. It will continue to do what it has always done, civility is not important; keeping the same talking points and its strident adherence to dogma is. Just like Al Gore, as SkS (Joe Romm and RC, for that matter) fades into irrelevance, expect its rage against the growing darkness to increase.
I am actually quite comfortable that AGW is real, I think that the hypothesis that CO2 as the cause nonsense. I do not think one can change the course of rivers, build damns, cut down forests, plant forest, irrigate, grow crops, lay roads, build shopping malls, build harbors, build cities, build ski runs and cut down tress on the side of mountains to build ski lifts, chalets and stop people doing a Sunny Bono.
I know all the things I have listed cause changes in the Earths climate, I am pretty sure that fire bombing cities and sinking oil/gasoline tankers in WWII also had climate effects.
What I don’t like is people who ignore the above and then state that CO2 alters the ‘temperature equilibrium’ of the Earth or even more fatuous “The CO2 equilibrium’ of the Atmosphere/Oceans. This goes for Hare-like physicists who should really know better.
The brutal pigheadedness of the majority of the CO2 CAGW’s, with their need to always invent new methods to find statistical significance when we have a 100 years worth of statistical methods which are known entities, their lack of understanding of other fields who work with complex feedback systems and the types of control analysis, the constant use of box models, the use of the term ‘forcing’ which is allowed to mean different things by different people rather than a defined description of fluxes, their application of equilibrium thermodynamics/kinetics to a system which is obviously a non-equilibrium steady state, no understanding of information theory and the limitations it places on the estimation of information retrieval from past events and finally, finally, their inability to understand the difference between a postulate (A tree is a thermometer) and a fact (The width of tree rings are a measure of a particular trees health and reproductive strategy).
Mann et al., have been using trees as thermometers for more than a decade, they have not built geodetic domes around any and actually looked at what happens to tree rings when you water them, fence them off from herbivores, stop birds from crap on their root systems, modulate their seasonal temperature or even though that expirements offered them any information what so ever.
Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles. The earth does not have limbs and muscles; therefore it does not move.
– Scipio Chiaramonti [Professor of philosophy and mathematics at University of Pisa, arguing against the heliocentrc system, 1633],
“Tree are really good thermometers”
Mann-made warming enthusiasts.
Using labels such as SS and denier in reference to those who hold differing views on climate science is highly disrespectful to “in particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.” as well as, “some 200,000 Roma (Gypsies)”, “at least 200,000 mentally or physically disabled patients, mainly Germans, living in institutional settings, were murdered in the so-called Euthanasia Program.” and “between two and three million Soviet prisoners of war were murdered or died of starvation, disease, neglect, or maltreatment. The Germans targeted the non-Jewish Polish intelligentsia for killing, and deported millions of Polish and Soviet civilians for forced labor in Germany or in occupied Poland, where these individuals worked and often died under deplorable conditions. From the earliest years of the Nazi regime, German authorities persecuted homosexuals and others whose behavior did not match prescribed social norms. German police officials targeted thousands of political opponents (including Communists, Socialists, and trade unionists) and religious dissidents (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses). Many of these individuals died as a result of incarceration and maltreatment.”
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143
Using the loaded labels SS and denier, in relation to people who have differing opinions on climate science, equivocates vigorous scientific debate with participation in and denial of the Holocaust, and this does a tremendous disservice to science and civility.
The term “warmist” should stay, because logically its antonym would be “coolist” which I think would be cool.
Fonzie agrees.
I think this offer of good graces misses the point of why they (the believers) refer to those with doubting positions as deniers. Quite simply their insults, insinuations, and ad hominem arguments have little to do with anger. It is a tactic taken directly from their playback with the sole intent of making non-believers out to be untrustworthy in public opinion. Until they are exposed for what they are, nothing will change. They do not care what we think nor how we react except when it somehow serves their purposes.
Mark
REPLY: That may be true, but this exercise and offer will help us understand one way or another – Anthony
A peer reviewed warning against the use of imprecise and inflammatory terms by those discussing the “wicked phenomena” of climate change:
quote:
=========
Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/E151.full
=========
Perhaps someone could forward a copy to John Cook and Dana.
“Godwin’s Law” is a post-modern implementation of a taboo designed to stifle valid comparisons. Legatus is right: it is not a law.
I have had the pleasure of trying to have a discussion on Skepticalscience.
My comments were not ruled through – they were removed entirely when I made a point which may cast doubt on some point.
One example was during a to and fro discussion over is the solar insolation really ~240 W/sq m as claimed in the Earth’s energy budget and is an average over the whole globe even appropriate.
I qouted the IPCC AR4 stating – “Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m–2”
I asked “how did they measure this ?”
My implication was that if it is appropriate to reduce insolation by a factor of 4 why didn’t they measure ~ 340 to 390 W/sq m as these observations were terrestrial – but I simply asked “How did they measure this ?”
As usual I got a reply from the mediator dripping with sarcasm as if I was some form of moron and told to go away, get an education and come back when I had learnt something.
I couldn’t let tihs moron get away with that so I posted in reply
“Well if you guys are right why didn’t these people measure 342 W/sqm as you claim is the “true” insolation”.
I refreshed the page, noted the post and submitted a second post “Or did they actually measure ~ 342 W/sq m and then multiply it by 4 ?”
I again refreshed the page which took a while to reload with my post about “Why didn’t they measure 342 W/sq m ?” and my second post removed.
they had survived about 3-4 minutes.
Now I have some challenges to SkepticalScience :-
1. If you are so cocksure of your science why do you immediately remove (when ridicule doesn’t suffice) every post which raises some doubt about the discussion in question?
2. Why do you allow people with obvious low intelligence to use insult and derision as a weapon but deny the target of such mindless nonsense the right to defend themself as they repeatedly did to me ? I never stooped to insult but many of my posts which presented logical argument were snipped with the impression the comment was derogratory which was not the case.
3. Learn to spell sceptic – skeptic is incorrect even if it has wormed its way into the general usage.
4. Obviously your site and fanboys cannot stand up to a robust discussion without throwing a tantrum.
SkepticalScience is a disgrace from the standpoint of discussion – if they don’t want discussion then they should simply not allow comments.
[snip – unnecessary – Anthony]
AS a ‘Warmist’ I have no problem with the term ‘Warmist’ and as for a new term to replace Denialist I quite like ‘Coolers’, a term with no negative connotations, in fact it has rather pleasant memories for me as it recall’s beloved Colonel Klinks refrain “Hogaaan..that’s a week in the Cooler”.
There is a comment that the purpose of revising replies to comments at SkS is to influence the results of Google (and no doubt other) searches.
Has it occurred to ‘us’ that Google should be approached to see if they have a way to pick up such obvious revisionism? It does them no good to serve up detectable lies. For example it could be noted in red that there is a previous version of the search result with a link to the original.
This would only have to apply to blogs where such malpractice could occur.
Personally I have not heard of something so patently unfair. It would be like editing post facto comments made in a journal. It is even lower in my estimation to edit a contributors comments to eviscerate them with the apparent intention of changing the argument presented, before posting. That would be like editing, pre-publication, a rebuttal to a criticism of a letter without the author’s knowedge or consent. I would consider all of these sins legally actionable. They certainly have no place in the scientific circle. SkS should change the ‘Science’ part of their name until they ascribe to some basic (even voluntary) moral code.
Here is an equally silly argument about presumption of sensibilities and adoption of offense. Tomorrow is another day, the sun will still rise and set just the same.
Fair enough, Anthony, but worth keeping in mind what is most likely at play. Steve Mc has extended many olive branches and all but a few have been rejected.
Mark
Using “denier” is one of their main tools to characterize all those in disagreement with the IPCC as “denying science”. Then you get equated with the “flat earth” and are immediately and constantly on the defensive about how you are not a raving lunatic and you are left with little energy to explain real science. There is a reason why celebrities are so heavily recruited because a first step is to make it “un-cool” to be against the IPCC. Those who know nothing about the science, or even what AGW theory really states (most people), decide to stay with the “popular” people.
I don’t think you can equate that with someone using the natural abbreviation of Skeptical Science (I believe initially with no intended connection). If some one dislikes that fine, you should stop using it, but don’t expect them to drop the whole “denier” tag because they have been taught to see skeptics as bizarre people who don’t even understand basic science and they couldn’t even tell you why if you asked them; they simply have been conditioned.
Denier is just the tip of the iceberg.
Here’s a concrete example: Sphaerica at 22:33 PM on 1 June, 2011 stated “Anyone who is counting on 2˚C is in denial.” Followed by: “Anyone who is saying that sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2˚C-4˚C or 2˚C-5˚C is in denial.” In the next post he said “(Correction to 112… I meant to say that anyone saying sensitivity is in the 2-4 range is explaining or re-iterating the science).”
I do not believe Sphaerica is implying “Holocaust” style denial, but rather “head-in-the-sand” denial. 1. Is “in denial” the same as being a “denier”? 2. Is my “head-in-the-sand” interpretation correct? 3. Is it valid to call someone “in denial” even if “denier” is verboten? 4. Are people who think sensitivity is likely to be low (like myself) upset by the “head-in-the-sand” characterization?
My answers: no, yes, yes, not me.
There has to be a limit to political correctness.
If somebody opens a new company and decides the logo must be a red flag, people will make amusing comparisons to China and Chairman Mao: this doesn’t mean the new company is a covert operation of the Chinese government.
Analogously if ones goes around London and sees examples of Fasces (yes there are plenty), nobody should feel offended if one comes up with some witty remarks about Mussolini. And none in their right mind will think that there was any link whatsoever between Fascist Italy and London architecture.
Therefore, to make fun of Skeptical Science because its long-standing abbreviation reminds one of a notorious organization made of Those-Who-Can’t-Be-Named is not a violation of Godwin’s Law, and is not an offensive action against millions of dead.
I’m afraid the main finding in all this brouhaha is that many people do think of “Adolf H” as some kind of Voldemort. And so the most cretin of historical figures transmogrifies into somebody to whom to grant respect, an object of quasi-adoration. But the real world is not Harry Potter’s. Enough!!
Anyone know where I can study my OT VIII in Climatology?
I would rather be called “one who reviews the actual data and understands the pro-AGW position is greatly exaggerated.”
But that doesn’t make for a good acronym and would result in the pro-AGW side just distorting the data as a retort (as we have seen SkepticalScience do regularly).
Eventually, time will answer the question and the labels can be accurately assigned at that time.
What we know today, is that not a single person on the planet can say the local weather in my area has changed at all. Ask your Grandpa first before you try to say it has actually changed.