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.
RDCII:
“Here’s one of those ideas that’s so brilliant that you should be able to accept it’s due. If the Monbiots of the world are incapable of coming up with an appropriate term, why not ask the targeted people what they’d like to be called? That would not only be respectful, in a human way, but the thousands of targeted people might come up with an appropriate term where Monbiot has utterly failed.”
RCDII, what do you think I’m doing here?
In the end, IMO, Anthony’s “offer” to Skeptical Science is an offer that WUWT will stop drawing odious nazi comparisons (who cares if you want to shoot yourself in the foot like that) and that he will substitute a term so mildly objectionable that just about nobody cares about it with a term that seriously miss describes the “warmist” position, and for that negative gain, Skeptical Science only needs to stop accurately describing Anthony and others of his persuasion.. As an offer it is not much better than, “I’ll stop punching myself in the face if you’ll let me spit in your eye.”
But regardless of the zero value offer, I do not want to offend people needlessly, so I have asked for a substitute term, and met with (essentially) silence. The only two proposals are trivial or non-responsive. Indeed, for my purpose, the only worthwhile information has been that, like me, at least one person here would rather be called a denier than a denialist.
Despite Anthony’s little diatribe, names are useful things without which we cannot communicate. That’s why languages are filled with nouns. And while I could substitute a 12 plus word description of the general features of the “AGW Skeptic” position every time I need to refer to it, that is not convenient. (Indeed, if Anthony is serious about his newly discovered objection to “labeling” why is he not dropping the “warmist” label without substitution?) So, I seek a non-tendentious term for “AGW skeptics” that will not offend them. Is there none that the commentors on this list can agree to?
RDCII, I made a post quoting two examples of direct allusions to fascist regimes to which Dana was reacting. One connected him to Mussolini because of Dana’s Italian heritage, the other made a direct SS allusion.
Anthony has seen fit to censor that comment. Never-the-less, if it appears to you that Dana’s comment was without context, that is only because Anthony will not permit that context to be discussed on his blog.
REPLY: You are welcome to discuss the context all you want, repeating the comments verbatum with the inappropriate and inflammatory language is another matter altogether. Apparently you missed reading the cautionary footnote to this story, much like you’ve missed the whole denial issue and have become a laughingstock on this thread. – Anthony
I have stopped bothering to go to Skeptical Science as their policy to censor comments is crazy.
It is a waste of time.
Last time I went there they called me a “rogue” and made a whole article about people (“rogues”) like me who believe more carbon dioxide is better.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Mosher – yes the double-S was a cheap joke at first, but it got funny when unintended analogies kept popping up, such as the obsession with rewriting history and indoctrinating the masses, and the “my Truth will be true even when it will not be true anymore” attitude. It’s all on Omniclimate (Sep 21) for those not afraid of Voldemort.
Tom Curtis – you’ve spectacularly failed at making an argument. You have: missed completely the most obvious analogy (omnologos vs know-nothing…well, now it’s too late); deliberately said not a word about the red-flag logo example; shown abysmal ignorance about the use of Fasces in the British architecture totally independently from Mussolini’s story (never mind the widespread current usage in the USA); failed to notice how I have never tried to paint Cook or dana1981 as morally or mentally inferior. etc etc
Why have you done that? Because otherwise your stupid suggestion that the double-S jokes are meant to suggest John Cook is “the sort of [person] who would commit a holocaust”. Of course he is not. Instead, he is the sort of person who does not understand that certain patterns of behavior must be actively avoided and rejected, because we have had enough “Holier-than-Thou” and “Science-by-Authority” characters in History already.
Not so long ago the mouthpieces of certain political establishments referred to people like me as “imperialist running dogs”.
I liked it. It displayed their stupidity better than anything I could say.
Their successors still call me names. I still like it.
I wouldn’t offer SkS anything.
I ve seen them delete a post that did’t fit their story just yesterday.
And if you use the wayback-machine there are many deletions.
Quote – “REPLY: Mr. Pawełczyk, I suggest you get your own blog and you can run it and post on it any way you wish, for now I’ll run mine the way I wish, Thank you – Anthony”
Mr. Watts,
Not for the first time we disagree on principia, this time on foundations of Internet and blogosphere in particular.
You claim that because it is your blog you can set the rules whatever you wish.
I claim that because your blog belongs to blogosphere (of Internet!) you can set the rules only which does not contradict blogosphere foundations – that you’ll always keep your blog open and free from excessive intervention which might stifled freedom of expression in any form.
Alas, you have given the right to decide what is right or not within your blog to yourself instead of sticking to “our laws” – of Internet and blogospher users.
If there was no such thing as Internet and blogosphere you would not be able to promote your views and deny the claims of AGW believers. Why don’t you respect the “Laws of Internet” in return?
From the beginning I started to read WUWT pages several years ago I am still perplexed why you treat the Internet like your own private yard instead of keeping it open and free to a maximum extent possible?
One small step here, another there, and the Internet will become electronic edition of Soviet “Pravda” (The Truth).
You are supporting “those” who would like to control Internet, perhaps unconsciously. But it seams to me you are playing to the advantage of “those” people, making your moves detrimental to our Great Cause – free and always opened Internet.
Alas, thanks to you Mr Watts, the Internet as we all know it will be dead soon, even sooner than later. Sad.
Regards
I disagree with your approach: I had my first illuminating encounters with these murderous, lying, hippies on EvC – their primary goal is to influence people. Facts, logic, reason, honesty, etc are all COMPLETELY irrelevant to them: apart from the pretense thereof, of course.
On a practical level, it is not SANE to engage in communication with liars: why do you think the DDT ban, which is kind of a prequel to AGW, existed, still exists, and continues to drag on? Just how many, mostly black and poor, people (mostly children) are DEAD because of this one thing alone? Did engaging these ideologues EVER help?
Notice again the ‘DEAD’: there are REAL consequences to the influence the hippies exert. Piles of dead children. REAL dead children. And you are worried about ‘SS’?! About ‘nice’ dialogging?! I’m sorry, but are you perhaps insane?
If you want to address this topic, I would seriously advice the biblical approach: mark them, and avoid them. In other words, they are the enemy: SO TREAT THEM AS SUCH, and fight them until they no longer exist.
Anything else plays into their hands. Thus is the basic reality of politics: debate serves the purposes of the dictators over the purposes of their (DEAD) victims.
er – if you Google “SS” site:Wattsupwiththat.com you get 488 hits (admitedly some relate to Sun Spots)
But I really think it’s a stretch to associate the acronym “SS” with only the Nazis. As mentioned in your article it is also Social Security as well as Sun Spot, Steam Ship, Stainless Steel, etc., etc.
Why do people get so bent out of shape over names? (A rose by any other name.. or Sticks and stones..). Is it an American thing? (The only place in the world where white is white but black can’t be called black).
James of the West says:
September 25, 2011 at 8:29 pm
James, the least you could do is quote my full statement to give some context. I said to you:
However, please note the difference between a LABEL (denier) used to refer to a group on the one hand, and on the other hand a DESCRIPTION of the result of an individual’s actions (he makes an international fool of himself). On this thread we’re discussing labels used to refer to groups, not terms used to refer to James of the West.
However, in line with my resolution to call people what they want to be called, I’m happy to call you “international fool” if you like. It’s not clear why you would like that, but if as you say you “wear the tag with pride”, who am I to question it?
w.
This is EXACTLY how the professional democrat (socialist/enviro/Gaia-centric/anti-Christian) leaders of today’s “science-based” use the “denier” term their propagandists invented, and it shows WHY they use that term.
At a fundraiser in San Jose, Calif., Obama said that some in the audience might be former Republicans “but are puzzled by what’s happening to that party,” and voters should back him if they believe in a “fact-based” America.
“I mean has anybody been watching the debates lately?” Obama said. “You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change.
Above from http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/183773-obama-mocks-gop-debates-says-he-stands-for-fact-based-america
nope. never was about science.
Some people would consider pompous and overly moral remarks to be offensive, it depends on cultural views and ones environmental upbringing, I’m guessing Mr Watts would find many ordinary people offensive. That’s why he keeps banning them from his blog 🙂
Should Anthony be dictating to the world (I’m sure he believes he is given the language used here) about culture and language?
Does this have anything at all to do with science?
Anthony, if you want to promote good science, some suggestions:
1. develop a thicker skin
2. discuss science
Its obviously a reasonable proposal, Anthony.
However, I personally have no problems with what others might call me. The word “denier” is water off a duck’s back. Let’s face it, those not yet persuaded of the AGW consensus have been vilified for years. Our own PM, Gordon Brown, called us all “flat earthers”. Now in that case you do what your elders always taught you – ignore it. “Sticks and stones, and all that. That he said this says a great deal more about him than me.
In reality this is yet another version of a call to mature, reasoned and polite debate. Judith Curry has been doing this for years without any real results. It is much too late for that.
The reality overall is that those who are persuaded by the alleged consensus have been talking to themselves for years. So, too, have we.
The current state of play where the consensus is looking more and more vulnerable has not come about because of proper interaction in any general way. It is the result of the dogged practice of proper sceptical science by a distinguished few, the failure of alrming predictions and the growing disaffection with the behaviour of consensus science and its participants and supporters, the growing realisation, naturally increasingly cyincal, that the only result of their methods of mitigation are higher taxes with nil effect on the very problem they espouse, and in more recent times scientific work that demonstrates alternative possibilities. That process will continue and now has its own momentum.
There is no need to engage with SkS. The progress to understanding will continue anyway.
We have held the moral high ground from the start. We are not the ones fudging and “adjusting ” data, and then hiding the data and calling Freedom of Information a bad idea.
Let us not forget who is denying here. Who is denying people access to data? Who denies the hockey-stick graph has been proven false? Who is denying people who differ the right to even speak?
I see no harm in being civil. It is always best to avoid being dragged down to the level of people who have fallen. And it is downright spiritual to extend them a helping hand, so they might pick themselves up, and to forgive them, if they see the error of their ways.
But do I expect that? I’m afraid not.
Anthony lofts the ball into their court with this gesture. It is a nice, easy lob. A child could hit it back, but alas, the racket they are involved with has no strings in it.
I doubt Anthony shall see any return.
The only harm in being civil is if you allow it to gag you. If we become too PC then we can lose the moral high ground, for Truth might be deemed too “hurtful” to speak.
We must stand up for the Truth, stand by the Truth, and demand the Truth.
GWAPers? (Global Warming Alarmism Promoters)
…………….. and the reply from SkS has been ??????
Ok, I really, really try to avoid feeding under-bridge dwelling mythical creatures but Tom Curtis has left me simply incredulous. To defend the use of the label “Denier” on one hand because it has a plain English dictionary definition apart from the Godwin-esque connotations yet disallow the term “Skeptic” as a replacement claiming that it carries positive connotations is factually incorrect. CAGW skeptics precisely fit the dictionary definition of “skeptic” and that definition carries no positive or negative connotation. It is simply neutral.
In fact, based on the dictionary definitions of the terms, CAGW proponents should prefer calling their opponents skeptics rather than deniers. To “Deny” is to express that something is definitely not true, to be skeptical is a form of doubt and questioning but certainly leaves semantic room to be subsequently convinced. Wouldn’t that make the CAGW proponent’s case seem stronger to any observer?
With the term “Denier” CAGW proponents are painting skeptics as far more extreme than most of them are. I suspect the intense desire to continue using the term goes beyond Godwin-land. The term Denier can carry an implication that that which is being denied is generally accepted as true. That’s what I think they are after more than any Holocaust association. It’s not about associating skeptics with Nazis, it’s about ascribing “accepted truth” to their own position (that they would go so far for that semantic fig leaf is telling in itself).
Next, it’s about making the skeptic’s position seem more extreme and absolute than it is. Every skeptic I know doesn’t deny warming, they don’t deny mankind has an impact, they don’t even deny that human generated Co2 has some impact (however small). At that point, the discussion is now down to the real issues: how much, how fast, how costly, how certain. This is absolutely NOT where the CAGW proponents want the discussion. They don’t want a real discussion of the issues. They mostly want to shut down open discussion. If they let a dialog get started, then pretty quickly things will progress to the real differences – and suddenly, when the caricatures and straw men are deflated – the skeptics seem downright reasonable to most observers.
Personally, I don’t mind the denier label. Most observers see it for exactly what it is and it just makes CAGW proponents look manipulative. This is one of the CAGW proponent’s weaknesses, they imagine that the general populace are unsophisticated rubes who would be influenced by such transparent definitional games. Instead, the double-speak backfires and the CAGW proponents don’t even realize how such blatant attempts at “framing” reveal them as non-scientific and politically motivated.
James of the West says:
September 25, 2011 at 8:29 pm
The whole concept of being “offended” is interesting. If the intent of the speaker/writer is to cause offence with use of certain words then by actually taking offence you help them out with their objective and appear defensive. If you have a thick skin then they end up looking weak and “playing the man” with ad-hominem unable to match you on the substance of the arguments.
I always choose not to take offence because being offended is a simple choice we all make.
Quite! The words ‘Methodist’ and ‘Quaker’ were coined as derogatory.
IOW, it gives them an excuse to vent venom and posture as holier-than-thou saviors (Mencken’s “messianic delusion”)–two deep-seated human desires perpetually in search of a pretext. Environmentalism (not to ignore its occasional on-target critiques) provides an endless catalog of such pretexts.
From: http://www.antigreen.blogspot.com/ (Greenie Watch)
“Godwin’s law” revisited?
I do not personally accept the authority of Godwin as a lawgiver any more than I accept the authority of Al Gore, Jesus Christ or Karl Marx — but Godwin’s observation that Hitler comparisons are often the mark of desperation in an argument has some cogency. It lacks cogency only if the comparison is accurate.
So when we find a Warmist who compares a skeptic to Hitler, it is reasonable to ask what accuracy there is in the comparison. A Warmist who rather amusingly calls himself “Science Guy” has replied to a critic who mocks meteorology generally as well as global warming in particular. The critic goes by the nom de guerre of “Cowboy”. “Science Guy” says:
I found someone who agrees with Cowboy on the weather
The following quotes come from perhaps the most famous man of the 20th century:
“One can’t put any trust in meteorological forecasts. (Weather men) ought to be separated from the army.
“Weather prediction is not a science that can be learned mechanically. What we need are men gifted with a sixth sense, who live in nature and with nature, whether or not they know anything about isotherms or isobars. As a rule, obviously, these men are not particularly suited to the wearing of a uniform. One of them will have a humped back. Another one of them will be bandy legged. A third paralytic. Similarly one doesn’t expect them to live like bureaucrats.”
The quotes come from … Adolf Hitler
It is certainly clear that Adolf did not think much of the meteorologists of his day but he would not be alone in that. Weather forecasters so often get things wrong that they are widely mocked to this day.
So the issue is not skepticism about meteorology unless “Science Guy” wants to brand all those millions who mock weather forecasters as Nazis.
The issue is whether Cowboy would agree that credibility is to be assigned to shamans and the like. There is no evidence that Cowboy does. His skepticism seems as wide-ranging as mine and I don’t even believe that the word “God” is meaningful!
So “Science guy” has indeed fallen foul of Godwin’s law and his reply to Cowboy reveals that his argument is one of desperation, not science.
referring to:
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/09/i-found-someone-who-agrees-with-cowboy-on-the-weather/
Well, no-one is perfect. Even Hitler couldn’t be wrong about everything!
(No offence to Anthony:)
Here’s something I posted here a while back:
If not for the Holocaust association, “denier” would be an acceptable term. Its connotation would be of people “in denial” about the ill-effects of their short-sighted, ego-centric behavior. (Drunkenness, abusiveness, etc.) IMO, that is what 90% of the users of the term intend to convey. I wouldn’t mind the label.
Believer and Disbeliever would be a pair of matched terms, but they lack the necessary zing. And Believer carries the disparaging hint of True Believer.
What’s needed is a set of terms that are only mild “zingers.” (Two that I like for the Believers are Warmmongers and Hotheads.) Alarmist qualifies, but there needs to be a countervailing term for their side to use.
And then I posted this:
I propose rebranding ourselves as “scorcher scoffers” or “scorcher-scam scoffers.”
“Scoffers” has both negative and positive connotations, so both sides can accept it;
“Scorcher” usefully distinguishes between possible harmless “warming” and a catastrophic temperature rise;
“Scam” (optional) captures (tho imperfectly) the focus of our critique: the insane costliness and ineffectiveness of the proposed mitigation methods.
========
BTW, here’s a relevant comment that was posted on (I think) CA:
I’m all for using the correct term, so as to avoid misunderstandings. And in this regard AGW should be rebranded Mann-made global warming. It puts the whole thing into perspective. And gives credit where credit’s due.
We’ve been through this before. Here’s what I’ve posted earlier on the matter: