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.
The following is an email exchange I had with the Australian Broadcasting Commission some three months ago. Note how the ABC honcho, whilst acknowledging the validity of my complaint, chooses to ignore one of my main points, the fact that the hypothesis of AGW is not “climate change”!
Subject: Insulting Name-calling by ABC employees
Comments: I am totally fed-up with and heartily sick of the constant and continuing use by hosts of ABC programs, various ABC commentators and newsreaders, of the erroneous and insulting term “climate change deniers” applied to anyone who questions the unproven computer-model generated hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Tony Jones of “Lateline” is a particularly insulting repeat offender, but there are many others.
Many younger people would not realise that American fossil-fuel hating AGW guru James Hansen was first to introduce the Nazi slur against opponents by referring to the rail transport of coal as Death Trains.
The AGW lobby later escalated the Nazi theme by labelling those who question them as Deniers. The deliberate link between the two terms and what is known as the “Holocaust” is undeniable to anyone old enough to know the history.
Denier is particularly offensive to all sceptics of the AGW hypothesis as we neither deny climate change nor historical cyclical and/or chaotic continued global warming or cooling as dictated by natural variability and a multiple of forces.
We do question the hypothesis that a tiny human-induced increase in a trace gas vital to all Earth’s plant and animal life will cause runaway catastrophic global warming.
Unless the ABC discontinues this abhorrent practise, announces and enforces it as a matter of policy in line with their stated charter, it will be necessary for those slandered to seek legal redress against the Corporation and/or offending individual employees.
If you want specific instances of the practise, it will not be hard to provide them.
ABC Reply.
Thanks for your message on this issue.
I appreciate the point you make, and essentially I agree with you. However, I am reluctant to say that under no circumstances should the phrase “climate change denier” be used. I think you are right that, to at least some extent, the phrase has been used to deliberately link it with the notion of holocaust denial, with all of the pejorative connotations that includes.
For that reason, our clear preference is to stick with the more neutral phrase “climate change sceptic”. From a quick search of our content, that seems to be the general rule.
However, there may well be circumstances (especially when others use the term and we are faithfully reporting that) when the phrase will occur in our news programs.
For your reference, the ABC Code of Practice (11 April 2011) is available online at: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, more information is available on their website at: http://www.acma.gov.au
Regards,
xxxx xxxxxxxxxx
Head of Policy & Staff Development
ABC News
SkS is too obscure. How about SkepSci? Or Cook’s sci? Or, for brevity, SSci?
How about the suggestion I made above? It’s three words, but it comes trippingly off the tongue. (Scorcer-scam scoffer)
Another “driver” has been the failure of green “renewables” projects to deliver electricity reliably and at the costs promised, or jobs. Politicians who sponsored those projects must be cooling privately in their enthusiasm for them, and becoming more skeptical about GWAPers and their panaceas.
(I suspect that much of the enthusiasm for GWAPism was driven by a desire for something–anything–to prod the government into providing funding for renewable energy reseach and deployment. If Rossi’s magic box works out, it should deflate this motive for warmism.)
I would hope that the ugly ad hominems of the warmists would stop and they would simply refer to facts and unmodified data. Does “science” no long pay attention to facts in the field?
Anyway, good article.
Jeremy says:
September 25, 2011 at 3:06 pm
“Just received a letter from the United Nations Assoc of Canada.
It states,
“There has never been a time when the world has needed the United Nations more than it does today.””
That means they’re afraid of falling through the cracks. Positive development if you ask me.
Wow, what a can of worms is opened by Anthony’s “modest proposal” … although probably rather less of a stir than the original “modest proposal”. The problem is caused by the fact that any choice of word will influence the listener/reader by (at least) two levels of meaning:
1: The denotation of a word is its (value-neutral) accuracy in denoting “this” from “that” object or situation – its “dictionary definition”. To use the word “denier” as an appropriate example, I am myself a CAGW “denier” (I see nothing catastrophic happening); I am an AGW “denier” (I see little, if any, evidence of any human “signature” in the observations); I am not, however, a “global warming denier”, since there does appear to me to be a slight warming over the last couple of centuries which I do not deny.
2: The connotation of a word, OTOH, is far more vague and mutable, and refers to what, I suppose in an Internet age, we should call the “cloud” of associations of that word. Too often, we argue over the denotation of a word when what is being deployed – as in the case of “denier” – is the emotive scattergun of its connotations – specifically, in the case of “denier”, by its post-WWII use.
It should also, of course, be borne in mind that, even in the phrase “holocaust denier”, the word has often been used deliberately inaccurately (in strictly denotational terms) as a weapon: consider that many who have been denigrated with that phrase were not, in fact, denying that a particular swathe of death-dealing occurred in the twentieth century, merely suggesting that, as in all writing of history, the detail of the account should be revised in the light of new, related evidence. Clearly, the suggestion that these people were “denying” what so many had recently witnessed or experienced is little more than a calculated linguistic tactic to paint them as completely out of touch with reality and thus to be dismissed without further consideration of what they were actually saying (sounds familiar, in a climate context, that). We should also never forget that there is not just one “holocaust” in human history: alas, it’s one of the things we have always indulged in rather immoderately.
To put the whole thing in perspective, a hundred years from now, when both “denier” and “SS” (and all the other WWII phraseology) will have faded into history, neither will arouse any stronger feelings than … well, I can’t offhand think of any words which had similarly pejorative connotations after, say, the Napoleonic wars, which rather proves my point. All told, I’m inclined to agree with Anthony (and not just because this is his blog): when you know full well that the word you’re about to use has strongly negative connotational meaning and will certainly offend somebody, then rephrase it or be [snipped]. It’s the cool-headed, non-shouty style which makes WUWT what it is, so don’t break it.
Relevant to our discussions on this thread about the labels denier and skeptic, here are two quotes from Dr. Lindzen. One quote saying he prefers the label denier and another saying why he does not like the label skeptic very much wrt alarming AGW.
First quote is from an early Oct 2010 BBC Radio interview with Dr. Lindzen. Here are my personally transcribed notes from the radio interview. Dr. Lindzen said (again my transcription),
The second quote is from Dr. Lindzen’s written testimony for the US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on ‘A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response (November 17, 2010).
Enjoy them. I did. : )
John
“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.”
On the other hand many people think the website is irredeemable and the old saying “you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig” is apt.
RACookPE1978 says:
September 26, 2011 at 1:04 am
We’re more worried about having a sitting president who thinks he can get out of debt by borrowing more money.
If the president actually knew a bit of science he would know that anthropogenic fire suppression is what drives these wildfires. Before Smokey the Bear came along fires would be set by lightning bolts and, without humans putting them out, would burn until they went out on their own. This process tended to kept the fires small, confined, and not easily set because they happened with enough frequency to keep the fuel supply suppressed.
As it happens, Governor Perry actually has a degree in science and held the position of Commissioner of Agriculture for the state of Texas. As usual, President Obama doesn’t know WTF he is talking about.
Most of us, at least in the UK and, I suspect, most of the English (however bastardised)-speaking world learned the rhyme “Sticks and stones may break my bones / But words will never hurt me.” It strikes me that far too much of an issue is being made of this use of abbreviations (NB, “SS” is not an acronym, it is an abbreviation). So what if some lame-brain wants to call me a unit of the fineness of nylon yarn? If he wishes to substitute a slogan for thought it simply shows up the paucity of his argument. So one of the less desirable of twentieth-century regimes had military units whose name was commonly abbreviated to its initials. Does that bar that particular combination of letters for all time? What about SAS, which can stand for a British military unit and a Scandinavian airline? Squabbles over who can use it? Come on, everybody, grow up.
I do notice what seems a growing tendency in the US in particular to regard anything to do with Jews as sacrosanct. The accusation has been made in the past that the news media and banking sectors are heavily dominated by Jews and such a tendency gives some credence to that view. It is characteristic of someone who is secure and confident that he doesn’t care what he is called, or is unduly bothered by real or imagined injuries in the past. He also tends to act according to generally accepted codes of conduct and, when he gets into a position of power doesn’t then treat his opponents as they treated him, but as he would wish they had. This tends to get a better deal all round, rather than finishing up with a Maniot-style blood feud going on for generations.
So go ahead. Call me any names you like. My back is broad and remarkably water-repellent. Foam at the mouth and expose yourselves for what you are. Personally, I rather like the more foul-mouthed trolls on here as they give me confidence that I am right to be exceedingly sceptical if people like that oppose me.
Hey Tom, How about “low sensitivity proponents” since that is the crux of my disagreement with most people on SkS.
ALGore is a complete buffoon and has become a parody of himself and should be treated as such.
But I do understand and agree with your thoughts and the appropriate decorum here on your website (concerning the need to call ALGore an idiot).
You have made an extremely valid and sensible offer to the other website, but don’t hold your breath waiting for any agreement from them.
Liberals are the party of double standards
It doesn’t surprise me that this Dana1981 has casued such a stir. I have seen his posts on yahoo answers for many years. Perhaps its an idea for regular WUWT readers to visit yahooanswer / environment / globalwarming, and ask Dana1981 if he’ll cease with the use of denier etc. on there.
My views are similar to those of Tom Curtis, expressed earlier on this thread. Maybe Europeans have a different viewpoint, but very few in the U.S. are “holocaust deniers”. I associate the
term “denier” with religion.
“2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, ”
“Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, ”
“1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? ”
So yes, I am a denier of the AGW religion.
Gee! Even the undeniably authoritative Wikipedia has its own section on climate change denial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Tom Curtis,
Are labels really so necessary for you to express your views? Do you seriously believe that without the label “denier” the reader does not know to whom you are referring?
Or perhaps you believe there are two distinct groups – deniers and sceptics. The latter inhabit some higher moral ground, believing in the reality of man-made warming, but just having some minor disagreements over the severity of the eventual outcome, while the former live in the dark depths of ignorance – mere scientific neanderthals.
If you really need a label, how about “refusnik”, as in someone who refuses to accept the current consenus? What do others think?
At this point, with all the heels dug in over words, we should call them Social Science.
I feel like Alice in Wonderland. Up is down, and left is right.Those who claim to be the science mainstream, those who claim to have the “settled science”, those who claim to have science on their side, are the first ones to abandon reasoned discussion and engage in personal and professional libel and ad hominem attacks. And those who are supposed to be science “deniers”, those who are supposed to be nothing but oil industry shills, are the ones calling for less ad hominem and more actual discussion of the science.
When you have science on your side, discuss the science, when you don’t, sling mud. We all know who slings the mud. We sceptics will acomplish much more by letting these people hoist themselves upon their own petards. Shrill ad hominem instantly loses the debate.
I was always told not to take offense if none is intended.
All this hullabaloo over initals will ultimately lead to the point where no combination of any initials will be available without offending someone. That, to me, is truly offensive.
I concur with Willis regarding ‘being polite,’ but if the other side doesn’t go along… then what?
Anthony – The Comments Policy section at Skeptical Science isn’t on the main page, but is linked off of each discussion thread, right above the reply box.
The link for that is: http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
I will note that as a frequent participant in the discussions at Skeptical Science, I have seen a number of folks who have complained about moderation there (complaints here, on Jonova, on other sites) come and go. All that I recall (and granted, I haven’t seen everything) involved repeated admonitions from the moderators regarding policy violations before their posts started getting snipped/deleted, and their leaving in anger. The policies are quite clear.
—
Regarding terminology, I have to say that “skeptic” is appropriate in some cases, and “denial” (not just a river in Egypt) is appropriate in others. A scientific skeptic continually doubts, tests, checks their data, and is cautious about coming to conclusions without solid evidence. A person in denial, on the other hand, rejects solid evidence in favor of a more personally acceptable (albeit poorly or unsupported) conclusion. Different situations, different appropriate terms based upon the approach.
[Reply: Moderation at WUWT is done with a light touch. But at Skeptical Science the moderators misuse their position to push a catastrophic global warming narrative. There is a huge difference between the moderating styles. One is employed only to keep order while allowing everyone their point of view, while the other is misused to push an alarmist agenda. ~dbs, mod.]
“I mean has anybody been watching the debates lately?” Obama said. “You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change.”
——
It’s terrible in Texas, what with that fire burning up a swath of track on the intercontinental railroad that links all 57 states.
@KR
“A scientific skeptic continually doubts, tests, checks their data, and is cautious about coming to conclusions without solid evidence. ”
Based on your own words it would not be possible for anyone to be a CAGW denialist since the data is sketchy at best and the results can not be independently tested or verified according to the scientific method!
Moderator @ur momisugly 197 – “There is a huge difference between the moderating styles. One is employed only to keep order while allowing everyone their point of view, while the other is misused to push an alarmist agenda.”
I’ll just have to disagree with you – each of the SkS moderation instances I have seen involved someone posting ‘smack’, not science. That’s fine – if what you are discussing is political opinions. But not if you are claiming your opinions describe the world around us, or think that insults substitute for evidence.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan
KR,
I posted two comments to Skeptical Pseudo-Science several weeks apart. Knowing that they would be scrutinized for any reason to censor them, I was very careful to read their policy first, and to be very polite. Both my comments contained several links to peer reviewed graphs that solidly deconstructed the posts I was replying to. In other words, I was simply providing a different point of view based on scientific evidence.
Neither of my comments was ever posted. So I know from personal experience that when solid evidence is posted that refutes their CAGW narrative, it is censored. That is a fact. You are, of course, entitled to your own misguided opinion.