ClimateBites Tom Smerling writes:
…I would have preferred that Mann had stopped with the quote above, but he added
“I will call people who deny the science ‘deniers.’ I won’t be deterred by the fact that they don’t like the use of that term and no doubt that just endears me to them further. It’s frustrating of course because a lot of us would like to get past this nonsensical debate and on to the real debate to be had about what to do.”
And he adds his own opinion:
While sharing Mann’s frustration, we now avoid using the term “denier” at ClimateBites. Though accurate and concise, labeling people “deniers” simply shuts many more doors — and minds — than it opens. I have heard several anecdotes about partially open-minded skeptics, including meteorologists, taking offense at the label, which they associated with Holocaust denial. No doubt, at least some undecided onlookers feel the same way, and that’s our real audience. Bottom line: In most situations, the costs of branding people “deniers” simply outweighs the benefits.
He’s right, the label is offensive, and I believe Dr. Mann uses it for spite and to denigrate his opponents. Dr. Mann doesn’t want debate at all, and that’s not the behavior of a scientist, but rather, an advocate.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Daveo says:
May 18, 2012 at 4:52 am
So it’s ok to post Monckton doing the same thing in reverse, by linking consensus (and by extention AGW proponents) with WWII and the death camps?
The discussion was about the fact that consensus was a political phenomenon and not a scientific one. You lifted it out of context and implied an extension that wasn’t in the original, then you tried to thwack Anthony with it as an example of *his* lack of integrity.
Hypocrisy much?
“I will call people who deny the science ‘deniers.’ I won’t be deterred by the fact that they don’t like the use of that term ..”
It amazes me how many people actually think ‘denier’ is an offensive term. I don’t find it offensive in any way, in fact I welcome and enjoy being called a climate denier. For me its fun.
When someone calls me a denier, it tells me I’m on the right track, it tells me I’m getting under their religiously alarmist skin. It means I’ve won. I like to win.
cheers
The denier situation is getting worse, the world is now full of alarmist deniers.
Tom Sterlin may be right in that we need to get away from petty name calling and return to respectful debate . But his way to late for when all was rosy in the alarmists grade and all seem to be going their way the dehumanizing and insults which included linking AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers ,the were just as readily used.
Its only now that the tides turned on them and the political will and the science goes against them, that some of now want to be more civil and have a dialog . But eve n now its still on the basis of their right and anyone else is wrong , although now not perhaps ‘bad and mad ‘ too.
Sorry Tom don’t piss on my feet and tell me its raining .
Oh, stop being so sensitive!
I have no problem being referred to as a ‘denier’ by twisted fanatics like Mann, it’s a badge of honour to be insulted by him and his ilk, it proves we’re winning the argument.
In fact, with the political climate very much going against the Warmists, this epithet can be turned back onto them, in the same way as various other maligned groups such as homosexuals and pigmentally challenged persons have reclaimed various derogatory references, such as ‘q*eer’ and the ‘n’ word.
Say it loud! Say it proud!
These boys have it right.
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2012/02/im-a-denier—one-more-time.html
The English language is such an impure, almost sentient entity. The meaning of a word oscillates from good to bad to good, from bad to good to bad, and from funny to serious to funny as often as the seasons change. What was hot is not cool, what was good is now bad.
I am skeptical of today’s research methods, and a complete denier of anthropogenic global warming. Who’s bad.
@ur momisugly jacksplaceagain “I’ve taken to calling the CAGW crowd ‘Collaborators’ as in those people who collaborated with the Nazis. Seems an appropriate term. Climate Collaborators.”
Ooooooohhh…. good one!
I try not to be offended when I am referred to as a “denier.” I know that the CAGW people who use the term only do so because of their deep concern over the type of world which we will all leave for future generations. They are motivated by their love “for the children.” Considering their great love for the children, I do not understand why they become angry when I refer to them as “climate pedophiles.”
For the life of me, I cannot fathom why Mann fails to understand that nothing is being denied. All that is being done is questioning, which is the scientific way. I guess when you lose the argument, your last refuge is petty ad hominems.
Kurt in Switzerland says:
May 18, 2012 at 5:18 am
“Sure, all things being equal, additional CO2 should result in some additional warming. The problem is the extent of such warming (as well as its supposed irreversibility and its supposed ability to overwhelm natural oscillations). The problem here is in actually carrying out an experiment (or separating the anthropogenic “signal” from the natural signal). ”
A clear prediction of the CO2AGW theory is that positive water vapor feedback should occur AND that the radiating top layer of the troposphere that radiates most of the IR to space should rise.
Both predictions can be tested, have been tested, and fail:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html?showComment=1332558067400#c2031512486689428024
It is now time for the CO2AGW scientists to accept this failure, come up with a new theory, and make new predictions.
Dirk: thank you for your message.
Clearly water vapor does different things at different altitudes and times of day (or night). For example, daytime clouds essentially dampen the solar heating, while nighttime clouds essentially reduce the heat loss to the atmosphere.
I’d like to see Carl Brehmer’s experiments repeated on a larger scale and at higher altitudes. Perhaps he could bring a summary to a willing skeptical atmospheric physicist at his local university.
The intricate coupling of increased Carbon Dioxide together with increased Water Vapor is what the warmists/alarmists say is dangerous/irreversible/exceeds natural oscillations. So that is what needs to be tested.
Kurt in Switzerland
You read here folks, Mann said that the debate about man-made global warming is settled science.
The use of the term Denier is quite infantile. I use Warmists for want of a better word. I don’t mind being called Cool, Coolist, Doubter, Sceptic but I’ll damned is I accept M. Mann’s bogus hockey stick.
Using the term actually backfires on Warmists and they don’t really know it. Reasonable intelligent fence sitters read ‘denier’ and wonder whether Warmists are engaged in science or a PR campaign. They they look for information from both sides of the debate then BAM! Skepticism cranks in.
I guess that if I am a “denier” then Mann must be a climate “crusader”.
[snip – over the top, sorry – Anthony]
Actually, ClimateBites is lacking integrity too. He should have stopped before he got to the “Though accurate and concise” part. He wants credit for not using the term while telling us it still fits. Nope, in my book that still doesn’t cut it.
[snip – over the top, sorry – Anthony]
Rather than respond the the term “denier”, why not respond to the action? Don’t look to the term ‘denier”. Rather, look the action, which is “name calling” and address it for what it is. A tool to promote propaganda, not science.
When someone resorts to name calling, there is a reason they are doing this. Wikipedia says the reason is:
“Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling
“Name calling” is not the action of a scientists, it is the action of a propagandist. By their actions, so shall you know them.
Heckeling, unfortunatly, is a part of open debate. Both sides point at the other as guilty.This debate can be won if we stay focused on the important issues
Mann nullifies nature’s natural variations.
His hubris heavily humps human impacts.
Mann’s curious calculations erase evidence.
Denier Mann deceptively denigrates discerners.
Refusing reality, Mann returns to recursive rhetoric.
Might Mann mull a mournful man’s musing?
Here comes a list of good names for those who belong to ClimateScientists (TM):
Scholastic
Cathedratic
Climate Priests
Apostles
Canonists
And there is the whole group of people who supports them:
Zealots
Proselytes
Adherents
Acceptors
(You know, my mother had taught me it is wrong calling people names…)
I posted the following at ClimateBites:
the climate collaborators are weather corroborators
they want us to shower less so they can jet more to fancy outskirts in the world for freshly spawned concillia of their new religion
I posted the following at ClimateBites:
\\Question for Dr. Mann: Is Steve McIntyre a “denier?” If he is under your definition, then the term needs to be re-evaluated and re-defined. His carefully detailed work has exposed yours as flawed and the dubious conclusions based on your work as unsupported. If Steve McIntyre is a “denier” then we should all be proud to be labeled as such.
I remember in the 60s when the “silent majority” turned loud and began calling young people who grew their hair and protested against all manner of things “freaks.” At first the term was viewed as derogatory. Then it was embraced by those at whom it was directed. “Let your freak flag fly.” It became a badge of honor. In that spirit, I would welcome being called a denier, based on what I see as the thrust of so-called “consensus climate science.”
But the reality is that too many people find the term to be a smear. Based on that, I’ll offer you a deal, Dr. Mann: I won’t call you a “fraud” (a term I’ve never used and one Mr. McIntyre forbids on his website) if you don’t call me a “denier.”//
@DirkH
“A clear prediction of the CO2AGW theory is that positive water vapor feedback should occur AND that the radiating top layer of the troposphere that radiates most of the IR to space should rise.
Both predictions can be tested, have been tested, and fail:”
+++++++++++++
Exactly the facts to raise, tiem and again. The ‘catastrophe’ of AGW is predicated upon a belief that these disproven speculations are actually true.Hi Shanshan
What a straw man! “One-sided skeptics”? Does the man have any self-awareness at all any more? What about the “one-sided skeptics” on HIS “side”?
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
The hockey stick represents a perversion of science. There is a name for people who pervert. The “Team” are science perverts. I would hate that the “Team” might falsely accuse me of association and would find such a response “crocodile tears”.
[not interested in your snarky questions – Anthony]