Nature's ugly decision: 'Deniers' enters the scientific literature

We’ve known for sometime that there’s an underlying, sometimes overt display of hatred towards climate skeptics. However, it generally never made it into science publications. Unfortunately, the editors  of the journal Nature Climate Change just made one of the ugliest decisions ever with the publication of the Bain et al letter.  One wonders though, if this were a study about… say, attitudes about racism, would the Nature Publishing Group allow things like the “n-word” in the graph and text? I think not.

Lest you think this is just one entry, read on:

Nature Climate Change | Letter

Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers

Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries Affiliations Contributions Corresponding author
Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1532Received 03 October 2011 Accepted 16 April 2012 Published online 17 June 2012

A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change1, 2. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally3, 4. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions5, 6. An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important. People have strong interests in the welfare of their society, so deniers may act in ways supporting mitigation efforts where they believe these efforts will have positive societal effects. In Study 1, climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development. Study 2 (N=347) replicated this experimentally, showing that framing climate change action as increasing consideration for others, or improving economic/technological development, led to greater pro-environmental action intentions than a frame emphasizing avoiding the risks of climate change. To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.

According to wordcounter.com “denier” is used 41 times in the full letter, seen here.

Here are your results…

Word Frequency
climate 92
change 88
denier 41
action 32
study 21

Further down in the list, “believer” was used only 12 times, about a 3.5 to 1 bias.

One wonders if any of the peer reviewers or even the editors of Nature Climate Change raised any questions about the use of the term? I wonder if any of them even broached the subject at all, or if they just accepted the word without thought? Did any of them suggest “skeptic” as a more acceptable replacement? Clearly the authors of this study didn’t think twice about the word. I’d love to see the peer review notes for this one.

In case anyone thinks the word isn’t rooted in offensiveness, I’ll remind you of the syndicated column that gave the use of the word the big push:

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

Comically, one of the worst offenders of use of the word, Sacramento environmental advocate Dana Nuccitelli, doesn’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot:

dana1981 Submitted on 2011/09/24 at 5:42 pm

Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”

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

Of course, we’ve stopped using “SS” (another well known reference to Nazi Germany) to refer to the website Skeptical Science, but proving himself a hypocrite, Skeptical Science contributor and editor Dana Nuccitelli has not returned the favor, and continues to be snipped here at WUWT for using the word. The word also continues use at Skeptical Science on a daily basis. It seems this is a common problem with AGW advocates, they have no sense of fair play, only dogma and thinly veiled hatred for people who disagree with their position.

Bishop Hill tipped me off to this story and has decided to send a letter to the editor of Nature, Dr. Rory Howlett, which I’m reproducing below:

Dear Dr Howlett

I have written a blog post on the Bain et al paper you have recently published. I found it quite surprising that a reputable journal would publish an article that contained so much offensive language.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/18/potty-mouthed-nature.html

I was wondering if you would care to comment on your decision to publish the article in this form. Did the editorial team consider asking the authors to use less incendiary language? Do you view your journal as having a role in encouraging civilised debate? Do you have policies on offensive language?

Thanks for your attention.

I think writing to the editor of Nature Climate Change to ask why he found the use of the offensive word that describes about half the population today (according to polls) acceptable, is an excellent idea. Here’s the details, from:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/about-eds/index.html

Chief Editor: Rory Howlett
Rory graduated in zoology from the University of Oxford and was awarded his PhD in ecological genetics from the University of Cambridge. Rory joined Nature in 1987 and was for 20 years an editor with the journal, where he developed wide-ranging interests in the biological and physical sciences and their interfaces. Between leaving Nature in 2008 and rejoining the Nature Publishing Group, Rory spent three years as Media and Communications Officer the United Kingdom’s National Oceanography Centre in Southampton.

The Nature Climate Change team is headquartered in the London editorial office:

Nature Climate Change Editorial Team

Nature Publishing Group

The Macmillan Building

4 Crinan Street

London

N1 9XW

UK

e-mail: nclimate@nature.com

When sending email, please be respectful and to the point.

Here is the letter I have sent:

=============================================================

Dr. Rory Howlett

Chief Editor

Nature Climate Change

Nature Publishing Group

The Macmillan Building

4 Crinan Street

London, N1 9XW, UK

Subject: Bain et al paper

Dear Dr. Howlett,

I was shocked to learn that Nature has apparently endorsed the use of the word “denier” which is deemed offensive by many people in the climate debate due to it being associated with Holocaust denial thanks to a widely syndicated opinion column in 2007:

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

I run the most viewed blog on climate change and global warming in the world, and have written an essay questioning Nature’s apparent endorsement of the use of the word in scientific literature, seen at: http://wp.me/p7y4l-h7K

I question whether the peer review process even broached the subject of the use of this word. We know from experience that Nature does not allow other offensive words describing groups of people or minorities in their scientific literature, so I and many others wonder why this exception was made?

I would hope that Nature would realize that this word is offensive to many people, and ask the authors of this paper to substitute a less offensive term, such as “skeptic” or “contrarian”.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Best regards,

Anthony Watts

www.wattsupwiththat.com

Chico, CA USA

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

You misspelled the guy’s name…it’s “Roaring Howler”.

Kurt in Switzerland

Something is missing in line three of the text of your posting:
“…publication of the ____ One…”
REPLY: Fixed, thanks – Anthony

Harold Ambler

Anthony’s letter is a wonderful model.
Concern for others is at the heart of my own climate change skepticism, cold-weather mortality owing to energy poverty being a piece of that.
I just attended my 25th college reunion, where several people who had read my book were actively introducing it to others. And many conversations took place about climate change. One woman who clearly felt as I did for so long and as Al Gore does still, got upset after I asked a question. This was what I asked: “What is Earth’s global mean temperature?”
To her credit, she did suddenly realize that her knowledge of facts about climate change was as she said “very superficial.” She said she looked forward to reading my book, and I hope she does..
I’ll be on “Red Eye” tonight and I hope to discuss the reconstruction of Reykjavik’s temperature record this year by NASA, among other things… Midnight PDT, 3 am (Tuesday) EDT.

Dave

My springer spaniel’s name is Rory and I suspect that I’d get more response from her (in the form of a few barks) than you’ll get from the esteemable Dr. Howlett.

While I agree that some sort of rubicon has been crossed in the publishing of this paper, I think there’s something else that’s more revealing.
For me, perhaps more important is the implication of the paper that us “deniers” can in some way be cajoled into doing “good stuff” if there’s some wider moral good or the true purpose can in some way be masked. It seems that they see us as Neanderthals who need to be led gently into their enlightened uplands rather than holders of a legitimate scientific position. Their condescension is repulsive.

mydogsgotnonose

‘Carbon Trader’ Al Gore reportedly invented the term ‘denier’ to place ‘sceptics’ alongside ‘Holocaust Deniers’.
What appears to be happening now is a desperate attempt to elevate ‘deniers’ to the position, apparently always planned for them, of ‘untermenschen’..
This apparently coincides with Eugenicist Paul Erlich being made a FRS.
That makes the present period economically and politically about 1933.

Kurt in Switzerland

P.S. Skeptic (or sceptic) is the only acceptable term out of those susggested.
Contrarian sounds like “denier lite.” As you correctly point out, any derivative of deny (e.g., “denialist” or “denier”) is both in poor taste regarding Holocaust victims & their families and it shows a lack of respect for the intellect of those in disagreement. Perhaps dissenter or dissident might more accurately represent the attitude of those rejecting myriad government schemes to “save the planet” or to ensure “sustainability” for future generations. BTW, someone forgot to mention that sustainability must apply to the finances (otherwise it will be a self-fulfilling UNSUSTAINABLE scheme).
Excellent letter, btw. You should send a copy to MSM outlets as well.
Kurt in Switzerland

Jimmy Haigh.

As I have always said, I find political correctness deeply offensive. But no one cares about me. I know why – it is because I am a member of the wrong minority.

SS is perfectly acceptable for prefixes for ships, with SS standing for the type of propulsion (steamship), so using SS for that misnamed web site seems appropriate as it reminds me of a steaming pile of …

Todd

Affiliations
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia Queensland 4072, Australia
Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries
Heh. I guess the only way this would have been better is if it would have come from a School of Political Science.

Keith

Offensive for offesnive in line 2, as well as the construction “climate debate to it being….” in same line
REPLY: Fixed thanks, too early in the morning here for me. – Anthony

Ed Caryl

The use of the word “believer” is extremely revealing! They have now confirmed for all to see that CAGW is a religion, not science.

[fixed thanks]
I look forward to reading the reply…

“A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change”
-who this group consists of needs to be carefully defined:
a)those who dispute CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as verifiable in a lab?
b)those who are paid by Big Oil to spread misinformation about Catastrophic Climate Change which will kill millions of people?
c)those who question the wisdom of Kyoto-style emissions reduction treaties?
d)those who accept man-made carbon emissions are likely having a warming influence, but feel the actual effects of this remain highly uncertain, and possible to mitigate against?
e)those who dont care?
f)all of the above?

starzmom

I agree with Peter Ward. This is all about communications and persuasion, not about the basic science. Skeptics don’t buy into the science, so we must be persuaded that there is some greater good out there. Its always been about the communications and always been condescending.

Jimmy Haigh.

Peter Ward says:
June 18, 2012 at 6:46 am
“Their condescension is repulsive.”
That’s it in a nutshell. The “politically correct” are those who think they are better than everyone else and who talk about the rest of us in repulsively condescending terms – basically because they think we are too thick to understand.
As time goes by every politically correct term will be replaced by another more abstract one as we thockos eventually work out what they mean…

We’re going to be seeing a lot more of these campaigns based on “polls”, not least because after the Shakun mauling and a few others like it more recently, it’d take a brave climate scientist to come up with a suitably alarming paper, which was so bullet proof, it couldn’t be torn to pieces in public. Apart from the usual headline seeking celebrity scientists, the rest are keeping their head down. The alarmists, being gradually stripped of any bogus scientific authority, will increasingly turn to pure propaganda.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/lies-damn-lies-and-polls/
Gergis joins Shakun, just to underscore the lesson that junk alarmist science, will get torn to pieces by the skeptic blogosphere. They now have to resort to rigged polls and psychobabble to keep up some sort of forward momentum.
Pointman

Steve Keohane

It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions
Talk about psychological projection!

Richard T. Fowler

A case of: ‘We’re losing the debate on the science, so we’d better turn up the ad hominems to full-blast, and see if that scores some points.’
To all policy-making officials reading this: You will be judged based on which side you come down on with this issue. The people are not nearly as stupid as these scientists seem to think we are. Not by a long shot.
RTF

More drivel. These people haven’t a shred of smarts (a.k.a. intellect) left to bandy around; instead, they just engage in mental masturbation. If you snip that, I understand. But therein is the nutshell: these people are the result of an education system that forsook critical thought about a generation ago…and now they themselves forge ahead, empty-headed…engaged in pal review and divorced entirely from reality: Sheeple.

Or a political ideology that relies on beliefs and emotions instead of logic and reason. Primacy of ideology produced Lysenko and mass starvations. This will be no better as the future is to be built around social relationships and a return to labor-intensive technology and self-sufficiency.
As I wrote over the weekend the bureaucrats are deceitfully putting these measures in place through the Belmont Forum and the Future Earth Alliance. These sound silly and in need of a caped crusader or 2 but they are anything but in the hands of unaccountable officials with access to public money. All these measures are going operational quietly through backdoors like education and public policy treaty or no treaty. They have to ratchet up the rhetoric against anyone with pesky facts that undermine ideology.
They cannot send us to the gulag yet so they use ugly words that shut down scrutiny. They cannot survive scrutiny and they know it. It’s the precise same motivation for limiting access to facts and trying to keep literacy now at a functional level. No better. We see it in the worldwide emphasis of UNESCO, OECD, and the World Bank to push emotional development and life skills as the purpose of education. In the developed West.
“Deniers” is no better than any other emotional term meant to close off rational inquiry. And that pursuit has quite a long and tragic history. Accuse the other side of what you, yourself, are up to is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Matt

Sooooo what. “Big Bang” was a term to ridicule the now famous idea – and see what a long way it has come.

Mertonian Norm

I would say the use of “believer” is almost as damning in the Bain paper, and it should be offensive to AGW proponents who come to their scientific conclusions sincerely. If climate science were proceeding as it should, anyone involved in furthering its study would be considered a skeptic to one degree or another, and there would be no need for terms such as “alarmist”, “warmist”, “contrarian” and the like. “Denier”, though, is a downright dangerous term to use, even on blogs, and no good will come of its inclusion in mainstream journals.

Anthony, do not waste your time trying to reason with zealots like Dana from the cartoonists website,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
They have no intention of seeking any sort of honest discourse.
Alarmists have a long history of trying to label climate skeptics as associated with Holocaust deniers,
“But refusal to recognize global warming or evidence of man’s role has become, …a 21st century equivalent of Holocaust denial.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2005
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Views-on-warming-hard-to-thaw-1181144.php
“These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers – like Holocaust deniers.” – Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog, 2005
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2010/01/holocaust-climate-denial-desmogblog.html
“An Inconvenient Truth is so convincing that it makes opposers of the argument as credible as Holocaust deniers.” – Jon Niccum, Lawrence Journal-World, 2006
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jun/23/global_warming_peril_exposed_truth/?arts&_r=true
“It’s about the climate-change “denial industry”, …We should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” – David Roberts, Grist Magazine, 2006
http://newsbusters.org/node/8249
“If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” – Scott Pelley, CBS, 2006
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/01/21/cbs-airs-conspiratorial-global-warming-special-hosted-reporter-who-likene
“There are now proposals that ‘global warming deniers’ be treated the same as ‘Holocaust deniers: professional ostracism, belittlement, ridicule and, even, jail.” – Paul JJ Payack, Global Language Monitor, 2006
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/12/19/oukoe-uk-words-idUKN1516924620061219
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007
http://newsbusters.org/node/10730
“Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Deniers-of-global-warming-harm-us-1243264.php
“Global-warming skeptics make more excuses than Holocaust deniers.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Evidence-of-global-warming-surrounds-a-skeptic-1250041.php
“At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency.” – David Fiderer, The Huffington Post, 2009
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/holocaust-deniers-global-warming-deniers-chris-wallace-any-difference/blog-220255/
“Some people don’t believe in climate warning – like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.” – Paul McCartney, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/24/paul-mccartney-global-warming-holocaust-deniers/

I don’t deny the climate changes. Nobody does. So what is it exactly we are denying?

Les Johnson

Once again, the so-called experts have it wrong.
I doubt very much if a majority of skeptics deny the existence of AGW. Most just question the future extent, the future consequences, and the expected costs. Plus, of course, the models used to get to those so-called forecasts.

P. Solar

“To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.”
That’s a good plan, since they seem to have serous problems dealing with the _reality_ of climate change themselves.
If they “focus” on something else we’ll all feel better.

Bob Ryan

‘Denier’ in this context is very offensive, skeptic is OK but ‘critic’ is much better. Many here take a critical perspective, challenging the nonsense on both sides of the debate. Good, robust criticism which is constructive and tolerant is the lifeblood of science – I am quite happy to be called a Global Warming Critic – does that go for anyone else?

Keith

Steve Keohane says:
June 18, 2012 at 6:59 am
It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions
Talk about psychological projection!

Exactly. For whom is the issue of and approach CO2-forced global warming a matter of dogma, rather than evidence?
AR5 will be the last IPCC report, not because the UN accept that it’s a busted flush, but because they have passed the stage where hard-science arguments are of any benefit to them. This kind of article, and others of a similar ilk of recent months, are the future of the pro-AGW ‘debate’. As we were told, the science is settled. Now is the time for the politics to take centre stage and mentally deficient amongst us to be cajoled into doing what’s right, by whatever means necessary…

John F. Hultquist

Those using the d-term are encumbered by the failure to recognize the existence of scientific and societal (inefficiencies, waste, corruption) reasons for not supporting their solutions to the perceived danger of tipping points and catastrophic warming. Note they use the term “climate change” when, in fact, it is warming from CO2 that is on their minds. Either way, they deliberately twist the issue to fit their belief (as in “believer”) so that the shoddiness of their “climate science” does not have to be confronted. I will introduce you to a mentally sound person that does not accept that the climate changes as soon as I find one.
~~~~~
On a different level, these names . . .
Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries
. . . should be carved into a wall of shame.

Urederra

Nature misanthropy, more likely.
You cannot deny that.

That’s the thing about Climatism and all of the liberal fascists, English has become a liars language and we cannot use the language of science because the global warming fearmongers kicked morality and the scientific method to the curb. And they did that because the weather and by extension the climate is reality but in the hands of the Left it is a political tool to centralize credit and energy into the hands of the state. The ideology of the Left impels them to accomplish these ends by any means available, even if truth is a innocent victim.
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/liberal-fascism/

So climate change has become a religion with articles of faith that must be believed without physical proof. Definitely has become the antithesis of what science is supposed to be.

Jeremy

I would think that being called a believer in a magazine purporting to be about science, would be a far worse fate.

Keith

Poptech says:
June 18, 2012 at 7:14 am
“An Inconvenient Truth is so convincing that it makes opposers of the argument as credible as Holocaust deniers.” – Jon Niccum, Lawrence Journal-World, 2006

And Jon Niccum about as credible as Christina Aguilera going undercover in al-Qaeda

TomRude

However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions…
==
1) suppose they’ll use other means at one point
2) insult our intelligence
Welcome to the new totalitarian green world!
Nature indeed is nothing more than a propaganda journal. Shame!

Greg House

…I would hope that Nature would realize that this word is offensive to many people, and ask the authors of this paper to substitute a less offensive term, such as “skeptic” or “contrarian”.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Best regards,
Anthony Watts
=========================================================
Anthony, I understand your feelings, being called a “denier” might be unpleasant, because it has an insulting component, but I think the overall effect of them calling us “deniers” is positive for us. Insulting us they will lose more than they will win in public opinion.
The term “skeptic” is a bad choice. According to the WordWeb dictionary “skeptic” means “someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs”. Your calling yourself a skeptic implies, that you do not have a strong position but just a habit to doubt things.

scarletmacaw

Ed Caryl says:
June 18, 2012 at 6:51 am
The use of the word “believer” is extremely revealing! They have now confirmed for all to see that CAGW is a religion, not science.

I agree. The use of the term ‘believer’ in the most preeminent publication of their religion is a huge admission. To get that admission, it’s well worth putting up with another usage of the term ‘denier’. People are defined by what they call themselves, not what others call them. The church of cAGW is now officially established, although most of us knew it was a religion for some time now.
In light of that, I prefer to be called a ‘heretic’.

Greg Roane

HA: I am a “Climate Contrarian!”
….Or is it “Climate Change Contrarian?”

DJ

I’m sorry Anthony, but I fear you’ve erred here, because we are neither “deniers”, “skeptics” or “contrarians”. We are, I’m sure, overwhelmingly pro-environment, and pro-science.
If it’s claimed that there’s $1,000 in the account and I find by audit that there’s only $800, that does not make ME a denier, skeptic, or contrarian. If it’s claimed that the temperatures have been steadily rising and, again by audit, I find they have not and I find incorrectly manipulated data to show they have, it does not make me a denier, skeptic or contrarian to bring it to the light of day.
It is insidious and patently offensive the insinuation that those who bring to light the incorrect “facts” are against the environment. Why is wanting a fully open scientific discourse using factual data contrarian? It is not. That’s all I ask for, it’s all you and most who read and comment here have ever wanted. Open, honest science. The truth, with the chips falling where they may. Right?

Wagathon-the terms math education and science education are ambiguous enough in English that they fail to pick up significant shifts in purpose and methods. They get picked up, however, in Romantic languages like French, Portuguese, and Spanish. That’s one of the reasons the international ed agencies prefer English and say so in their publications.
English hides the shift from conveying a body of knowledge and methods to a means of using the coursework to socialize the child and promote generic real world problem solving. Preferably nonlinear problems with no fixed answer. Helps persuade the impressionable little darlings that this is a world in transition that needs dramatic changes.
Just needs better designs this time.

I’m not too exercised about it. All the talk of ‘denier’ and ‘believer’ (who would have thought they would use that term in publication?) is going to backfire with egg on their faces.
I guess ‘skeptic’ is OK, but didn’t Richard Lindzen say he doesn’t think that term is appropriate? Bob Ryan’s suggestion of ‘critic’ is better. Personally, I think you should have asked them to use the term ‘realist’! 🙂

hunter

AGW extremism is very destructive. Nature magazine is one of the many casualties.

DaveF

Jimmy Haigh 6:50:
“…..I’m in the wrong minority.”
Jimmy, you’re in the tiny minority of Scotsmen of Yorkshire extraction. No wonder you’re feeling persecuted. Dave.

Stacey

Why don’t we all boycott Macmillan Publishing Group?

The word I question is “believer”. If one considers all the measures proposed and taken to reduce CO2 emissions, and if one looks at the lifestyles of all “believers”, great and small, it becomes clear that nobody truly believes in the threat posed by human generated GHGs. Nobody ever proposes direct action to reduce emissions.
Coal and uranium rich Australia wastes a fortune on toy “alternatives” which have to be manufactured, imported, implemented (and, ultimately dismantled), all to no end. We have no nukes, and our coal power facilities, upon which we will continue to rely, are aging clunkers. To generate cash for this nonsense, we export 75% of our enormous coal output. This expatriated coal is not used as installation art. It is combusted into the exact same atmosphere as the one I am breathing now. Much of it is used to manufacture neo-medieval junk to be used for power generation – back in Oz!
In short, every Australian “reduction” measure is calculated to be as indirect and ineffective.as possible. Clearly, climate alarmism is adherence to faction, not to belief.
This begs two further questions:
1. If CAGW resulting from human activity was real, what would you do about it, right now?
2. Who are the absolute last people you would consult or trust to take appropriate measures?
Well?
Exactly!

A fan of *MORE* discourse

WUWT‘s too-common use of terms like ‘warmista’ unfortunately yielded WUWT‘s high-ground in climate-change debate. If WUWT‘s editors, essayists, and posters were to embrace a policy foreswearing pejorative language, this would be a substantial step in a good direction.
REPLY: “Too common”? it was used once in a headline. Go do a word count on “denier” at other websites and get back to us. Or, have a look at how I’m portrayed as having sex with farm animals (see the “corrections” at the end: http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl ) for daring to ask for a technical correction. As for you, my fine feathered fake friend, despite your handle, based on your writings here, I think you’d be quite happy if WUWT disappeared. Yet, you seem perfectly OK with that things greens say that turned that poor man into a criminally insane person. You seem to have no qualms with any of that, and that’s the true tragedy here.
And you seem to forget, that I went down the path of “foreswearing pejorative language” with the people at Skeptical Science, making an offer, and they refused.
See: A modest proposal to Skeptical Science
Aren’t your really “A physicist” under yet another fake name trying to get around the conditions for the question that was refused?
I’m really not very impressed with your “concerns”. Put your name to them, and I’ll pay attention. Otherwise its just noise.- Anthony

ChE

In a religious context, “believer” makes sense, but the alternative should be “unbeliever”, as in “stone the unbeliever”.
These alarmists would make Mohammed proud.

JaneHM

Everyone so far is commenting on the use of language. Let’s now look at the content of the Nature Climate Change letter and ask the corrollary question:
“HOW TO WE GET AGW’ers TO TAKE PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION” !!!
Queue the photos of private jets, Al Gore’s electric bill etc………..

JaneHM

Everyone so far is commenting on the use of language. Let’s now look at the content of the Nature Climate Change letter and ask the corrollary question:
“HOW DO WE GET AGW’ers TO TAKE PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION” !!!
Queue the photos of private jets, Al Gore’s electric bill etc………..