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
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 pmPlease, 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,
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Chico, CA USA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
“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.
‘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?
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…
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.
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.
I would think that being called a believer in a magazine purporting to be about science, would be a far worse fate.
And Jon Niccum about as credible as Christina Aguilera going undercover in al-Qaeda
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!
…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.
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’.
HA: I am a “Climate Contrarian!”
….Or is it “Climate Change Contrarian?”
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’! 🙂
AGW extremism is very destructive. Nature magazine is one of the many casualties.
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.
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!
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
In a religious context, “believer” makes sense, but the alternative should be “unbeliever”, as in “stone the unbeliever”.
These alarmists would make Mohammed proud.
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………..
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………..