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.
I like Climate Realist. But Scarlet’s Climate Heritic may be nore appropriate.
Why is a letter pertaining to perceptions and public affairs in a science journal, aren’t there a plethora of mass psychology, marketing, and public affairs publications?
Reads like something written by Marxist propagandists. I wonder why?
Anthony,
If I had the time (and I don’t) I would give you a blog post on the downfall of Popular Science magazine. It’s gone the route of Scientific American and Discover and has fully embraced the alarmist AGW position and goes as far as to use the term “deniers” repeatedly and prominently.
From the abstract: “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. . . . 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.”
Whose definition of “a better society”? That’s Maurice Strong’s entire premise in creating the IPCC — get governments and the people behind the movement’s prescribed mitigation efforts so they can achieve the kind of progressive collectivist utopia the likes of him envision.
I am a staunch environmentalist and have the credentials to prove it. I have always questioned what Maurice Strong was up to. Just because I am critical of the sloppy science of Hansen, Mann, Briffa, and the others does not mean I am anti-environment or opposed to “a better society.” My notion of a better society does not include centralized bureaucratic control and redistribution of wealth.
Paul Bain, et al, should be resoundingly criticized — even ridiculed — for such propaganda masquerading as science.
I note the advocates are styled ‘believers’. As this implies an act of faith, there may even be some of their number who take umbrage, even as we do.
“A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change”
“deniers” = “deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change”
Unlike the work “nigger” “deniers” has a real meaning in the English language. It is silly to get upset about a word being used in proper context because someone used it somewhere else as a label. In the study it is specified as to “what” is being “denied”.
If asked “do you deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change?”
I reply: “Hell yes!”
If that makes me a “denier” I gladly and proudly wear that badge.
I love it when somebody says, “you mean your don’t believe in Global Warming?” I always say, ” I already have a religion. Don’t need another one.”
Any ideas on what’s happened to Jo Nova?
I’m quite happy to be called a CAGW denier. If the shoe fits, wear it!
However, the use of “climate change deniers” as the adopted and widely offensive label in the letter is a significant issue showing real bias etc on the author’s part.
And kind of revokes my objection to getting bent out of shape over this.
The Bain, et al, paper has the eery spectre of the Eugenics argument a hundred years ago — you want a better society, don’t you?
Will this be the lasting impression of this debacle in the minds of future generations? A broad-shouldered “Uebermensch”, wearing Underoos of all things, brandishing a hockey stick and, with a stern scowl, shouting at us:
“Deniers! DENIERS!! Submit to my scientific authoritah!”
How can academics remain silently accepting of all this? Surely they must have limits? What will it take for them to finally tell their colleagues “Enough”?
RTF
Nature has been using the D-word since at least 2009, here in an editorial:
“:To these denialists … “; “Denialists often maintain … ” ; “…the denialists’ conspiracy theories.”; “… but a word that denialists have used …”; “…and denialists use every means …”.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
So ramping up the rhetoric, just before Rio+20, into a letter, appears to be in “character”.
I’m a Denier and they are Liars. Their name calling is an attempt to dehumanize their opposition. I’ll wear the yellow star of denialism proudly !
denier = heretic
That’s the starting point for understanding this new religion of CAGW. I’m cross-posting this comment of mine from BH if mods permit.
Papers like this one are part of the campaign, trying to figure out the best tactical ways to squeeze out or overwhelm heresy wherever it is found. “Climate communications” is the new rage, to try to get around the inconvenient fact (to “believers”) that not enough people and governments are rushing off the cliff.
The activities of “climate communications” research and continual “re-framing” of terms are integral to the pseudo-science of CAGW. The fact that in terms of democratic politics they sometimes have to make nice, or simply lie about what they are doing, does not alter the fact that this new “climate communications” paradigm is designed to alter, re-educate, modify all these pesky heretics. If they can’t do it directly they will first try to “channel” us into what they view as environment-appropriate activities.
Perhaps an antidote to the poison is in order:
Matt Ridley’s “Scientific Heresy” Angus Millar RSA lecture
[I don’t agree with all details and terms of discussion but I do think that Ridley has done a powerful “re-framing” of the controversies to counter the usual CAGW terms of debate.]
interesting BH thread on the Ridley lecture
I proudly embrace the term “the science is settled denier”.
I have had a very heated debate with a high school friend of mine (who has a doctorate in evolutionary genetics) regarding “Climate Change.” Ironically, his view is that those who do not agree with the strong tenets of AGW have religious “belief based” systems. How odd. So I point out to him a few things.
First, it is not I who believes nor disbelieves anything, except more evidence is required for catastrophic global warming. I have an open mind. It is his mind that is closed, based on the assertions of a relatively small number of people, who have come down from the mountain with tomes of learning, but who are not willing to share how the tomes were written. In other words, “Believe us.”
Second, I tell him a small number of things could persuade me.
The models could have error bars, and falsifiable conditions. Such as, if the mid tropospheric hot spot doesn’t show up, we have to discard the model because it’s really far off what we thought, If the models and their prediction of climate sensitivity are wrong, and climate sensitivity is low, we can call off doomsday. So the models must have predictive value, and falsifiable conditions.
And I also mentioned that the reconstructions have to have all the data present, and all the methods present. That’s in the sense of Steve McIntyre, in which series filtered out by an algorithm must be present, the filtering algorithm present, useable code present, etc., so the reconstructions can be properly examined, and verified as using proper statistical methods. The same holds true for the thermometer records.
I realize the complaints of the AGW alarmists is that presenting the information could compromise future research (that is, climate scientists might get scooped). So sorry. Either the end of the world by the slow fry is something we need to address immediately, in which case a few individuals being scooped is of no consequence, or it isn’t. Sorry, science is a subset of humanity, not the other way around.
Until Climate Scientists start acting like real scientists, I’m not going to take their word that the entire human race has to spend $36T to convert to solar (what about nuclear, folks), or wind, or whatever is acceptable to them. Nor am I willing to “set an example,” by damaging the US economy with massive energy costs, encouraging more industry to go to China, the main C02 generator on the planet.
All I want is arguments that make sense. When they don’t make sense, how can I possibly agree with them?
Does anyone know what happened to Jo Nova’s website? I went there and it says the account has been suspended??? Did it get taken down by Australia gov’t?
If Nature wanted to get it right, they’d call skeptics private investigators, doing the work that should have been done by journals and law enforcement.
OT. Jo Nova’s blog appears to be suspended. I’ve gotten that alert 4 times using different ways of trying to get there. Can you verify?
As a scientist I actually find the term “believer” slightly more offensive than the offensive term “denier”. It makes it sound like a faith-based religion and not a pursuit of knowledge. It makes it sound like you are a member of a cult: Jim Jones had believers, David Koresh had believers, and on and on. People believe in all sorts of crazy stuff. But science isn’t about belief. How odd does it sound if you ask people “Do you believe in chemsitry, do you believe in gravity, do you believe in genetics, etc.” or “I believe in gravity, but you are a gravity denier”.
If I were an AGW “Believer” I definitely wouldn’t want to be labelled a “believer”. But since it is a cult, not based on scientific principles, and the believers expose their religion by labelling themselves “believers” then I’m okay to be labelled a “denier”. Just like some people deny the existance of God; It’s based on faith…you either believe or deny. There’s no place for either of these terms in science.
I hope the scientific arguments presented pertaining to social engineering are more robust than the arguments presented for CAGW. /sarc
This is wrong in too many ways for me to get my head around right this minute. Maybe I’ll get back to it after I get out of engineer mode later.
“…..would the Nature Publishing Group allow things like the “n-word?”
Maybe not the Nature Publishing Group, but….
I have a friend by the name of Greg Parker who is running for Railroad Commissioner here in Texas.
(For those Unfortunates who do not live in Texas, the Railroad Commission regulates natural resource production and transportation. They have nothing to do with railroads. It’s a long story)
Greg understands that AGW is a hoax. His platform includes rational resource exploitation, transparency in regulations and permitting, and creating a “level playing field” for producers big and small alike. He is an “outsider” so he is running a grass roots campaign supported by people like me. He has the support of the “tea party” organizations which includes most of the Republican grass-roots activists here in Texas.
http://parkerfortexas.com/
It is unfortunate, but the CAGW opposition have openly referred to him as that “uppity tea party n____r”.
So, yes, the Warmistas DO use the N word in the CAGW debate. In public. When they can’t win the debate with facts.
(By the way, there is a run-off election here in Texas on July 31. Greg’s opponent was on the Public Utilities Commission and was a party to spending billions of dollars on wind farm subsidies. The Wall Street Journal reports that Texas is facing rolling blackouts. As does WUWT. The choice is clear to me.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/we-spent-billions-on-wind-power-and-all-i-got-was-a-rolling-blackout/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303506404577444571241195192.html?KEYWORDS=texas+rolling+blackouts
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
It’s always better when tyrants express their intentions openly. They’re vastly more dangerous when they sound nice.