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.
@DJ, June 18 at 7:51,
Well-said. I agree completely.
“Deny” has many uses, a “denier” is merely one who denies that an assertion is true.
Children deny taking a cookie. Criminal defendants deny the charges against them.
In this context, though, Anthony has an excellent point, when “denier” is linked to those who the Holocaust.
My suggestion is to adopt the term “climate realists” for those, like me, who understand that some gaseous molecules absorb radiant energy under some conditions, but that overwhelming evidence shows that man-produced CO2 has not and does not measurably increase the world’s average temperature. Nor will it in the future, either.
Epiphany: The leftward drift of “hard” scientists over the last 50 years might be due to an increase in levels of environmental estrogens.
That n-word has a real meaning in English, too, and a proper context for using it.
Bob Ryan says:
June 18, 2012 at 7:25 am
‘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?
==========================================
I like it. A critic must have a healthy sense of skepticism to do his/her job. It also implies a lack of acceptance of the status quo. I like it.
Again the “feelings vs facts” meme: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/108143-how-much-is-nature-worth-green-accounting-movement-gains-traction …about the unveiling of “green accounting” at this weeks Rio conference. Maybe with this one the average person might detect that the UN crowd has finally jumped the shark.
A quote at the end says “It is much more important to come up with a methodology that people find intuitively acceptable rather than looking for hard commercial truths. If at a gut level people find it fair, then I think we can run with the idea.”
Mertonian Norm says:
June 18, 2012 at 7:13 am
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.
——————-
Every real scientist who agrees “believer” is an insult to their scientific knowledge and skills has screamed at the top of his lungs about how they feel slighted………..listen…….chirp
I don’t think but a few scientists honestly subscribe to the “C” AGW of James Hansen.
And they all know AL Gore’s just BS. (I still believe it’s just his revenge against America).
The sheeple may not know the difference but the real scientists do.
The only people who would take so little corrupt data and purposefully deny billions of living human beings their right to life would have to be insane.
The scientists know they’re killing more people than they will save.
If the temperature world wide went up 5 degrees and we lost all the ice in the world man, flora and fauna would survive. We’d open up great amounts of rich new land.
The only logical answer just isn’t logical. Do they really want to destroy mankind?
Only the rich, intelligent and strong will survive. I guess that’s how you eliminate the weak and stupid. Oh noes they’re coming after me.
Whenever one wishes to claim that the opposition is being irrational and avoid the innuendo associated with the term “denier”, I would suggest using the term rejectionist. It gives full force to the claim of irrationality, but avoids inaccurate allusions to Nazis.
JD
I use ‘Warmista’ all the time, as a sarcastic label for Global Warming Totalitarians such as Graham, who asks if ‘deniers’ are:
a: those who dispute CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as verifiable in a lab?
What’s verifiable in the lab, Graham, is the CO2 absorption spectrum. What’s not verifiable is any change in the Earth’s observable IR spectrum due to higher CO2. Sorry, Graham, it’s been the same for 30 years so far.
b) those who are paid by Big Oil to spread misinformation about Catastrophic Climate Change which will kill millions of people?
Who is paid what by whom? The very idea of ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’ is 100% misinformation and 0% science. And who is ‘Big Oil’ anyway?
As for millions of people, how about the thousands dispossessed by biofuel plantations?
How about the millions of birds killed by windmills?
c) those who question the wisdom of Kyoto-style emissions reduction treaties?
The best word to describe Kyoto is ‘folly’.
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?
Your wording is as prolix as Obama’s teleprompter. Take an English class.
Graham obviously yearns for a carbon-control dictatorship to save the world, and that is the very definition of a ‘Warmista’. The Warmista vocabulary includes
1. ‘denier’
2. ‘carbon’ without the ‘dioxide’
3. ‘catastrophic’
4. ‘unprecedented’
5. ‘tipping point’
6. sustainability’
7. ‘Big Oil’
Sorry folks, moral equivalence no more works with Warmistas than with Commies.
Our labels are accurately descriptive while theirs are insulting lies.
Steamboat Jack says:
June 18, 2012 at 8:51 am
—-
Thanks for the info about Greg Parker. I live in Texas as well.
A graph of social science – the science of lables and social persuasion – in a magazine on Nature. That’s precious.
Owen says:
June 18, 2012 at 8:34 am
I’m a Denier and they are Liars.
==========================================================
Not all of them are liars, some are mislead and do not apply the critical thinking.
I prefer more neutral terms like “AGW people” or “warmists”. There are, of course, different types of warmists. Radical ones know, that AGW has no basis in real science but use it to promote certain political agenda. Moderate ones refuse to critically look into the core AGW issues but do not agree with the political agenda of the radicals.
The third group are people who do apply critical thinking and know, what the AGW concept really is. I do not think there is a need of a special term for this group.
dana1981 Submitted on 2011/09/24 at 5:42 pm
Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”
That’s the correct acronym — if you happen to be a semiautomatic Kalashnikov carbine.
Sorry, Dana. The Rooskies have dibs on that one…
hmmmm. What were the methods used in this survey? The questions? The analysis? Sampling error? Survey studies are fraught with pitfalls and bias supremely difficult to overcome. But more importantly, the numbers may not meet the ceiling for validity or reliability. Maybe that’s why this “study” was reported in a letter versus a full-blown research article. I am guessing here but I wonder if it was initially presented as an article, couldn’t pass peer review, and was then sent back to the authors with the suggestion that they submit it as a letter.
This, unfortunately, seems to be par for the course when it comes to political discourse these days… pick the most extreme argument you can find from your opposition, argue against *that* and ignore that there are less extreme, and well reasoned opposing arguments.
It’s the rhetorical equivalent to using the Westboro Baptist Church as representative of all non-aetheists.
I would argue that it is, in effect, a strawman. At the very least it allows the one doing the arguing to focus on the fantastic – and often imaginary – arguments of their cartoonish, boogeymen adversaries and ignore more prevalent, more reasoned contrary thinking. Since these fantastical opponents – if they even exist – are obviously unhinged, it also carries little consequence to prescribe whatever horrible, evil motivations one can think of, no matter how ridiculous they might really be.
It’s just a shame that we can’t be a little more grown up about it in politics, but for this to infect “science” (if one can properly call the current state of climate “science” a science) is really disheartening. Science is supposed to be about reason… this is something else all together.
The opposite of “Believers” is “Non-Believers.” These two terms are appropriate to describe people who are on opposite sides of a debate regarding something that is not accepted as fact nor been proven to be true. “Deniers” is a term that would be used to describe those who do not accept a proven fact as being true. That NCC has labeled their side as “Believers” is tacit admission that they accept that “climate change” and “global warming” are NOT fact nor proven (although they probably did not intend it).
You’re missing the good news, by promulgating the word “believers” Nature is reinforcing that Global Warming is faith based science, not rational science 🙂
I like “rationalist”
rationalist – someone who emphasizes observable facts and excludes metaphysical speculation about origins or ultimate causes
or perhaps:
logical positivist – someone who maintains that any statement that cannot be verified empirically is meaningless
Of course, “logical positivist” just doesn’t “sing”,
I find it very sad that anyone would want to be called a “believer” in any scientific hypothesis.
Interstellar Bill says:
June 18, 2012 at 9:04 am
I use ‘Warmista’ all the time, as a sarcastic label for Global Warming Totalitarians….Our labels are accurately descriptive while theirs are insulting lies.
Particularly so since we don’t deny that the climate is changing — we’re merely dubious that it’s changing the way the Tantrumistas claim it is…
The consensus is in. The Earth is flat.
It’s just like the good old days when deniers suffered redistributive and retributive change.
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.
On that note, it would greatly help if Anthony did a series of articles here on where he does accept the existence of AGW. He’s a reviewer now, so start with the most recently published IPCC Working Group I findings.
I wonder if the, undoubtedly objectionable,term denier really has that much impact as since 2007 the number of those sceptical of CAGW has increased substantially. I think there re more sceptics now than the are non-sceptics. The superciliousness of those that write on and post to the various pro-AGW sites could have far more impact as no one likes being talked down to or treated in a very contemptuous manner.
Bob Ryan says:
June 18, 2012 at 7:25 am
I’m with you so far! I’m wondering if we share the same Alma Mater as well….
We don’t deny scientific evidence, we reject hypotheses that lack it.
There is something else that should never have passed peer review: Blatant policy advocacy.
Since when is it the objective of an ostensibly scientific journal to promote as a good and desirable goal, convincing people to support a particular position on the policy their government should take? Is not science supposed to an apolitical undertaking? Then why is it that “science” journals increasingly, openly promote ideological or even partisan political agendas?
One can only conclude that either science is not ideologically neutral, or that these journals are not scientific. The latter is the least abominable alternative.
Well, they’re not going to call us “climate realists”, are they – although that’s what most people here seem de facto to be – for the obvious reason that they’d automatically undermine their own position every time they said it. With the real world undermining their position every day for years now, that would rather hasten their inevitable demise. Let ’em play – or as we used to say, “let them damn themselves out of their own mouths”. It makes a big, soft target for us every time they substitute invective for the reasoned arguments they lack.
(NB The reference to ‘their inevitable demise’ is not a death threat. Better add that, these people are delusional after all.)