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
I’m worried by the lack of concern in most posts that people do not understand what the Nature Climate Change article is about. They want to convince everybody that mankind has more control over the weather than nature itself. It may not say it like that in the article but this is their ultimate goal.
Regarding the scientific evidence…well the alarmists are denying past climate statistics. They deny earth is below GAT and atmospheric co2 and they deny that there was an ice age in the ordovician.
I actually had a good email exchange with Isaac Held about the lack of comparison between todays temperature’s and the historical record. For those who do not know, Dr. Held is one of the only good scientists I know who supports global warming, but realizes the theory has serious holes.
But I think overall if you polled scientists on the 300% positive feedback issue, we would see Mann, Schmidt, Hansen and Trenberth in a small minority.
According to a book on logic and argumentation I just read (titled “Nonsense”–pp. 121-23), “nonbeliever” is the complement; “disbeliever” is the opposite.
Good point–I think that’s how 90% of believers intend the term, not as an allusion to Holocaust denialism.
Incidentally, a warmist comment above took umbrage at WUWT’s use of “warmista,” presumably interpreting it as an allusion to the Sandanistas–i.e., as an attempt to smear believers as communists. But “ista” is just a diminutive suffix used as a mild put-down of followers of a certain person or fans of a certain topic, as in it’s common use in Clintonistas (fans of the Clintons) or Fashionistas (fashion victims).
I think you are correct, although I’m not convinced “pro-environmentally” even means reducing my carbon footprint (I don’t own a car or television and rarely fly). I think “pro-environmentally” is just a guise for redistribution of wealth
I think you need to lighten up a little with the music of my favorite band, Minnesotans for Global Warming and their song “i’m a Denier.” (the World’s not on fire….)
Have you noticed what they call themselves?? Believers!! Haven’t we SAID they were The Church of Global Warming? I consider them a very blasphemous church, but that is a personal matter.
In preferring the term skeptics, we are calling ourselves the scientists. Well, we are, but they cannot afford to admit that.
There are some lessons to be learned from the philosophy of war in this dispute. Which is really what’s going on here between skeptics and true believers, just not with guns and bombs (yet ). A brief overview of the subject:
Quote and link:
“Alternative definitions of war can include conflict not just between nations but between schools of thought or ideologies.”
http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/
Oops–“its common use”
Yeah, besides slamming the authors and the journal, let’s slam the reviewers who let this pass.
A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
cagw believers remind me of the game Lemmings played on the old ZX Spectrum. They believe everything the leader tells them and follow him without question.
It used to be that those considered to be trolls could be interesting or at least entertaining. Alas, poor “a fan..” is neither. I was taught that if you can’t say anything good about a person then the best thing is to say nothing at all. Which brings this comment to an end.
“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 [denier]? 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?
No, the exact opposite would be the case: since the whole [passive-aggressive] paper apparently illogically and unscientifically “begs the question” as to the empirical reality of CO2CAGW “climate change” and is likewise intended to unscientifically demonize skeptics as “deniers”, it is only another example of the Propaganda Operation known as “mainstream Climate Science”, which intentionally does not practice real science, but instead directs its “methods” solely in favor of its own regressive Totalitarian goal, “perception is reality” Thought Control.
As a rhetorical rejoinder, I’d also like to ask the “mainstream Climate Scientists”, enc., why they don’t believe in the principles of the Enlightenment, which include the principles of individual rationality and the Scientific Method. Not to mention the small matter of Evolution which they keep insisting they “believe in”, but which appears to place these thought controllists themselves as likely candidates to qualify as functional dead-enders or throwbacks when it comes to the question of exactly what objectively advances the Human Race!
To these guys, I raise my right middle finger, palm upwards.
Hi Anthony – should you follow up with another letter to NAture.
This comment by Prof Richard Betts (Met Office (UK) -Head of Climate Impacts, IPCC AR4/AR5 lead author) may be worth quoting:
———————————-
Prof Richard Betts:
“his paper really makes me cringe.
Neither “Belief” nor “Denial” have any place in a subject that relies on scientific evidence, and continual testing and review of that evidence. It should be about being either convinced or not convinced by the evidence.
“Denier” is highly-charged word, and even if the evidence is strong, using the word “denier” for someone who is not convinced is deeply unsettling.
“Believer” makes being convinced by the evidence for AGW sound like a religion, which it isn’t.
Jun 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM | Richard Betts
————————————————————-
This comment was made on pg1of the comments at Bishop Hill
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/6/18/potty-mouthed-nature.html#comments
he seems equally annoyed with believe and denier,being used in a scientific context.
Took a look at the archives in Nature, found this in the January 1950 issue:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v165/n4184/pdf/165038a0.pdf
Letters to Nature
Nature 165, 38 (7 January 1950) | doi:10.1038/165038a0
Article Tools
Send to a friend
Export citation
Rights and permissions
Order commercial reprints
Bookmark in Connotea
Search Pubmed for
E. GHERZI
Ionosphere and Weather
E. GHERZI S.J. (Director for Meteorology and Seismology)
1.Zi Ka Wei Observatory, Shanghai
FOR some ten years, at the Zi Ka Wei Observatory, in Shanghai, China, we have been using, with exceptional success, a new technique in our weather forecasting. This method is based on an as yet unexplained correlation between the usual ionosphere echoes (E, F and F2) and the future movement or behaviour of the three main air masses, which make the weather all over the world: polar, maritime and tropical, or equatorial, as some people call it. Our results have already been published in the Bulletin of the Meteorological Society of America, in 1946, and in a paper sent to the last Pacific Science Congress held in New Zealand last February.
————-
Sounds intriguing…
NickB. says: Or… taken one step further, a thorough listing of issues or areas (i.e. a primer), what is common ground, what is contentious… maybe with pointers to further discussions on said topics. It would be an ambitious undertaking, and I’m not sure who would actually be qualified to speak on behalf of the “non-believer” community… but definitely an interesting thought.
I see nothing ambitious about it. Anthony Watts is already a reviewer for AR5. Here’s the link to AR4 WG I report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
He — or anyone else who objects to the “D” word — can start identifying places of agreement (and disagreement back any time they want. I think starting to identify areas of agreement will go a long way towards end the use of the word “denier.”
Can anyone provide me with the ‘scientific methodology ‘ that is based on the use of insults ?
Only I can not find one , also if you could supply me the statistical value of ‘belief’ that would help me understand how this paper is related to science and not silly name calling normal seen in the school playground.
”the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions”
No, the likelihood of conversion is directly proportional to the completeness of the evidence. As long as only a snippet of the available evidence supports action my conversion to supporting action is not likely irrespective of ideology. There is a reason for “the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth” as a standard of evidence.
Would the authors of this [self-snip] or the “team” for that matter if under oath with the prospect (and assurance) of being found guilty of perjury if found to be wrong 20 years from now be willing to answer the following questions in the affirmative:
Is it warmer now than at any time in the Holocene?
Is it warmer now than at any time in the previous interglacial?
Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter that the “feedbacks” from 2xCO2 warming will result in at least 3 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature?
Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter of 2xCO2 resulting in economic loss, ecological collapse, or loss of life on the order of a supervolcanic (VEI8) eruption or greater?
Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter of 2xCO2 resulting in economic loss, ecological collapse, or loss of life on the order of a supervolcanic (VEI7) eruption?
Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter of 2xCO2 resulting in economic loss, ecological collapse, or loss of life on the order of a volcanic (VEI6) eruption?
Is there conclusive evidence such that there can be no other truth as to the matter of 2xCO2 resulting in economic loss, ecological collapse, or loss of life on the order of a volcanic (VEI5) eruption?
Is the early 20th century warming statistically different from the late 20th century warming?
Has there been any significant (common meaning) warming in the last decade?
Has there been any significant (common meaning) upper stratospheric cooling (fingerprint of greenhouse warming) in the last decade?
Is there conclusive physical evidence of the tropical tropospheric hot spot (another greenhouse warming fingerprint)?
Nature has to be treated like any other business. such as tabacco or oil and gas industry.
If there are abusive papers, they should pay a price, if they don’t retract false science, which is causing huge cost elsewhere, they may have to pay damages, particularly, if they have been notified of issues and damages or if internal whistleblowers confirm they knew.
The influence and the liability of their German owners is an additional issue.
Lets remember why Nature Climate Change was set up in the first place .In effect the idea was to make it easier to get pro-AGW articles into the public stream. I known given some pro-AGW rubbish that has already been seen how it could be made easier can be hard to see. Nevertheless , from birth this was highly pro-AGW publication , while its staffed basically by colleges of ‘the Team’
So in one way publishing this article makes a sense which has nothing to do with scientific validity , which is why having none is not a problem for this article for ‘Nature Climate Change ‘
David Suzuki: “Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: scepticism””
This would obviously make the term ‘sceptic’ distasteful to the faithful true believers, like David Suzuki.
Lots of ‘deniers’ in Australia after this survey following a debate on Australian television (ABC). Note the use of the word ‘dismissive’.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/your_profile.htm?type=Dismissive
A pre-program survey showed the same result with a much higher participation rate.
I prefer to call myself an AGnostic.
NickB. says:
June 18, 2012 at 9:48 am
Have you ever read an article here that argues against the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?
=======================================================
The basic physics contradicts the concept of CO2 causing any significant warming. The well known Tyndall’s experiment about CO2 and IR is not a proof of CO2 causing any significant warming.
The term “denier” is nowhere defined. However, an infamous survey concluded that 97% of climate scientists support human-caused warming, concluding.
Either the definition of “denier” does not include the mainstream climate scientists, or “denier” is a term of abuse aimed at marginalising outsiders.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/18/97-of-climate-scientists-claim-they-are-not-climate-deniers-survey/
Those who prefer the term “skeptic” should be aware that this has been redefined by John Cook of Skeptical Science, to exclude those who are critical of mainstream views. However, I prefer the views of a consensus of the world’s leading experts on language to those of a partisan non-expert.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/29/michael-manns-narrow-definition-of-skepticism/
Alec Rawls says:
June 18, 2012 at 11:34 am
Can the authors name a single prominent skeptic who thinks that the human increment to CO2 does not have some warming effect?
=======================================================
I can do that. This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
Here is his experiment on the issue: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
Please note the date.
Greg House says:
June 18, 2012 at 3:07 pm
NickB. says:
June 18, 2012 at 9:48 am
Have you ever read an article here that argues against the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?
=======================================================
The basic physics contradicts the concept of CO2 causing any significant warming. The well known Tyndall’s experiment about CO2 and IR is not a proof of CO2 causing any significant warming.
=========
What is the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?
I deny the UN FCCC definition of climate change:
“Term definition:
1. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”
http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/text/html/list_search.php?what=keywords&val=&valan=a&anf=84&id=10
As a credentialed scientist with over 20 peer review papers and three degrees all pertinent to this subject, i have to say this is offensive. I must say that what I find difficult is the assumption that I am skeptical because of an idealogical position. I am skeptical, but for these reasons;
1) because i have not seen a single piece of solid evidence that suggest what we have seen over the last four decades is any different to the (recent) past,
2) key papers have been seriously and publicly discredited,
3) in response, instead of scientific refutation, the discredited have resorted to name calling, and
4) having worked as a researcher in a leading university I am fully aware of the vested interest, grant grabbing and sometimes distorted view that academics will present in order to earn a quid.
Nothing in this debate has altered my view, instead papers like this one only serve to convince me that a skeptical view is the only rational position to adopt.