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.
Personally, I would welcome the term “heretic”. I believe skeptics should advocate for that and use it to describe themselves and others of our ilk as often as possible. Ideally it could become the mainstream term of choice to describe folks like me. I would consider that a huge victory.
Conversely, I’ve long struggled with the right words to name those who are not sceptical of the CAGW hypothesis. I’m no writer, but I wrote something about this here, in the hope that both sides of the argument might find more respectful words to describe one another’s viewpoints. Futile, I know.
Phil C says:
June 18, 2012 at 2:19 pm
I think starting to identify areas of agreement will go a long way towards end the use of the word “denier”
Areas of agreement:
1. All else being equal, doubling the amount of CO2 in the global atmosphere will produce a warming of 1.0 C, plus or minus 0.5 degrees.
2. Nothing else remains equal.
Areas of disagreement:
Pretty much everything else!
From this point forward, the warmists assume a 300% positive feedback and everything they examine, contemplate and conclude is based on this assumption. (Skeptics agreeing to anything beyond this point is an inadvertent rubber stamp of the assumption.) Skeptics can not find any evidence to support this assumption (and plenty of evidence that it does not exist). Therefore, there is little room for agreement beyond the two initial statements above.
The only issues in the debate, and the ones that warmists most want to avoid, are climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration and natural variability. Everything else is a distraction.
Smokey says: June 18, 2012 at 11:12 am
Agreed. And I’d be willing to bet that not a single one of these “pro-environmental” psychologists has come any closer to actually examining the “science behind climate policy” [as IPCC alumnus and UNEP’s “Chief Scientist”, Joseph Alcamo referred to it in October 2009**], than the unexamined spin they’ve been fed by the “pro-environmental” churnalists.for the past 20 years!
But that aside, as I have noted elsewhere … Nature Climate Change is not the first to have sunk to such depths. PNAS set the precedent two years ago with their publication of Anderegg et al‘s equally shoddy submission, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change“.
The authors of this ‘quantity trumps quality when evaluating’ the expertise and credibility of the “convinced” and “unconvinced” wrt “the tenets of anthropogenic climate change” [my bold, their phrasing!] used the d-word only once in their text.
Yet, PNAS chose to confer their prestigious seal of academic approval and acceptability with the following designations of Anderegg et al (although one of Anderegg’s listed co-authors, the late, great “communicator”, Saint Stephen of Stanford, might have had a hand in this):
** Alcamo at IPCC Bali meeting:
So what is about “multi-billion dollar price tag” that these caring “pro-environmentalism” activists, advocates and “scientists” are having such tremendous difficulty understanding?!
P.S. For those who might be interested, I did blog about use of the d-word, including Goodman’s role in popularizing it – as well as contemporaneous objections of others – a little over a year ago: Of labels, libels and language launderers.
The term “Denier” is meant to be a humiliating, derogatory, insulting, denigrating, demeaning term used to describe somebody who does not believe in the ideology and dogma of the committed climate change / global warmer or convert. [ “convert” as in to the global warming meme. They seem to be a very rare species. ]
However far more is revealed about the “user” of the term, “denier” than is supposedly revealed about the recipient.
Think about it a little;
The “user” of the extreme descriptive term “Denier” with it’s supposed underlying association with those who deny the “Holcaust”, quite openly reveals their total intolerance for other’s views.
The “users” of the term “denier” are extremely self righteous and are often / usually quite ignorant of the actual science so their standard refrain is to appeal to authority.
The “users” of the term “denier” are extremely hypocritical and self righteous in that they want to be able to express their beliefs any time, anywhere but will do their utmost to prevent those who do not subscribe to their beliefs from doing likewise.
They are extremely hypocritical and self righteous in that they believe and act as though their own personal and group behavior, actions and ethics in pursuit of their ideology regardless of the lack of any morality in their actions, is unchallengeable.
They are often / usually quite thuggish and bullying in their reactions to those who dare to differ from their beliefs.
They often seem to have very few scruples left in attempting to suppress any alternative views to their ideology and dogma.
Judith Curry, Climate Etc; had a post on this not so long ago.
There are five attributes of Ideologues
1 / Absence of doubt
2 / Intolerance of debate
3 / Appeal to authority
4 / A desire to convince others of the Ideological “truth”.
5 / A willingness to punish those who don’t concur.
And she notes; Note each of these characteristics is an anathema to science.
@R Barker says:
June 18, 2012 at 9:46 am
“Sorry. disregard my previous comment about funding. Those people are from Australia so hopefully the US is not funding them.”
AU$268,000
“This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678) to the first author. The authors thank A. Mackintosh, M. Manning, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Lawrence and A. Ryan for their comments on manuscript drafts.”
http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP09/DP09_allorgs.pdf …page #245
Murdoch University
DP0984678 Dr P Bain
Approved Project Title
Collective futures: The effects of beliefs about future states of society on the support for
and enactment of social change
2009 : $99,000
2010 : $80,000
2011 : $89,000
Primary RFCD 3801 PSYCHOLOGY
APD Dr P Bain
Administering Organisation Murdoch University
Project Summary
This research addresses a novel and potentially critical factor in support for social change, beliefs about society in the future, that helps build Australia’s capacity to effectively address important social issues that depend on widespread support and action, such as climate change. The research provides a basis for a more informed public debate about these issues, and enhances the effectiveness of policy-makers and information campaigns.
Scientifically, it enhances Australia’s reputation as a leader in social change research.
I figure “Denier” is better than their other term for us ~ THE GREAT UNWASHED.
Condescension is the correct term for the emotion they want to portray, and that is the way their politically correct sycophants view us because we are not among the favored lap dogs of the power mongers.
As usual truth is lies.
How many people have been killed by the “deniers”? ~ ZERO!
How many people have been killed as a result of the Global Warming idiocy made policy?
You can start with Friday Mukamperezida. You can then add all the elderly killed due to “Fuel Poverty”
In just the UK:
These deaths are real and preventable and if the EPA has its way we will be seeing similar deaths here in the USA. – Unreformed Skeptic commented ” The average price of the electrity contracted for 2015 was $136 per MW. PJM’s press release made it sound like a great deal. However, the current average 2012 price is $16 per MW. This is increase of 8.5 times (the average 2015 auction price for PA, where I live, was $167 per MW, a 10.5 times increase.) “ How many elderly on a fixed income can afford an increase from $150 to $200/month to near $1000/month for electricity?
The British Islands have a relatively mild climate but the climate in at least some parts of the USA is brutal in comparison.
Given the above, perhaps the best term for those who activity promote political action because of alleged “Man Made Global Warming” is Accessory to Murder.
This paper makes a major logic failure in assume that climate skeptics are anti-environment. I think most, if not all, of us that are regular readers of WUWT are very much pro-environment. In fact, I don’t know ANYONE that is “anti-environment”. That seriously makes no sense to me. Definitely an invalid assumption from the start resulting in a fatally flawed paper IMO.
“This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678) to the first author.”
That tripe is research???
Jim Clarke says:
June 18, 2012 at 11:55 am
Hitler’s noble cause was the preservation of Germany, and he very nearly destroyed it. Communism’s noble cause was the elimination of poverty and it made everyone equally poor.
===================================================
Jim, neither communists nor Nazis had a noble cause. You can as well suggest e.g. a rapist and murderer had a noble cause, like he raped a woman because he wanted to make her happy and then he murdered her to relieve her from suffering.
The communists’ cause has never been the elimination of poverty, because there is nothing in the their theory that proves plan economy being superior to market economy. Besides, to eliminate poverty is enough to create a welfare system.
There was no threat to Germany in 1933 and later, the Nazi’s cause was purely offensive.
Maybe we should not go deeper into those issues because it would be OT.
Antonia says:
June 18, 2012 at 4:56 pm
“This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP0984678) to the first author.”
That tripe is research???
Yes…….and as being an Ozzie, I also find it as an insult to my intelligence…….just because I do not believe in ‘them’.
“
Here’sHere are the details, from:”Fixed it for you.
Actually, the opposite of “believer” would be “agnostic” — so why not “CAGW agnostic?” Works for me!
Observation and analysis is on the side of the skeptics as opposed to the “true” believers. It appears the editors of Nature are anti-science, “true” believers.
The planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (planet resists the change) as opposed to the IPCC assumed amplifying response (positive). Top of the atmosphere radiation measurement Vs ocean temperature changes shows planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes (negative feedback).
All agree if the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming. There is no extreme AGW problem.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
“The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”
Ironically, commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times. The optimum level of atmospheric CO2 for plant growth is 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm. Plants loss roughly 50% of the water they absorb due to transrespiration. As atmospheric CO2 levels rise plants can reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which enables them to reduce water loss.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.
Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. …
… Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.
Bain et al 2012 letter to Nature is deeply troubling. The Bain letter is no more than a political and editorial position statement. Looking at the methodology is enough of a red flag. Correlation to age, gender and political disposition is shown, though I see no analysis of the variables against socioeconomic indices and in particular, education. It is claimed that the sample is ‘representative’ and attestation to this is made by stating: “This sample was accessed through a commercial provider, who obtained a sample from the general public across all Australian states, reflecting each state’s proportion of the total population.”(Supplementary Information). The commercial sample is not described and I seriously doubt that participant number (n=347) is representative of the wider Australian population (22.3M).
The message here is about being a ‘caring and considerate people’, as measured by compliance to the environmental ‘message’ and thereby becoming a valued ‘environmental citizen’. This is more of the same: the creeping imposition of a new World Order manifest by Agenda 21.” If there’s any doubt, see: http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/austral/inst.htm#groups
Their use of “denier” is just a bit too reminiscent of letter #1 of the Screwtape letters.
Jargon, not argument, is your best ally.
I was asked in a poll. “Are you a climate denier” I answered “yes I don’t believe that a climate exists.”
“No I mean a climate change denier.” I answered “yes I believe the climate has nevered changed in over 4 billion years.”
“No I mean man made global warming.” I answered “Oh finally a half rational question.”
And a once great science journal continues to dig its own grave. Someone should tell them what to do when you find yourself in a hole…
Anthony Watts, I like this article and the rest of WUWT, yet, in this case, when your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, don’t try to stop him.
In a form of groupthink, over years groups of biased ideologues, so used to interacting with each other and having expelled those with independent thought, can get increasingly out of touch with the outside world and how they would appear to spectators. I’m glad they are making the tactical mistake of doing an increasingly poor job even pretending to be unbiased.
The likes of this is going to hurt them and their allied causes once increasingly blatant deviation between their claims and later global cooling eventually forces them to try to backpedal.*
As some journals start carelessly breaking down the superficial pretense of objectivity which they have not had beyond a superficial level in quite a while, more observers can realize there is no magic to journal endorsement and peer review (nothing more than a partial review by several anonymous individuals with likely a degree in a related field but as much potential for bias as any and utterly dependent on whether the reviewers are selected by ideological activists), leading to the beginning of enlightenment and true critical thought which is a good thing for future society and science.
* After solar cycle 24 completes its current rise, likely peaking by 2013, the Southern Oscillation (a several-year ocean oscillation of far shorter cycle period than the AMO/PDO but on top of it) should reach its next peak by around 2014 if not before; after that, from around 2015 on, welcome to probable cooling as in right on time for the 19th event similar to the Maunder Minimum after 18 such events in the past 7500 years (each about 4 centuries apart) as http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v4n1p178 by Dr. Abdussamatov implies, probably becoming by the 2020s too much and too blatant for even the most creative data adjustments to save the CAGW movement.
Hey, turnabout is fair play. If we’re deniers, then the climate change hoax itself deserves to be labeled the Dolchstoß.
I’ll call myself a denier if they call themselves thieves, frauds, and con-men.
It is an oxymoron in a true sense that the “believers” are actually the “deniers”, given that they believe in the cause and deny the science.
I consider myself to be a “climate realist” but don’t mind being called skeptical of the “cause” as pushed by the so-called “climate scientists”.
Found in google scholar was a 2009 study using the word denier, as against ‘admitter’. The theme was believers and non-believers of religion.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=galen_29_5
Merriam-webster’s entry refers to ‘denier’ as being ‘one who denies (deniers of the truth)’, and references a 15th century precedent.
I tend to favour the mainstream view of climate science, and have never connected the term with holocaust denial (never paid any attention to the Jewish Holocaust deniers, because that kind of stupidity is only worth the effort if it looks like catching on). If anything, I would associate the word with the denial of the truth or existence of God, if it had not gained traction in the climate debate. I remember that it used to be a phrase – climate change deniers, or simply climate deniers (which doesn’t make much sense, but then, neither does ‘warmist’), and AFAICS it has simply been abbreviated over time.
I think there is nothing wrong with denying something that is false and held up as true.
If they want to say I am a “denier” of AGW, they are absolutely correct. Cold times will come in the future unfortunately. Conversely, it is they, the “believers”, who have been “deceived” by the “science” that has been proven false (falsified) many times over. Science proves nothing as true, it only refutes concepts and hypotheses which are false [credit given to Richard Feynman].
Most people with basic science knowledge or a good common sense of nature, coupled with good data, books, and articles, are now seeing through the veil and “deniers” of AGW are multiplying exponentially, as it should be.
Don’t shy away from being a “denier” of AGW if you also now see the reality.
If the “deniers” are converted by the Inquisition, how can we be sure they are not lying about it?