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
Dear Mr Howlett
Many concerned and engaged professionals worldwide are expressing disquiet and concern over your journal’s slightly contentious decision to run some fairly inflammatory warming rhetoric, in particular using the word ‘denier’ (with obvious Holocaust implications).
Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask a journal purporting to be one in the finest traditions of the scientific method is whether use of the word ‘denier’ is ‘scientific’.
This would imply that climate change ‘deniers’ deny that climate change takes place. I think scientific evidence would point to a lot of polls suggesting that a large majority of ‘deniers’/skeptics do not challenge in the least that climate has changed, does change and undoubtedly will change in the future too. No doubt if you are diligent in your scanning of information relevant to your professional duties you will be aware of such studies.
What such skeptics challenge is that the primary, overwhelming driver for such changes is human activity and that carbon dioxide is a dangerous greenhouse gas.
They question the following:
1. Whether the variations in temperature seen since the Little Ice Age 300 years ago are in any way unique in geological terms.
2. Whether the rate of change in the past 50 years is in any way unique, either in geological terms or in millennial terms.
3. Whether the basis of the arguments put forward by scientists and the IPCC are backed up by experimental data or the result of simulations using computer models.
4. Whether the methods of temperature measurement are sufficiently accurate, widespread and consistent to bear up to skeptical scrutiny.
5. Whether the means of ‘homogenising’ inconsistent data sets, including the use of temperature proxies, represent a true and fair way of dealing with imperfect data sets and whether settled conclusions can be drawn before 50 years of consistent direct measurements of temperature worldwide have been undertaken.
6. Whether funding streams for research offer equal opportunities for those of a more skeptical viewpoint or whether climate science is now akin to the Christian Faith, where questioning the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ is outside the limits of discussion.
7. Whether employment practices in HEIs are starting to discriminate against those of a more skeptical disposition.
8. Whether Press reporting of climate matters is even-handed or biased in favour of an Establishment position of dangerous climate change.
9. Whether climate change is a mantra for driving through unpalatable political changes which have nothing to do with climate whatsoever.
10. Whether climate scientists now serve the people who fund their research or, increasingly, solely their own selfish interests.
This is a fairly wide-ranging set of questions and ones you would not, I am sure, wish to suggest are ‘settled’ in any way.
I hope that in future your journal and its sister publications returns to the sort of rigorous, skeptical scientific reporting which built their reputations over many years, since the past decade has seen that reputation become more than slightly tarnished due to a succession of tabloid-style journalistic campaigns ill-suited to a stable of sober journals expected to be champions of rigorous and skeptical scientific enquiry.
Yours Faithfully
Rhys T. Jaggar
Gail Combs says:
June 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm
I figure “Denier” is better than their other term for us ~ THE GREAT UNWASHED.
But we clean up nicely.
Did this really get published – in a so-called scientific journal? Nature Climate Science has now, in my opinion, publicly confessed to not being a scientific journal. This smacks of brain washing.
steve mcdonald says:
June 18, 2012 at 8:36 pm
“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.””
Funny and yet so true.
Really the CAGW movement proponents are the deniers: Deniers of how natural climate change has repeatedly caused temperature changes at greater rates than that in recent history, deniers of how the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer than now or else trying to keep people from hearing of it, deniers of the effect of cosmic rays, deniers of how (much like radiation topics) the matter is quantitative in a way making the likes of the Doran & Zimmerman 2009 consensus trick poll be utter dishonesty, deniers of the massive beneficial effects on plant growth and water usage efficiency which occur from CO2 increase, and so much else.
A lot can be seen even from looking at Wikipedia climate article history, where large segments of info were deleted and what those were. So much has to be denied, deleted, and covered up by the alarmist team as knowledge the public is never supposed to find out. That can be contrasted to WUWT, for instance. While the quality of articles here varies naturally under fairly open submission, there is no fear of reproducing alarmist claims and quoting them or linking to their papers, as skeptics and truth in general do not depend on ignorance.
Is Nature even a science magazine anymore?
Sir Maddox is spinning in his grave.
Since we Americans had nothing to do with implementing the holocaust,, “denying the hololcaust”, is a null accusation to me, sort of like denying Tamerlane created mounds of skulls.. Who cares one way or the other if an uninvolved person has an incorrect perception of history?
I had a religious upbringing- sort of like “Sheldon Cooper” in “The Big Bang”. When I hear the term “denier”, I think of Paul’s letters in the New Testament,- statements like:
“If We Deny Him, He Also Will Deny Us (2 Timothy 2:12)”.
So when the “denier” term is flung around like dung, I think of those doing the flinging as religious nuts, who cannot abide heretics who deny their religion.
ATTN: ANTHONY
You should send _hard_ copies of your email to the editors of the “Times of London”, “the Economist”, “The Wall Street Journal, “The Washington Post”, “The National Post” ,”The Huffington Post” and several other influential newspapers. You should send hard copies before you send an email. You should always send a hard copy of an email to establish a paper trial.
If Rory H. knows you have sent hard copies to the editors, he _shall_ have to respond to your email since you put his feet to the fire. It is a good possibility that one the editors of these newspapers will publish an editorial about the Bain et al paper and your letter to him.
I would send copies of the Bain et al paper to the editors so they can learn how poorly written science paper are these days. You could use some money from :Tip Jar” to cover expenses.
Greg House says:
June 18, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Some of your comments make me wonder if you are ignorant of history. The Germans (Hi*ler and his cronies) viewed the jews as the threat. Then did everything in their power (“the Big Lie”) to make all of Germany believe this. Seems to have some close parallels to Co2 and climate change.
I am glad that Nature has done this. Future generations will know exactly who did what to whom. It will come around to bite them. What science magazine in their right mind would print something like that? The word is purely political.
Jeff Alberts says:
June 18, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Thanks Jeff. Nobody here would have ever understood the sentence unless you were here to help. I have yet to see you make any kind of contribution to the discussion. Pedant.
Myrrh says: What is the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?
I.E. that CO2 will heat up when exposed to certain wavelengths of IR… and that all other things being equal, changes in gas concentration will yield predictable changes in behavior. More below…
Greg House says: 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.
I don’t speak from any special expertise on the subject 🙂 …but I will quote Dr. Spencer:
“It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
This is not too different from the orthodox opinion on the matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2): “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.”
The meaning of the term “significant” in this context could be somewhat up for interpretation. Regardless, the basic effect is certainly lower than the “3 °C ± 1.5 °C” (i.e. 150-450%) estimated once feedbacks are included (so the orthodox theory goes at least : )
Maybe we’re saying the same thing(?)
Joe says:If the “deniers” are converted by the Inquisition, how can we be sure they are not lying about it?
Logically, both wood and
witchesdeniers burn, sowitchesdeniers must be made of wood. Since wood floats, and ducks float…witchesdeniers must weigh the same as a duck. Therefore, if someone weighs the same as a duck, they must be awitchdenier./sarcasm
When your opponent stoops to name calling, it’s already an admission of intellectual defeat. Time to smirk.
Bill Tuttle says:
June 19, 2012 at 1:00 am
Gail Combs says:
June 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm
I figure “Denier” is better than their other term for us ~ THE GREAT UNWASHED.
____________
But we clean up nicely.
======================
I think the ‘clean up’ is well under way. Maybe the ‘mop up’ is beginning.
NickB. says:
June 19, 2012 at 7:40 am
I don’t speak from any special expertise on the subject 🙂 …but I will quote Dr. Spencer: “It has been calculated theoretically that,…
===================================================
Unfortunately for Dr. Spencer, another Dr. has EXPERIMENTALLY debunked it long ago: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/18/natures-ugly-decision-deniers-enters-the-scientific-literature/#comment-1012413 .
Hunter, Maddox is now running The Best Page In The Universe”. Oh wait…
eyesonu says:
June 19, 2012 at 9:20 am
Bill Tuttle says:
June 19, 2012 at 1:00 am
But we clean up nicely.
======================
I think the ‘clean up’ is well under way. Maybe the ‘mop up’ is beginning.
We’re certainly mopping the floor with the hockey stick fans…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/17/manns-hockey-stick-refuted-10-years-before-it-was-published/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/#comments
[Note to hockey stick fans: the above is not a death threat]
NickB. says:
June 19, 2012 at 7:40 am
Myrrh says: What is the basic lab physics of CO2 and IR?
I.E. that CO2 will heat up when exposed to certain wavelengths of IR… and that all other things being equal, changes in gas concentration will yield predictable changes in behavior. More below…
Greg House says: 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.
I don’t speak from any special expertise on the subject 🙂 …but I will quote Dr. Spencer:
“It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
This is not too different from the orthodox opinion on the matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2): “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.”
The meaning of the term “significant” in this context could be somewhat up for interpretation. Regardless, the basic effect is certainly lower than the “3 °C ± 1.5 °C” (i.e. 150-450%) estimated once feedbacks are included (so the orthodox theory goes at least : )
Maybe we’re saying the same thing(?)
==============
NickB – the problem is there is a disjunct between the two statements given about this, “that CO2 will heat up when exposed to certain wavelengths of IR” and “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.” –
the first statement, so what?, the second statement, “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming”, where has this been shown? I’ve never seen any experimental or logical reasons for the second statement and without that it is not possible to dipute it. Please, do fetch it, so we can take a look.
Myrrh says:
June 20, 2012 at 4:43 am
the second statement, “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming”, where has this been shown? I’ve never seen any experimental or logical reasons for the second statement…
====================================================
The 3.7 W/m2 looks like a dirty little secret of the AGW people to me. Interestingly, even moderate/skeptical warmists are not willing to question that number, from my experience. Some of them simply refer to the IPCC as a source, just like that!
“Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain what “deniers” deny. Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed. All this mess could be cleared up with an email.”
http://joannenova.com.au/
Nature make themselves look foolish. Juvenile. Perhaps even spiteful. No good can come of it.
I think the post title is wrong:
It is not “deniers” naming entering the scientific literature, but the journal publicing it, is leaving the scientific literature.
OK, I’ve read the article. I had thought that Nature publishes scientific work: this counts as science?!!! Pure defence of faith.
Greg House says:
June 20, 2012 at 8:17 am
Myrrh says:
June 20, 2012 at 4:43 am
the second statement, “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming”, where has this been shown? I’ve never seen any experimental or logical reasons for the second statement…
====================================================
The 3.7 W/m2 looks like a dirty little secret of the AGW people to me. Interestingly, even moderate/skeptical warmists are not willing to question that number, from my experience. Some of them simply refer to the IPCC as a source, just like that!
Not only don’t they question it, but when asked to produce something even a bit logical and empirical to back up this claim and other memes reguritated without due consideration – they get uppity.
Very uppity – Singer had a piece not long ago calling those who objected to AGW fisics, “deniers”. And Monckton flipped and reeled out an obnoxious ad hom attack when I questioned him about the logic in their basic fisics claims, in a discussion he was making the point that science truth should always be striven for regardless of pleasing one’s professors..
I find it very difficult to imagine that the public (British private) school that Monckton went to would teach such strange basics in physics.., yet he comes across as genuinly convinced the basics is as AGW teaches. Very puzzling.
I wrote RH and congratulated him for adding ‘nigger’ to American discourse. I trust that the backhanded irony of my compliment won’t be lost upon its readers.
All this fooforrah seems to arise because the word “Change” has been co-opted. It now occurs to me that “Disruption” defines a much better battle-ground. Who here would object to being called a “Climate Disruption Denier”? Not me.