I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony
=========================================================
Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Yours sincerely
Rodney Leach
==========================================================
I was surprised to see WUWT mentioned. I thank Lord Leach for the hat tip.
If you haven’t written a letter, you still can. See the details here:
Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature
Some letters to the editor in the UK might also be helpful.
UPDATE: Jo Nova has an excellent letter also:
Dear Dr Phil Bain,
Right now, it’s almost my life’s work to communicate the empirical evidence on anthropogenic climate change.
I can help you with your research on deniers. I have studied the mental condition of denial most carefully. There is a simple key to converting the convictions of people in this debate, and I have seen it work hundreds of times. Indeed, my own convictions that lasted 17 years were turned around in a few days. I can help you. It would be much simpler than you think.
Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.
They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen et al 19841, Bony et al 20062, and the IPCC AR4 report3, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2°C (i.e. before feedbacks).
All they need are is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models. Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback4) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.
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.
The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, so the observations they deny must be written up many times in the peer review literature, right? After five years of study I am still not sure which instrument has made these key observations. Do deniers deny weather balloon results, or satellite data, or ice cores?
When you find this paper and the measurements, it will convince many of the key denier leaders. (But being the exacting personality type that they are, deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available, but of course, all good scientists do that already don’t they?)
As a diligent researcher, I’m sure you would not have described a group with such a unequivocally strong label unless you were certain it applied. It would be disastrous for an esteemed publication like Nature to mistakenly insult Nobel prize winning physicists, NASA astronauts, and thousands of scientists who have asked for empirical evidence, only to find that the Nature authors themselves were unable to name papers (or instruments) with empirical evidence that their subject group called “deniers” denied.
If those papers (God forbid) do not exist, then the true deniers would turn out to be the researchers who denied that empirical evidence is key to scientific confidence in a theory. The true deniers would not be the skeptics who asked for evidence, but the name-calling researchers who did not test their own assumptions.
The fate of the planet rests on your shoulders. If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action. Should you find the evidence, I will be delighted to redouble my efforts to communicate the empirical evidence related to climate change.
Awaiting your reply keenly,
Joanne Nova
—————–
REFERENCES
1 Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]
2 Bony, S., et al., 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim., 19, 3445–3482.
3 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8.6.2.3. p630 [PDF].
4 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14, p631 [PDF] see also Page 632.
You mean like the incredibly detailed and precise predictions/forecasts/prognostications/wishful thinking/blind hope contained in the IPCC documents? ROTFLMAO!! (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.) Surely you did not intend the above juxtaposition?
Dearest people. I believe it is time recognize a couple of dynamics which one has replaced another.
For the past few years, skeptics have been comparatively very well restrained in use of rhetorical tools, such as marginalizing your opponent. And, it was right that we did. (My late night beer induced rants are acknowledged 😉 ) When in a factual or scientific debate, calm assertion and re-assertions of proper facts and scientific methods are essential in winning such discussions. The use of pejoratives in such discussions are a tell to the weakness of your opponents arguments.
But, that’s in a proper debate and scientific discussion. Over the last few years, skeptics have patiently hammered away at the alarmists. And, guess what?! We won! Over the course of a few years, any objective looks at the facts demonstrates the certitude expressed by the alarmists was entirely overstated. The dire predictions that the end was near and extreme catastrophic events lurk just around the corner is now show to also be overstated.
It has also been demonstrated, to the point of without question, that some of their posits were based on nothing but fantasies by the alleged scientists. We’ve demonstrated their questions data altering techniques as well. If GISS continues to employ their algorithm they will have moved the LIA to the 1930s! In 8 years, we’ll be on HadCrut v 8! Sea levels? We didn’t like what Envisat said so, alter away and then pull the plug! Did anyone notice that Jason II had a Dec/Jan rise of 4mm? Through the duration of our spring? Some of the alarmists themselves have demonstrated that they are of very low character with no compunction about violating laws.
My whole point is, this part is over. We wished we could get in a civil discussion with them, but, again, this has shown to be entirely impossible. But, as I stated, we are no longer in a factual debate with the alarmists. We’re in a propaganda war. I know this will be distasteful for many, but, this is where we’re at. And, the use of marginalizing pejoratives are very effective PR tools. The alarmists will not refrain from their use. They can’t. It’s all they’ve got.
The skeptical camp needs to recognize we are now fighting in entirely different terrain. We’re going to have to take the gloves off or, we’ll get buried.
I’ll end with an example of what I’m talking about. Right after Bush signed the bank bailout, a group of people got together and formed a loose coalition. They wanted less spending and a smaller government. They became known as the TEA party. The demographics of these people are mostly older (50ish and up) white professionals and career workers. Now, whether you agree with a smaller government or a larger government, more or less spending, it can hardly be stated that either position is extreme or fringe. Most would consider this to be in a legitimate arena of debate and discussion. The TEA party is now seen as an extreme right organization. Why? Because they were characterized in this manner. They were, in many ways, marginalized in the same manner this people are attempting to marginalize skeptics.
Time to tack in a different direction.
James
Phil C
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
###
Those who are skeptical of this whole CAGW theory, have made pretty clear the points that they believe, many many times. You seem to be asking for something else. You seem to want a compromise and have a public statement broadcasted loudly that we agree that there is science in the IPCC.
How come its always the ones, like you, who want to destroy civilization that want compromise? There is no common ground. Any truth from the “Team” is just an element used to construct a deceptive lie. By making the topic of discussion, the real science in the IPCC reports, two things happen. First it validates the worthiness of these propaganda pieces. Second it channels the debate into the world-view of the propagandists, and limits the accepted truth to what the propagandist have defined as truth. By looking for common ground with liars, those who search after truth loose ground.
I think that the issue comes down to “catastrophists” vs. “uniformitarianists.” or perhaps much better “Foxy Loxy and the Chicken Little ‘team'” vs. the “King’s hounds.” For those of you who have forgotten the Chicken Little story, have no children or consider old teaching stories politically incorrect, the protagonist, based upon an assumption regarding a misunderstood datum, assumed a castastrophe was in the offing and recruited a number fellow travelers to warn the King. They fell under the influence of Foxy Loxy, who saw a chance to profit. Foxy’s plans were undone by the hounds who had begun baying on his trail. The parallels are pretty clear.
Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.
—————-
You said areas of agreement.
What about agreeing with Jo:
“All they need is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models.”
“Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence”
“deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available,”
“If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action.”
—————-
That’s a “me too”. You want agreement? How about providing all the data and making everything accessible to everyone?
Plus you’ve got some pretty strange leaders. You’d think at least one of them would believe enough to have a small carbon footprint. But no, they want me to live in a cave.
(I’ve read the climategate emails so I believe I have a pretty good idea of why there is no agreement.)
D. J. Hawkins says: You mean like the incredibly detailed and precise predictions/forecasts/prognostications/wishful thinking/blind hope contained in the IPCC documents?
Have you read them? Care to identify a passage in WG I that’s incorrect? And where the underlying source research is incorrect (or misquoted)?
[SNIP: Way off topic. -REP]
Chuck Nolan —
Interesting response. You’ve written that you’ve read the “Climategate emails” but make no mention of having read the IPCC technical reports. Let me start here: have you read WG I?
ackk!!!! This is what happens when one starts to write a comment and gets interrupted a couple of times. Sorry about the spelling and grammatical follies! . “questions”– questionable “this”— these….. sigh and more.
philC is phishing for talking points out of Anthony to be used to subvert the message.
he’s won’t mirandize. he will propagandize.
any comments that he can get will be used against you if he can do it.
(characterization redacted)
hro001–I think history shows us that rent seeking and an attempt to assert political power to gain economic power for the politically connected class is the historic norm. So it’s not like The Murder on the Orient Express where everyone has a secret agenda and are quietly coordinating. That’s a conspiracy.
AGW/Climate Change/Radical Education Reform are simply what people who want to live at the expense of others and have them do their bidding and not have to worry someone will displace them because they provide better service or a product or have greater knowledge do IF they have access to the machinery of government. It does the coercing and the taxing and the rigging in their favor.
Which is why widespread economic prosperity and genuine innovation requires personal and economic freedom. Which has been rare in history. And limited govt-which has been rare and is becoming so again.
And they are amazingly graphic when they think they are only talking to fellow true believers. Which is why I figure out how things must relate and then go looking for actual declarations of intent. Which I then download and hard copy and put on flash drives.
How did we get from “detailed” and “precise” to “incorrect”? Your original reply mentioned “greater level of detail” which I take to mean that you nail down the details. If you mean 3.7 w/m2, you don’t mean something from negative to nearly double. Most of the alleged consequences have such broad ranges that nearly any result could be laid to AGW. If this is not the sense in which you intended to use “detail”, I apologize for my miscomprehension. To it’s credit, even the IPCC has aknowledged there’s a great deal we don’t know. It’s just that most of us here don’t think it’s wise to unhinge the world’s economies based on the rather nebulous nature of claimed wisdom.
Phil C,
“Have you read them? Care to identify a passage in WG I that’s incorrect? And where the underlying source research is incorrect (or misquoted)?”
How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?
I would expect any probability value to be the result of statistical analysis, perhaps applying sampling techniques and deviations and other miracles of modern maths. However, as far as I can determine, there is no calculation to back this figure up at all. None! Nada! Zilch! It appears to this reader to have been plucked entirely from thin air.
Can you please show me how this figure is derived or otherwise admit that is is bogus nonsense?
Anybody catch the latest issue of Popular Science magazine? It’s shameful and Warren Meyer at Forbes.com wrote an extremely well-done critique and commentary on it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/06/18/a-response-to-popular-ad-hominem-err-science-magazine-on-global-warming-skeptics/
BTW: Be sure the read the comments that follow. There is no dissuading some people.
Ouch!
D. J. Hawkins says:How did we get from “detailed” and “precise” to “incorrect”? Your original reply mentioned “greater level of detail” which I take to mean that you nail down the details. If you mean 3.7 w/m2, you don’t mean something from negative to nearly double. Most of the alleged consequences have such broad ranges that nearly any result could be laid to AGW. If this is not the sense in which you intended to use “detail”, I apologize for my miscomprehension. To it’s credit, even the IPCC has aknowledged there’s a great deal we don’t know. It’s just that most of us here don’t think it’s wise to unhinge the world’s economies based on the rather nebulous nature of claimed wisdom.
The way you write this makes me think that you have read the IPCC WG I report. Is that a correct assumption?
As to your concern about “unhinge the world’s economies,” that’s clearly out of the purview of WG I. Would you agree?
If you would just plainly state what we are supposed to be denying, that would go a long ways.
I agree the earth has warmed. I agree that human activities have something to do with (deforestation and UHIE are very good examples).
I deny that 2+2=5.
Phil C:
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but here is my take. I was introduced to “Global Warming” by Al Gore. I was told that if I didn’t believe, the seas will rise, pestilence and plague will rule the earth, war will break out, and millions will die. All I need to do to prevent all this is to buy exceedingly expensive technology, and cede large parts of my freedom to government.
So I don’t care about the science, really. I’m just a guy wondering what’s going on with this stuff. So I have educated myself. My point of curiosity has been, are the guys trying to make me believe, because that’s all I can do, credible enough that I agree with the drastic actions they propose, that will have an enormous effect on my life, and my kid’s life.
In other words, I want to understand the main conclusions. These include the reconstructions, because they have been used to influence policy makers, though as I understand it, they do not add to the all important climate sensitivity debate. I understand enough to get a sense of the criticisms of PCA misuse in Mann, and understand enough of the “Selection Fallacy” to convince myself more needs to be understood before the reconstructions are credible.
I read about the important efforts of Anthony Watts to purify the detection of the signal. I listen to Richard Muller, whom I trust, even though he may be deemed a colorful character, and wonder what could be done. I question why the models are not tracking observations. Because in the end, what I care about is whether or not the government is going to come in and take over another huge part of the economy, and enslave my kids a bit more.
I don’t care about the science much. Sure, some of it is interesting, but there are lots of interesting things to learn about, such as quantum theory, evolution, the study of culture since the renaissance, etc.
In other words, I’m reacting to a bunch of people invading my space, and I want to understand if it is warranted. So far, I say “No.” I might change my mind. When I see things like refusal to admit to the selection fallacy, or use of questionable data like Yamal, not use good sites like Law Dome, or use it in a truncated form, upside down Tiljander, I question the credibility. When I read climate gate emails, and it’s clear there is a team, and an agenda, I question the motivations. When the climate scientists claim it is doomsday, but refuse to release data and methods because they might get “scooped,” I question their own belief in their views. Being scooped is a small price to pay for saving humanity. When models depart from the measurements, and the models don’t have error bars, I wonder how good the models are.
I wonder why, until a few years ago, if this threat were so severe, that nuclear didn’t show up on everyone’s list as an option. I wonder why “Electric Cars” are being pushed so hard, when obviously it isn’t going to take 10 years to convert to an electric fleet. Forget about expensive battery technology, the grid would have to be rewired.
I don’t really care there is “good Climate science” going on. There is “good science” going on all over the world. What I care about is what I now see as premature, reckless conclusions on the part of some climate scientists. I don’t care for the apparent alignment of science and liberal policy pushing for more state control. So in that, I care only about the main conclusions, and whether they are credible. Are the reconstructions credible (No, in my view), are the models credible (no, in my view), are catastrophic climate sensitivity numbers credible (no, in my view). This does not mean I know climate sensitivity could not lead to catastrophic global warming, only that it hasn’t been proven. Only that the “Team” seems to have decided prematurely, recklessly, and for what seem to be personal ego goals, to attempt to force me to agree with them, when I don’t think they know, or believe, themselves (for instance Al Gore buying beach front property AFTER his twenty feet sea rise claims).
It’s like the 9/11 attacks that invaded my space. I don’t care about the middle east, or the Muslim religion, though there are many who do, and I’m not saying the issues in that region aren’t worthy. I simply don’t want to have to spend my time being concerned about it and learning about it, but I have to since events in the middle east are having a huge impact on freedoms in America, as well as the economic future of America.
So sorry. In my view, the onus of proof is on those who would change my, and every person’s life on the planet, due to their beliefs. The “good science” going on is completely irrelevant to the larger issue. There is a binary decision that has to be made, which is “Do we need to make these catastrophic changes or not.” It isn’t about finding common ground.
The efforts of skeptics should lead to purified scientific results. That these efforts are often derided in ad-hominem ways only furthers my belief that this isn’t about science at all. A Scientist would embrace the opportunity to be clear in their results, but the exact opposite is going on from the team, who would destroy data rather than let it out for FOIA requests.
In other words, the Monks of climate science want you to believe the word. But they don’t want you to read the book for yourself. These monks are not scientists.
How long will it be before Lord Leach is accused of not being a real “Lord”?
Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?
Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report? It sounds familiar, but my search of the document doesn’t it.
>>
I don’t “deny” it, but the way “deny” is used here I find offensive, something arrogant about “We are right, and you are wrong.”).
>>
Apart from the holocaust slur, which is horrendously trivialises a horrifying event for short-term political effect, the other implication of this term is that if you don’t agree with their eco propaganda you are “in denial” about the problem, in the true psychological meaning of the phrase. (As I recall it this was the original way in which if was used, though the genocide slur is real enough).
So what are they saying? If you don’t agree with me you are mentally ill. You need drugs and treatment: off to the goulag. Maybe daily injections of sulphur will help you get your mind right.
Now that may have got a fair amount of traction in Stalin’s Russia but I wonder if these soft-bellied, well meaning, middle class liberals realise where this kind of logic leads them.
Ironically, it is now those pushing AGW who are clearly unable to deal with the fact that the models were wrong. What appeared to make sense in the late 90’s just did not happen.
Now all attempts and means, including scientific fraud, or even literal wire fraud are acceptable as ways to maintain the myth and pretend nothing has been discovered in last 30 years of climate change and monitoring.
Who is in denial ?
BTW, not disrespect to his lordship but Jo Nova’s makes the point far more forcefully, a very powerfully made point. Kudos , Jo.
more soylent green! says:
If you would just plainly state what we are supposed to be denying, that would go a long ways.
WG I
Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?
Which “passage” was that Vince?
I think you will find that the IPCC’s AR4 claimed that “most ” (defined as more than 50%) of the warming was “probably” due to anthropogenic causes NOT AND I UNDERLINE NOT due to human GHGs alone. They spent a lot of time and huge amount of our money explaining what other effects they took into account.
If you want to quote the IPCC , you should at least read what they published rather than regurgitating some inaccurate paraphrasing you got from DeSmegBlog of your local newspaper.
Questionable as some of AR4 is and fact that they based that conclusion on models that have totally failed, you clearly have not even read one word of the “passage” you pretend to be citing.
How about you read the relevant “passage” and post back with a direct quote?
Ed Barbar says
I don’t care about the science, really. I’m just a guy wondering what’s going on with this stuff. So I have educated myself.
Unfortunately, it is all about science, and if you are going to educate yourself, you have to do it with science. And that requires reading what the scientists who do the research are writing. Al Gore is not a scientist. If you don’t want to read him, that’s fine. But don’t dismiss the science because of problems with the messenger. In other words, don’t link science and politics. Science will stand on its own merits. Politics has nothing to do with it. Others here will pounce on me for writing that, but that’s the reason they get labeled with the dreaded “D” word.