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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony, can you include Jo Nova in the title line?
She’s done a superb letter.
Thank you all.
Jo Nova has an interesting response
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/nature-and-that-problem-of-defining-homo-sapiens-denier-is-it-english-or-newspeak/#comments
Another way at looking at the use of the term “denier” is that is another way of simply “painting with a broad brush”. If this was a race issue, no one would accept the phrase “…they’re all like that…” for a single second, especially those on the political left. But in this case, broad generalizations about a specific group (the skeptics) is considered “okay”. This is clearly a double standard.
Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 11:33 am
As to your concern about “unhinge the world’s economies,” that’s clearly out of the purview of WG I. Would you agree?
###
No. The whole point of the IPCC IS to unhinge the worlds economies. For you to claim otherwise means that either you have cognitive dysfunction and/or your are dishonest. Your continued demonstration of distorted perception and selective/malleable memory would indicate that the former is at least true.
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.
Rodney Leach
Lord Leach of Fairford
…………………
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.
Joanne Nova
=========================================================
With such friends we do not need enemies.
“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.”
Phil, Phil, Phil. You’re wrong in two important respects: 1. Those who sling the word ‘denier’ at others are doing so because their central tenet, AGW, is being denied, not because all the other data which the AGW-folks themselves contradict with their theory are not being affirmed. 2. As long as others continue to maintain the baby is ugly the mom won’t care that they affirm he has a lusty cry, a good head of hair, fine limbs, and a healthy appetite. The reason you’re wrong is because AGWology is not a matter of science but of politics and the IPCC is but a means to the political end. If “science” can be used promote it, great. If science gets in the way, it will be tossed aside in favor of whatever serves the purpose at the time.
Just finished reading all the comments and the only thing that comes to mind is: when will FOIA launch Climategate III
I totally agree with James Sexton (June 20, 2012 at 10:54 am). It’s no longer about the science, it’s all about propaganda. And we need some new ammo. So, FOIA, show us what you got!
Greg House says:
June 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm
With such friends we do not need enemies.
You have to analyze her sentence structure for the hidden message: “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.
Excellent letters, both from Lord Fairford and Jo Nova.
Sincerely
Sir Mike The Stout, Esquire of Lesser East Upper Mooselick, Warden of the Eastern Marches, Ranger of the Northern Boonies…
Jeremy Poynton says:
June 20, 2012 at 10:02 am
In return for “Denier” I now call CAGW fanatics “Climate Jihadis”.
========================================================
Calling names is not a good idea. I prefer purely technical terms like “warmists” or “AGW people”. They can call me a non-warmist in return, I would have no problem with that.
For so called “skeptics”, who accept the AGW concept but do not have any radical agenda I have the term “moderate warmists”.
There is also a problem with the term “climate scientist”. I am afraid, the warmists’ views on AGW are not supported by real science, therefore I tend to avoid calling them “scientists”, simply because this term implies that their statement are based in real science, which they are not.
Phil C: “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”
Point out to me where changes in bright sunshine were identified and quantified. (And I’m not saying that is the only cause of warming, but so-called scientific body that ignores bright sunshine is a joke).
Until then, the IPCC is a fraud.
Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 10:04 am
Science works at a much greater level of detail.
So you agree that “Hansen et al., (1988)” isn’t really science, then — ‘cuz it doesn’t work on any level of detail…
Sorry Mods, but I am a denier and have no objection to being so called. I am a denier without scientific qualification but I have a very thorough understanding of the basic requirements of statistical analysis and an understanding of the need for any for theory to stand up to experimental confirmation. I am entitled to audit the theory.
Firstly it is a given within the argument that the average of the temperature anomalies have increased. Even those of a mere skeptical nature mostly admit this. They ignore the fact that such an approach is without validity of any kind. An average is not an element of the universe, but just a human concept – a mere demonstration that any number can be divided by two. If one were to take a trip to the edge of the universe (assuming that there is any such place) one could rest assured that one would not come across an average, either coming or going. Albeit that the average approach is invalid, to arrive at an average the metrology would need to be perfect. We all know that the metrology is a bad joke. Even the simple calculation of division by two does not give a meaningful average if the number divided is nothing more than a thumb-suck.
To carry out an audit I need to be shown the numbers, with detailed explanations of any that have been moderated. No satisfactory explanations, then the audit fails.
Having arrived at an average I am told that a computer programme is needed to take account of the feedbacks, negative and positive, the latter arising from greenhouse gasses. predominantly water vapour and carbon dioxide. These feedbacks go largely unquestioned by the skeptics and no physical experiment is produced to demonstrate that these exist in an open system. As a boy of six or seven I could have told you that the feedback from water vapour in the atmosphere is negative – a simple matter of personal observation. I repeat – water vapour – humidity – not cloud cover, which has an even greater negative impact. As to carbon dioxide there is no empirical evidence that this has any impact whatever on temperature in an open system. Working my way through screeds of physics reading, I have to go back more than a hundred years to find anyone of any account in the field of physics who even theorises that CO2 can have such an effect.
I am left believing that skeptics, perhaps re-actively to bad mannered warmers, are too polite, too politically correct, altogether too gentle, to laugh the warmers out of court.
Ken Harvey says:
June 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Sorry Mods, but I am a denier and have no objection to being so called. …I am entitled to audit the theory.
====================================================
I see. What about being called a “f*cking denier” then? Because you are entitled to f*ck as well.
Maybe you should take into consideration a certain unpleasant connotation of the word “denier”.
G.H. I speak the same English that I spoke as a lad when the bombs were falling on London. I don’t bow to politically correct language, the bulk of it of very recent innovation. My generation mostly avoids profanity and never ever in front of the ladies.
Sticks and stones are the end game when all is lost. They usually appear after shrill invective, bullying, firing of tenured professors for contrary views and blackballing of “rogue” editors and publications, fail to work. It aint pretty, but the end is nigh.
Climate Chauvinist Pigs
If they want to use the loaded word, “denier”, then perhaps we could start calling them what they are. What’s that word- someone who endeavors to use fear to get a message across… ? Oh yeah- Terrorist.
Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
”is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.”
———————————————————————–
Scientific finding like glacier gate, Amazon gate, dozen of non peer reviewed article by WWF and greenpeace used as “scientific findings” etc, etc?
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says: “There is no greenhouse effect at all…”
Off topic, HDH. You’re getting tiresome.
Ed Barbar says:
June 20, 2012 at 11:38 am ……
==================================================================
Well said, that man.
One other thing ….. Ed, who gave you the keys to my brain. 😉
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.
_________________________________
Without Data and code and methods it AIN”T SCIENCE!
This is especially true now that it has become increasingly evident that “Scientists” LIE so they can publish and get tenure and grants.
A University of Connecticut researcher known for his work on the benefits of red wine to heart health falsified his data in more than 100 instances, and nearly a dozen scientific journals are being warned of the potential problems after publishing his studies in recent years, officials said Wednesday.
US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies, published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.
In a July 26 letter to Cetero, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration describes the falsification as “extensive,” calling into question all bioanalytical data collected by Cetero’s Houston bioanalytical laboratory from April 1, 2005 to June 15, 2010. The FDA said Cetero manipulated test samples so the tests would yield desired results.
Former Penn State Professor Charged in $3 Million Federal Research Grant Fraud
A Tilburg University inquiry has recommended that details of forgery of documents and fraud committed by Diederik Stapel, a leading social psychologist, should be passed to the Dutch public prosecution service. The inquiry found that Stapel,…. fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him. Some 35 co-authors are implicated
Ghostwriting and Medical Fraud: Can any medical-research studies be trusted? by Christopher Lane, Ph.D. in Side Effects
“Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong,”
According to newly released documents from GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical company often paid ghostwriters to pen medical studies, editorials and even a textbook
Inside Pfizer’s Ghostwriting Shop: Friendly Drug Studies for Just $1,000
Retraction Watch has tons of papers retracted for various reasons.
Given contemporary scientists appalling lack of honesty and ethics, do not expect “Deniers” to believe any supposed “scientific findings” without real world data to back it up. Computer models ESPECIALLY computer models where the data and code is hidden just isn’t going to cut it.
Heck I do not even believe my doctor at this point without double checking.
jorgekafkazar says:
June 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says: “There is no greenhouse effect at all…”
Off topic, HDH. You’re getting tiresome.
====================================================
You can make a simple test yourself.
According to the AGW concept the “greenhouse gasses” cause the on average -18 degree Celsius cold surface get +15 degree Celsius on average warm by means of back radiation. -18 Degree Celsius is the temperature in the freezer. I suggest you turn off the freezer, open it, then close the opening hermetically with a glass lid (blocking the IR radiation) and wait like for 10 minutes. Then measure the temperature in the freezer and report us, if it was +15 degrees Celsius. My guess is the temperature would not significantly change despite back radiation. Which means, the “greenhouse effect” won’t work…
Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 10:04 am
did you just glide over the second paragraph of the post?
No, it just is incredibly vague and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean when put next to the IPCC report. Science works at a much greater level of detail.
_______________________________
ROTFLMAO – Go read The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert or at least Climate Bible (IPCC report) Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card
Greg House;
You’re proposed experiment is akin to counting penguins to prove that polar bears are going extinct. The last thing we need in the war with the junk science of CAGW is more junk science in the opposite direction.