Readers may recall this WUWT story: Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature.
Meanwhile, the discussion continues at John Nielsen-Gammon’s Climate Abyss website on Skeptics are Not Deniers, with part 3 now posted. Part 4 will likely be at this link today
At Jo Nova’s she has a response from Dr. Paul Bain. She writes:
Dr Paul Bain has replied to my second email to him which I do most appreciate. (For reference, see the letter he is replying to here: “My reply to Dr Paul Bain — on rational deniers and gullible believers” ). He deserves kudos for replying (it’s easier to ignore inconvenient emails), and also for taking some action to improve the article he published. I will reply properly as soon as I can. For the moment, and for fairness’s sake, it’s here for all to see.
… No, I don’t think there is any scientific reason (or definition in the English language) that validates the term “denier”, but Nature is going to publish an addendum this time, and that will be noticed by other researchers in the field. That is progress. Though there is a long way to go. — Jo
Bain writes:
As we all know, after publication it quickly became clear that the “denier” label was causing offence, and I contacted the journal’s editors to canvass options for addressing this. As the article was already published, it was agreed that the most practical option would be to include an addendum to the paper where we publicly expressed our regret about any offence we caused. This will be appended to both the online and printed versions of the paper. As you said, you yourself did not mention a link with Holocaust denial (and I myself did not hold such a link), but this was by far the most common association made by people who took the time to write to me personally to express their offence. By doing this, I don’t expect this to resolve (or even reduce) any issues (I fear that the damage is done), but I thought this was an appropriate thing to do nonetheless.
Full story here at Jo Nova’s
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
re post: docrichard says: July 12, 2012 at 7:45 am
If you were an even halfway competent psychiatrist, you would also have ‘confirmed’ that people who are falsely accused often respond in the exact same manner. They’ll take offnse and: “Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments.”
Furthermore, you also would have ‘confirmed’ that people often engage in ‘projection,’ accusing others of what is, in fact, their own failing and utterly regardless of the actions or beliefs of the people they so accuse. Especially when they have some cherished belief that cannot stand up to the actual facts involved – then they attempt to defend their own faulty position by accusing others of being in denial,of lying, or lacking values or morals, and so on.
It’s quite telling that you failed to note these other common options, all of which may just as easily apply to the whole AGW “denier” situation.
You also present a rather gross logical fallacy when arguing that terminology is moot. Terminology is how we communicate. Proper use of terminology – accurate, well defined, open – makes all the difference in the world between understanding and misunderstanding.
Not to mention your logical fallacy in trying to appeal to authority – ‘see, I’m a psychiatrist, therefore I KNOW better than you just how demented all you deniers really are, and you have to accept that as the gospel truth, so there!’
Pathetic. Sir, Put the mouse down slowly and step away from the keyboard!
Regarding JoNova’s website, i went to twitter to see if she had anything to write. Looks like there’s a problem. https://twitter.com/JoanneNova
docrichard’s comment seems to have provoked the ire of quite a few on this thread, myself included.
To better understand the psychology of this “psychiatrist” here is a quote from his blog:
“OK, straight to the point. A species that devastates its planet with climate change, nuclear or biological warfare does not deserve to survive.”
http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/image-of-stephen-hawkins-in-zero.html
Why is this kind of mentality so common among the warmists?
[snip. Re-post without using the d-word. ~dbs, mod.]
Just to clarify, denial is a psychological defence mechanism, and can occur in people who are otherwise quite rational. It is not a manifestation of psychosis or any other “craziness”, nor is it a sign of lack of intelligence. It is just a powerful mechanism that we use sometime to blank out unacceptable realities.
I deplore any use of the term to produce guilt by association with Holocaust deniers, but I would hope that nobody would say that psychiatrists may not use the term denial because of its association with David Irving and his ilk.
Maybe it is politically incorrect to use the term denial in this debate, because of the distress it causes.
I must confess to being a bit of a rebel when it comes to PC matters. I have in the past tried to use the term skeptic instead of denier, but many scientists complain that debases the use of that term. I shall try to avoid it in future, since it creates emotion that detracts from rational debate.
Hi All,
This seems like a fitting place for a question that has been bothering me recently. My apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but my searches in my free time haven’t turned anything up.
I’ve been wondering about how GCMs and solar studies (especially those that claim the sun is not responsible for recent climate trends) deal with feedbacks arising from varied solar activity.
As a very simplistic thought “experiment”, if solar activity increases, we would expect a direct warming effect on the earth’s surface, which could lead to snow and ice melt and a change in albedo. Additionally, much of that increased in-bound radiation would fall on lakes and oceans, causing an increase in surface temperatures of those waterbodies. This in turn could lead to increased evaporation and a release of CO2 from those sources, introducing our old friend the greenhouse effect into the mix of feedbacks. The increased water vapour in the atmosphere could also impact cloud formation as a further complicating variable. Thus, we have a combination of positive and negative feedbacks, and likely more that are unknown. (Please note, I consider myself a layman in the climate sciences, so I’m aware that the above example is probably flawed. But that’s not really the point of my post, so please lets not get bogged down in a discussion of the accuracy of that example.)
As noted, what I’m looking for is information about how these feedbacks are dealt with by the GCMs and solar studies. It seems to me that before “warmists” can write off the sun as a factor, or attribute X% of warming over the last century to human activity, it is absolutely necessary for these to be acknowledged and considered with recognition of the associated uncertainties.
Any information on if/how this has been done would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Kibbles
It’s pathetic, why are apparently sensible people investing time & space protesting about this ridiculous name-calling? While the sceptics are patting themselves on the back because their protests will result in the publication of an addendum the ‘warmists’ have still got their hands in our pockets helping themselves to our hard earned money. Forget the distractions and side-shows & concentrate on exposing these evil, corrupt, self-serving, lying thugs for what they are.
Do you accept that the anthropogenic CO2 released so far commits the Earth to a temperature rise of ~0.8*C?
———————-
Non-scientific question. The Null hypothesis would be that anthropogenic CO2 will cause ZERO temperature rise. Your burden to acquire data testing that hypothesis. A much better Null hypothesis is
Atmospheric CO2 change from 300ppm to 600ppm will cause NO change in temperature.
Another null hypothesis. Atmospheric CO2 change from 300 to 400 ppm will result in ZERO change in temperature for the Antarctic continent.
Data will soon show NO reason to reject this statement. The alternate hypothesis is rejected.
——————————————
turnedoutnice points out that engineers have long known the thermal and optical properties of mixtures of CO2 and water vapor. Any old engineering handbook, such as Mark’s, has such information. It obviously works. The judgement and common sense of one goood engineer is worth 100 theoretical scientists. You won’t find one good engineer that supports the AGW hysteria.
——————————————-
docrichard needs some basic scientific methodology training. Find a copy of “An Introduction to Scientific Research” by Wilson. Then take a statistics class.
Re Jo Nova: She has been having a number of issues with her site recently. I recall, perhaps falsely, that they started when she changed her web hosting provider.
She recently (about seven hours ago) tweeted about the current issue:
As to the 403 error code, it indicates the the person trying to access the page has not been authenticated to have the authority to do so. Usually it’s a password protection issue, but could be a misconfiguration of some type on the server. See the Apache web server documentation.
cheers,
gary
Y’all will recall that Al Gore tried to equate us with “r-words”! Seems not to have gotten any traction, but he tried it! Things could be worse.
docrichard says:
July 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm
I have in the past tried to use the term skeptic instead of denier, but many scientists complain that debases the use of that term.
———-
I’m a scientist with a post-grad degree in geology. A colleague of mine questions me all the time on some of my geological interpretations, and he’s particularly skeptical of one of my interpretations. If I call him a skeptic about that I’m not sure how it would ”debase the use of the term”.
Maybe it’s only Climate Scientists (TM) that would feel that being a skeptic would a negative thing.
Lucky for me that I’m an Earth Scientist (TM), so my fellow geols can all look at all of the data, agree or disagree, and then go have a beer after work instead of having a hissy fit.
Just sayin’
Dear Doc Richard,
I have studied climate science for almost thirty years.
From your uninformed comments, my guess is that you have studied the science for less than 30 days, and probably less than 30 minutes.
Furthermore, unlike your failed heroes of the IPCC, I actually have a strong predictive record in this field.
My conclusion is that there is, and has been for at least a decade, ample evidence that disproves the hypothesis of catastrophic manmade global warming.
Global warming hysteria is, at best, a system of failed beliefs – a misguided religion.
In my lighter moments, I categorize the acolytes of the Church of Global Warming as scoundrels and imbeciles.
The scoundrels are the High Priests of the CAGW religion – those who have profited and continue to profit from false global warming hysteria.
The imbeciles are those who choose to naively embrace any foolish cause that fits their political template.
I do wonder now if the scoundrels have even darker motives. Almost nobody is THAT greedy or THAT stupid.
My new hypothesis, which like all hypos remains to be disproved, is:
The radical enviros who lead the CAGW movement are a dangerous anti-human cult. These enviros recklessly advocate the eradication of masses of humanity. They believe the only solution to environmental problems is to reduce the population of humankind. They hide behind many smokescreens, such as global warming alarmism, and probably know their entire argument is false. They are aided by many “useful idiots” who have neither the intellect, diligence nor the skills to develop an informed opinion on this subject.
Evidence to support this hypo is available at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/newsbytes-world-cooling-to-global-warming/#comment-1020878
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/newsbytes-world-cooling-to-global-warming/#comment-1022591
See also http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism, by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.
Our local “headshrinker, “Docrichard”,” has apparently painted himself into a very tiny politically correct corner. I believe he’s actually arguing that it’s okay to offend some groups, but not others. The use of “deniers” is kosher, but I’d be willing to bet that under no circumstances would the “N word” and terms applied to gay people past muster with him. Welcome to the world of what a Standford Professor (I think) once called the “present accepted prejudice”.
I just peer-reviewed my own post; “headshrinker” should have been in quotes, and Standford should have read Stanford. Sorry about that :)….
Jo Nova’s site is working fine but the server does not have permission to read the file(s) in her document root. In particular, the index.php file as cited. The problem is not spread throughout her site as this URL still works: http://joannenova.com.au/images/ as does http://joannenova.com.au/wp/favicon.ico which rules out directory permissions. WordPress uses a convoluted redirection scheme that is still a potential candidate for trouble, but it really looks like an update or modification gone bad.
“P.F. says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:35 am
When empirical evidence is addressed in proper long-term time frames (not the 1978 – 2007 cherry-picked time frame that begins at the end of cool period understandably creating a steep upward slope), it is clear the modern condition is unremarkable.’
What’s even more concerned with is the difference represented in historic temp data graphs as portrayed in the the 1970s to the current ones. During the Ice Age scare. Why do some of these data sets now have the data inverted compared to the 1970s?
LOL,
docrichard,as an alleged psychiatrist you claim to be ,you are oblivious on your PROJECTIONS you post here.
It is so funny that you are doing it without realizing it.
I believe the problem with those who advocate the removal of the human species is one of scale. Modern speed of travel has “shrunk” the size of our planet to a point where such people feel we have huge impact in just about everything we do, whereas we really don’t. Maybe someone should study that.
Mencken called it, “the blah of the times.”
docrichards
With your great omnipotent power why not just decare all “deniers” to be “Heretics” and burn us at the stake in the traditional Bruno-Pope manner ? You obviously hold yourself and your “profession” in far greater esteem than the balance of society. “Psychiatrary” is SO abused by the court system that they are referred to as ‘court whores’, so much so that the following law was passed by BOTH houses of the New Mexico legislature, only to be vetoed by the governor from pressure by the “legal” profession [aka the second oldest profession]
PROCLAIMED THAT: WHEN A PSYCHOLOGIST OR PSYCHIATRIST TESTIFIES DURING A DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY HEARING, THE PSYCHOLOGIST OR PSYCHIATRIST SHALL WEAR A CONE-SHAPED HAT THAT IS NOT LESS THAN TWO FEET TALL. THE SURFACE OF THE HAT SHALL BE IMPRINTED WITH STARS AND LIGHTNING BOLTS. HE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO DON A WHITE BEARD NOT LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH AND SHALL PUNCTUATE CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF HIS TESTIMONY BY STABBING THE AIR WITH A WAND AND THE BAILIFF SHALL DIM THE COURTROOM LIGHTS AND ADMINISTER TWO STRIKES OF A CHINESE GONG.
Bill introduced by Senator Duncan Scott, New Mexico Senate, 1995
Roger Knights says:
Doctors are idiots and probably pathologically immoral so this is what I’d expect. I’d sooner do business with a lawyer.
/sarc
looks like Jo Nova’s website is unavailable… Is it me or anyone? thanks
Couldn’t resist joining in on the fun of the ‘DocRichards’ pile-on. There is no small affinity between modern day psychiatry and CAGW theory. Both depend on selling narratives proposing enormously complex, non linear systems should be reduced to the simple, specific linear mechanisms of cause and effect that we convince people we are going to use as levers. It is this little chemical imbalance my dear, in your brain, don’t you know?
This renders the modern psychiatrist more constitutionally incapable than ever, of understanding human experience and behavior – oftentimes including their own. This is no small feat. Few psychiatrists I know or have known are well. I wonder sometimes if it is not the weight of repression required to maintain the illusion that my work is meaningful in the face of what seems to be an inability to cure anybody of anything – now even as I am watching much lower status practitioners of the non-medical disciplines, whose work is increasingly scientifically based, getting better and better outcomes. This is actually the Mental Health industries dirty little secret. Many if not most non-physician practitioners understand it all too well.
The presently “emergent” epidemic of treatment resistant depression (and mental illness generally) is an unfortunate consequence of the kind of psychologically defended thinking you all see the good Doc demonstrating here.
One of America’s most respected physicians and past editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine elaborates here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/?pagination=false
Chicken Little Climatologists
Let them use “denier”. We can think up better names for them — names that accurately reflect the content of their public pronouncements.
Their political window has closed. Their sociatal agenda can no longer be implemented. Politicians are running from them faster then they are running from Obama. The smart ones know this.
Originally “Global Warming” was a gold mine. That is no longer the case. There is still quite a bit in the pipeline but the end of the money train is obvious. Soon they will no longer be able to direct the grant money. For the younger set global warming will be recognized as a sure tenure killer.
What you are going to see now is the older “academics” trying to protect their “assets”. Therefore you are now going to see them doing outreach to the people they have called “deniers”. They will seem to become more reasonable. Actually start to talk to you. They know the pendulum is swinging. They will want to make friends — friends who will be in a position soon to protect them.
Rats deserting a sinking ship? Yup! But they need to be encouraged not repulsed. Give them cover. Make it easy for them. Alright some of them deserve to burn in the lowest depths of hell but you got to see the big picture. After World War II America used a lot of former Nazis to help run Germany. They were the opportunist type. Joining the Nazis seemed to them a smart career move. Then they recognized that joining the allies was also a smart career move.
So make it easy for these people — for soon, to demonstate their “creds”, they are going to start knifing their previous “allies” in the back. They have stories to tell. Probably lots of stored E-mails also.
I don’t think Mann or Jones can imagine what is going to happen to them. Or who is going to do it.
Eugene WR Gallun
PS — Notice how i worked down from “denier” to a Nazi metaphor. Sort of turning the tables. Sometimes i just see it and have to do it. Sorry — i can’t help myself.
Jo Nova is back. She has an excellent reply to Dr Bain which can be found here;
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/my-reply-to-paul-bain-the-name-caller-is-hurt-by-the-names-they-throw/