From the AP Blog: (h/t to Thomas Hogg)
An addition to AP Stylebook entry on global warming
The AP Stylebook editors today informed AP staff about a change to the entry on global warming. In addition, they described what goes into keeping the Stylebook up-to-date, including their outreach to experts.
AP science writer Seth Borenstein was among those who provided guidance during the discussion that resulted in today’s change, which adds two sentences to the global warming entry.
Here is the staff memo from Stylebook editors Sally Jacobsen, Dave Minthorn and Paula Froke:
We have reviewed our entry on global warming as part of our efforts to continually update the Stylebook to reflect language usage and accuracy.
We are adding a brief description of those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces:
Our guidance is to use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science and to avoid the use of skeptics or deniers.
Some background on the change: Scientists who consider themselves real skeptics – who debunk mysticism, ESP and other pseudoscience, such as those who are part of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry – complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase skeptic. They say they aren’t skeptics because “proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” That group prefers the phrase “climate change deniers” for those who reject accepted global warming data and theory. But those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science.
To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.
Read more: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-addition-to-ap-stylebook-entry-on-global-warming
Statement from Anthony Watts:
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” (non-paywalled here)
Hi Anthony Watts, can we shorten climate change proponents to ccp? and no more “A” or “W” words?
I’m okay with taking the high road, it just seems odd when compared with the calls for legal action by the other side.
michael
Mike, that should be Certain Climate Change Proponents: CCCP.
AP: Associated Propaganda.
The joke here is, CCCP is Russian letters for the old Soviet Union. 🙂
It’s easy to forget that many in college today, don’t remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.
I am certain that young people today have little idea of what it was like to live through the cold war, or what it was like to live behind the iron curtain during the days of society control.
Who would believe store shelve that were literally empty across the largest country on Earth? People hoarding toilet paper, worth it weight in gold?
It is unimaginable. It was then even.
Now, I think few are even informed that it occurred.
Mark, most college students weren’t even born when the Berlin Wall fell. With the Cold War more or less ending in 1991, a person would need to be over 30 to have much of a memory of the old CCCP.
On a related note, I like Jerry Pournelle’s comment about the Cold War being the final phase of the 70 Year War.
emsnews, я знаю
Майкл
🙂
menicholas Back in the early 1970s one of our relations from Poland managed to immigrate here (US)
This is what he had to say, “you never know when there will be a knock on your door in the middle of the night and that will be the last anyone will see or hear of you”.
That was real and justified fear.
michael
Erik,
The global war started in 1914 (earlier in the Balkans) is arguably still going on.
The boundaries drawn in 1919 are still creating problems today. Russia and Turkey are trying to put their empires back together.
CCCP: Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. With the AGW doctrine being a neo-marxist ideology it seems appropriate enough.
Corrupt Climate Change Perpetrators?
Young folks nowdays are too busy trying to glimpse at and adjust the future to worry about the past, or what it might teach them.
I thought it was Committee of Concerned Climate Physicists.
Are there still any concerned climate physicists or are all climate scientists actually statistical mathematicians.
Well I know Dr. Roy is a Physicist, and presume that John Christy is too.
I’m a Physicist, but not a climate scientist, nor a skeptic, or denier, or doubter.
I’m quite convinced that some of them have some of the Physics of their models a bit screwed up.
Such as Kevin Trenberth’s model of earth’s energy, which models the earth as a flat isothermal plane illuminated 24/7/365.25 by a sun that is straight overhead at a distance of 186 million miles.
how do you get any climate on an isothermal planet ??
And yes, I DO believe that CO2 absorbs some long wave IR radiant energy, in the 13.5 to 16.5 or thereabouts wavelength range. Also at some other shorter wavelengths, where it acts in reverse, to attenuate solar energy that otherwise would reach the surface to get converted to heat.
g
Isn’t Kevin Trenberth the ultimate ‘ flat earther ‘ ??
g
I agree but, how about Catastrophic Climate Change Proselytizers, CCCP, instead?
Honestly, what has it come to when a liberty-loving community starts discussing what words it should censor? To not use the word-that-must-not-be-spoken in ANY CONTEXT? This is appallingly Leftist behaviour (although of course completely within Anthony’s rights as the private blog owner). Please remember, context is everything. And we all know too well that it will simply lead to people substituting asterisks in place of a few letters, e.g. “F****ng D****r!” Has the history of language censorship taught us nothing? Really? I do hope Anthony will review this stance and apply some logic and reason instead of blind censorship.
The AP is off the rails, as is any other CAGW-loving organization, including Obama and his ilk, that demand control of the lexicon. Fortunately, they’re making abject fools of themselves.
I’m against any absolutes on prohibitions on the use of the term, ‘denier.’ It’s part of this debate, and far too late to cleanse it away, now. And of course the most fervent alarmists won’t heed the AP style sheet guidance. That said, of course we need to use precise and exact language, and avoid adding shortcuts and imprecision. We need to follow the rules of informal logic not to assume malice when honest mistakes can explain errors. But those heuristics don’t apply to this term.
The term ‘denier’ is an awesome cultic indicator. That’s why I’m all for alarmists continuing to use the term. It so readily identifies them as totalitarian-inclined believers of the power of the word to preempt further debate. It shows their lack of awareness of the power of the word as a thought-stopper in their own minds. To me, it’s use defines the user of the word far more thoroughly (and more pejoratively) than it defines the intended target.
‘Denier’ will make a dandy search term in the future (assuming CAGW fails to materialize, as I do) and future sociologists seek to document how a large part of the world adopted its false ideas so quickly and completely.
It seems many, even here, are not only willing but eager to be the first to fall in line with this transparent ploy to control the conversation.
Yeah! Aren’t warming pause doubters really just Climate Stasis Deniers after all?
So, another rule on how a professional journalism company does it right on the same day they declared “Yogi Bear” had died?
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/highlight/the-associated-press-originally-reported-that-yogi-bear-died-at-age-90
insisting the AP curb their use of the word “denier” is like insisting they provide a more balanced view on AGW related news – not an act of censorship – that would entail something like employing the RICO Act
I would note that he didn’t ban the use of “fraudster.”
It’s as if I wake up each day in Oceania, I swear. When the very minds that are capable of truly critical thought and reflective intellectual honesty, begin bargaining for which words we’ll agree to throw down a memory hole, the twilight of humankind is probably at hand.
I understand the impetus, the rationalization and how people can find themselves here. Yet the very act of agreeing to ban a word from use, or to scrub them from our history even when pejorative, is an attempt to eliminate individual thought. We become the madness we despise….
Yogi Bear died at the hands of BooBoo. So sad.
I’m in agreement with David here.. The AP style book is for AP writers, not us. Besides, most of us are the targets of the word, not the users. Enforcing the non use of ‘denier’ keeps us from seeing who is off the rails and who isn’t. I really hate political correctness and the enforcers thereof. Please don’t join them Anthony. As others have mentioned, I don’t know anyone who denies that climate changes, and anyone who uses the term is automatically known to be lying. Let them show themselves. Forcing wolves to dress as sheep, isn’t much help to real sheep.
The AP style book is used by many journalists, including broadcasters, not just AP writers.
Anthony: I don’t know what your internal calculation was that led you to so quickly and completely sign on to this change in terminology. My guess is that A) you rightly view it as a slight improvement over “den eye er” and B) a change in the AP style manual has far reaching consequences and you know the value of positive reinforcement.
But IMHO a blogger such as yourself (who seems honestly dedicated to maintaining lines of communication with the sane portions of the opposition, and trying to keep science at the forefront of the discussion) who has influence in the public sphere, should praise the AP for their tiny improvement, but not accept the term Climate Change Doubter. Think about that phrase. Does it describe you accurately in any way? The opposition’s scary predictions aren’t of climate change. They predict runaway Global Warming that is caused by humans, that is avoidable by human action, and that will be catastrophic. You are skeptical of that position.
CAGW Skeptic.
Insist on it. It is fair and accurate.
Anthony, while it may be true that many non-AP writers use that style book, there is no requirement that you use it. You are free to use those portions that help make writing coherent and readable without the unreasonable constraints the AP puts on their speech. While I agree taking the word ‘d e n i e r’ off their list of what is acceptable is a good thing, what they have replaced it with has some serious problems of different kinds. The phrase ‘mainstream science’ is a euphemism for consensus science which is not science at all. Their definition implies that doubters of mainstream science are kooks way out in the left field of a basketball court which surprisingly does not have fields. There is still a lot of work to be done. I would like to know who is who on the climate battlefield, and that bad word is a good identifier. Could you at least make an exception for when we quote others who use it on us? Not everyone follows the style book all the time and we will need to push back when that happens.
Mike, how would we differentiate the proponents from the protagonists? Italicize?
Climate change doubters still sound like a flat earth believer. I don’t know a skeptic (a term we should wear with pride) who denies that the climate changes over time. My doubt is that model projections should be called science.
Better would be “climate change contrarians,” because 1) it’s alliterative, so it has more zing; 2) we contrarians don’t just doubt, we disbelieve. (“Disbelievers” would have been a more accurate term.)
The “usurpation” of the word “skeptic” occurred with card-carrying, capital-S Skeptics like CSI members, because they aren’t skeptics, but scoffers disguising themselves as skeptics, as disillusioned CSI co-founder Marcello Truzzi charged long ago. I call them “scoftics.”
Marian, Marian, quite contrarian,
How does the climate go.
With data tweaks, and modelling geeks,
and hockeysticks all in a row.
You are evil.
More please.
excellent
Bah, I’m a denier a proud of it. Now I will sing:
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk ]
I am not doubting or in the least bit skeptical that the climate system of the Earth changes.
I think this terminology is itself misdirection and I reject it outright.
Climate change doubter sounds like someone who thinks the climate cannot, has not, or will not change.
I do not even doubt that there has been warming.
It is the reasons, the degree, and the danger that are in doubt, IMO.
The criminals running the Global Warming Scam usurped the term ‘Climate Change’ so all their bases are covered no matter how cold it gets. This is part of their criminal operation. We are quite happy for them to keep the words ‘Global Warming’ till the glaciers freeze over but they know they are wrong so they changed the name, stealing OUR description of the weather which is ‘It changes all the time’.
Exactly what I am thinking. Careful wording is a condition for proper understanding. Who of us is doubting that the climate changes?
menicholas:
I am not doubting or in the least bit skeptical that the climate system of the Earth changes. I think this terminology is itself misdirection and I reject it outright.
Climate change doubter sounds like someone who thinks the climate cannot, has not, or will not change. I do not even doubt that there has been warming.
It is the reasons, the degree, and the danger that are in doubt, IMO.
That’s it exactly. The totally vague, nebulous, meaningless term “climate change” is even worse than “denier”. What does it mean? It can mean anything.
The whole debate has devolved into Orwell-speak. The side pushing the climate scare cannot use precise terms, because if they did they would promptly lose the argument. So they obfuscate with “climate change”.
dbstealey,
” … this terminology is itself misdirection … ”
That’s the “smoking gun” so to speak, of a massive intentional fraud, which extends far beyond just climate science, to my mind. There’s no possible way that I can imagine otherwise very intelligent people in all sorts of scientific/academic disciplines, professions and institutions didn’t realize terms like “climate denier”, “climate skeptic”, “climate change” etc. etc., were/are essentially gibberish.
Therefor I am a “mainstream science skeptic”, to say the very least.
“Skeptic” is a perfectly good word to describe an honest scientist in any discipline; it shouldn’t be tossed but “Denier” should definitely be.
Yes and “those who reject mainstream climate science” are far and few between. That
would be like rejecting physics because you reject the notion the universe will end in ice. What I reject is the hypothesis embedded in the computer climate science models projecting strong or dangerous global warming from man made CO2 for the good reason that the real world data don’t agree with the projections. In other words I reject CAGW not climate science.
I simply reject the obvious overstatement of the effect which CO2 has on temperature, and the attempt to inflate it further to monger fear and sell less-than-practical energy collection devices.
Oh! now I can call that site “scoftical science”.
(hmm… it won’t let me add that word to the dictionary.)
These guys still can’t get over their tendency to bite on the straw man fallacy. I know of very few of the “skeptics” (now “doubters” I guess) who contest the theory of global warming. All the doubts or criticisms relate to the application of it. Of course adding CO2 raises temperature. Of course CO2 levels are rising due to man’s activity, and therefore mankind is “contributing” to climate change. So what? Qualitative statements like this are utterly useless. Absent reliable quantification of the amount of warming, all conjecture about the consequences is just that – conjecture.
Does anyone know of a person who doubts that the climate changes, aside from the Mann- and Marcott-following nitwits ?
Also, I was following a story that Seth Goebbelstein wrote on aol last week. The title kept changing, but had the word “sizzle” in it. I commented at least 50 times for a laugh, including cut and paste duplicates. I’m guessing that 48 of them were censored. The thread, last I looked, had about 1,300 comments but, following it closely, I reckon that besides mine another 50,000 comments were deleted. Deleting comments must keep Seth pretty busy these days.
On the plus side though, AP seems to be moving in the right direction.
Wrong. In more enlightened times you would be sent for reeducation. Here is the received wisdom: Climate only changes by the force of evil human malintent. If not for human evil, we would all be living in paradise. Humans screwed everything up in a couple of ways.
1) We ate the apple of good and evil, and:
2) We burned something we dug up from under the ground, i.e. closer to HELL!
We can return to a state of grace by returning to a pre-metal existence. Global temperatures will return to a stable paradise, as they were before we hubristically started to advance evil technology. Since then, all climate change has departed from the Mannian ideal.
We have been bad and must be punished.
We were sceptical of the IPCC temperature projections and we were right. They can pick whatever label they like, all that matters is who is right.
Consensus: saturated fats are bad for your heart.
Before attacking this abstract look at where the funding came from. It was widely reported including by the BBC.
How could this be?
return to a pre-metal existence?
What are we now? Robots?
Ouch!
“On the plus side though, AP seems to be moving in the right direction.” I agree. Now if we could just get the AP and the rest of the main stream media (MSM) to add catastrophic or dangerous in front of climate change doubters, we would really be getting somewhere. It should be pointed out to the MSM, by people with some authority on global warming, that to claim that the climate does not change naturally is the really crazy, stupid position to take.
Yes. Climate Change Doubter is just as inaccurate and insulting. Catastrophic Climate Change Skeptic (or Doubter or Denier) would be fair and accurate. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Skeptic would be even better.
This is good news, bad news today.
Those of us who know from the scientific evidence that the alarminsts are dead wrong on the CAGW issue are Skeptics. I am a skeptic. I dispute the idea that we should not be called skeptics because we are “anti-science”. This is another form of the ongoing ad-hom.
On the other hand, it is very good that they have ruled against the very ugly term “denier”.
The AP has announced this, as has our host. I am certain that the warmists who regularly call me, and every else who doubts CAGW, a denier are about to stop because Seth Borenstein said he will not use it anymore.
How about we see how many of the warmistas stop calling everyone who questions them, a denier? My guess at this point is that the term is entrenched and will remain in widespread usage…unfortunately.
We are NOT ‘skeptics’ we are REALISTS.
Seriously, look at how the scam artists have twisted this entire debate!!!
Doesn’t matter what ANYONE thinks, or what we call what we think either. The earth’s gonna do what the earth’s gonna do. As of now there are no signs that it intends to overheat due to CO2. For which I am grateful. The rest is just noise, like geese hissing.
@ur momisugly goldrider, as some one that many years ago had to try and get rid of geese on a golf course I can attest the “hissing” of geese, frankly it can be terrifying and it is not just noise. You are right about the other thing you said though,
” The Earth is gonna do what the Earth is gonna do”.
The terminology is still biased. Practically no-one who posts here doubts that climate change is constantly happening, so the term. “Climate Change doubter”, implies an unscientific rejection of a generally accepted proposition based on faith alone. If we accept this terminology, we are letting those who insist that Man is causing dangerous changes in climate take the high ground of scientific virtue when nothing could be further from the truth. I suggest that the search for neutral terminology to describe either side of the great divide is far from over.
Agreed. I think it would be a bad mistake for WUWT to buy into this reframing. Over at Bishop Hill I just made the point that I support climate science. I happen to disagree with the conclusions of what possibly might be the “mainstream”, and do tend to the view that they are being unscientific.
If I had to characterise my position on the science it would be to say that I’m sceptical of the weight that others put on AGW and that I put greater weight on natural forces. But where the real difference comes is in the consequences for the assessment of the risks from climate change and the best policy prescriptions to manage those risks. That’s got nothing to do with climate science, it has to do with a whole range of other scientific and professional disciplines.
But perhaps the debate stills starts with how well the climate science is done so we need names for the protagonists.
Given that I’d suggest that we could perhaps be characterised as “respecters of nature” or perhaps somewhat simpler “environmentalists”.
Agree: This is very important and most all don’t get the implication of the change by AP, including Anthony. Remember when they changed from Global Warming to Climate Change – it was done for a reason. Changing to ‘doubter’ = most people will now view people that doubt climate change as looney (as climate always changes). You are falling into their rather insidious and intelligent trap.
I’ve even seen on this blog where some use Climate Change and they have become used in in context of the general definition as separate from the Global Warming CO2 issue.
Suggest: Global Warming Doubter (excise the ‘Climate Change’).
Many of you are extremely proficient or even brilliant in science but rather dull when it comes to understanding words/phrases and how they affect the human population as a whole.
I agree with you and kokoda as well. It is a trap baited with “denier”. We need to push back against doubter, as they are loading the term with an anti-science implication right from the start.
Also we need to push back against Climate Change as a replacement for AGW. Whenever we hear the phrase, remind one and all that they really mean Global Warming.
Ditto – Only the term skeptic or realist is accurate and precisely correct. Don’t let the AGW convinced dictate the terms. GK
This could be be an old (late 1950s) Chinese communist trick. Mao pretended to be softening his stance by asking for ideas for improvements to their communist system. He got many suggestions. Those people who made suggestions were rounded up for re education and executions.
Agreed. I reject the term Doubter. Realist or Investigator is more honest and open and cannot be twisted into something it’s not.
Agree.
Yes, we are being framed as ‘doubting Thomases’ that is too stupid to see the reality.
Absolutely correct. I don’t surrender the use of any word, in any language, which will help to better define the discussion. Boringstein and company seek to capture the high ground and remove the possibility of skeptics scoring points in the debate. AP, provide immediate physiological cover to your style, lest the sun damage it.
Hey ems, I resemble that remark! (in a cryptic sort of way)
absolutely agree, the term climate change doubter is ludicrous, but clever propaganda.
Agreed. The terminology is still biased.
And it will remain biased in favor of the proponents of AGW or CAGW until such time that entities such as the AP, UP, WUWT, etc., stipulate that anytime the terms “climate change” or ”global warming” is used to denote a specific claim or context that they be preceded by either the descriptor word “interglacial” or ”anthropogenic”.
Such as, to wit: …. interglacial climate change (ICC), … interglacial global warming (IGW), …. anthropogenic climate change (ACC), … anthropogenic global warming (AGW), …. CO2 causing anthropogenic climate change (CACC), … or CO2 causing anthropogenic global warming (CAGW),
And if the above verbiage is stipulated …… then the descriptor words such as skeptic, denier, doubter, disbeliever, etc. ….. still mean what they mean ….. and everyone know what is meant.
But it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, to convince the proponents of “anthropogenic causes” to use, employ or adhere to …. the above suggested verbiage “rules”.
I think you are exactly right, Samuel.
Well said.
As one who is named Thomas, I believe doubting Thomas was correct to doubt, it is silly to believe things without evidence, once shown evidence Thomas believed. Show me convincing evidence of dangerous manmade global warming and I’ll believe it.
But I agree “doubter” it is not meant as a neutral term. Realist is the term I prefer.
So proponents of interglacial climate change are PICCs
and the proponents of anthropogenic are PACCs
Anthony, can we adopt this as a standard?
I also am against this term’s acceptance. In no way am I a climate change doubter. In my M.S. thesis decades ago I graphed proxies from 15,000bp to present on a locale – and in no way do I doubt climate changes. This is another trap utilizing obfuscating terms.
+100
+100 more.
I have no doubt that climate changes but am a weather data denier.
The misuse of data by folding, mutilating, in-filling, torture until it confesses statistics is what I cannot believe, amply demonstrated by the rebuttals placed on this site.
Equivocation fallacy/misnomers are big in pseudo sciences. They are big in climastrology, too. Obviously, very few people deny/doubt climate changes… unless of course they deny that climate changes without human influences, but they do not mean those, that is very acceptable 🙂
[snip – unacceptable language -mod]
WUWT going lower again? Why is this sort of rubbish let through? See attached definition:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kaffers
Bob…give Anthony or one of his mod’s time to catch it.
‘the urban dictionary’ ? aren’t you special!
that’s not what kaffir means, idiot.
kaffir means infidel
it means heretic and subject to killing for it, you moron.
gawd- i’m not sure which is worse, crazy or stupid.
forget global warming- global stoopid is the problem.
urban dictionary… oh f***
Hmm… the new scientific jargon has really left me confused.
Darwinist. natural selection, natural change. call us what we are
everything changes, the seas, land, the planets the sun.
No one here rejects main stream science, merely one small theory, which has mutated into a social issue driven more by emotion rather than intellect.
michael
I don’t know anyone who doubts that the climate changes.
except M.Mann & Co, who are categoric that climate doesn’t change anymore on itself, only because of Man.
Well KT seems to doubt that even the weather changes on his flat isothermal planet.
g
Maybe some of the true believers are beginning to have doubts. If CAWG were written in stone, there wouldn’t be a need to change the phraseology.
It is worse: the global warmists want to cool down the planet to where it was during the Little Ice Age! Seriously. They claim that the warm weather of say, the 1930s was evil. They want it colder and note how they screwed around with the data making the 1930s much colder.
These criminals are insane. And like previous insane rulers of our fate, think nothing of killing of millions and millions of people for really stupid ideologies.
They just figured out that global warming is actually beneficial, so they had to change the theme.
“…. insane rulers of our fate, think nothing of killing of millions and millions of people for really stupid ideologies.”
The Pol Pots of the 21st Century ….. on steroids.
http://www.history.com/topics/pol-pot
I read a book about Mao Zhehdong. He killed over 90 ( ninty) not a typo million people. Pol Pot in Cambodia killed 12 million. The only ideology I can see was to murder people. They did it by using cute slogan and somebody to blame for their problems. Do you have a little capitalist in your heart? If they make it illegal to question questionable science, the next question will be, do you have a little deiner in your heart? And you will be required to write your sins down, because we all know that you will be thinking of lighting a fire when it’s 20 below zero f. So if you die from the cold you will have saved the planet! Saved it from what?
While completely accepting your stance on the issue I personally prefer the term ‘skeptic’ because that’s exactly what I am, as per the definition quoted above. As a professional scientist I absolutely reserve the right to be skeptical about any scientific issue whatsoever! And I don’t accept the claims of any organisation to demand exclusivity of a term any more than MacDonald’s has to enforce farcical trademark on a catchphrase.
A scientist by nature as well as by profession, I can annoy friends and colleagues if they try to use the authoritarian argument tack on any number of issues and I simply respond with, “Really? Show me.” or “Explain it to show your own understanding of the issue and the basis of your conviction.” Almost invariably they can’t. Proof to support an argument? Apparently it’s not required….
All I’m asking for is a well-reasoned position based on real evidence if they’re so vehement about their cause. Surely that could be expected?
Likewise on the issue of CAGW I’m very much yet to be convinced – therefore skeptical. Proudly and without reservation.
My thoughts on climate science are still forming as there are so few people actually conducting any. Or publicly making it into the mainstream against the tide anyway…
The agitprop is pretty transparent though and any ‘peer-reviewed paper’ that can be taken apart by independent scientists so swiftly within days of publication…well…hasn’t really been peer-reviewed has it? But most here already know that. 😉
Therefore I remain a SKEPTIC !
On a related note, I very much look forward to Dr Chris Evans’ reworking of basic climate model. You can bet his work will be peer-reviewed in earnest…
“The agitprop is pretty transparent”
That’s a slight understatement.
The Ellen Goodman quotation: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny” reminds me of the confident assertions of the Malleus Maleficarum written in 1486.
“These instances must serve, since indeed countless examples of this sort of mischief could be recounted. But very often men and beasts and storehouses are struck by lightning by the power of devils; and the cause of this seems to be more hidden and ambiguous, since it often appears to happen by Divine permission without the co-operation of any witch. However, it has been found that witches have freely confessed that they have done such things, and there are various instances of it, which could be mentioned, in addition to what has already been said. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; AND SO NO DOUBT AT ALL REMAINS ON THESE POINTS.”
(Capitalization, mine).
Last time I looked up “eugenics” on wikipedia, it was introduced as, “the now discredited theory of eugenics”. Discredited perhaps, but is it wrong?
Apparently, we now live in an age when scientific theories will be accepted or abandoned based on their likeability, popularity or usefulness for the furtherance of political agendas.
For the post-modern relativist, objective reality is non-existent. Apparently, reality is constructed using words. Perhaps for the post modern scientist the real-world is now a construct only existing in computer models and in the deranged mind of Mike Mann.
And if the UAH dataset disagrees, then ignore the dataset and lambast Christy.
And if no CAT3+ smake landfall in ten years then, stop counting and attack Pielke Sr (and force Pielke Jr to stop talking about climate altogether).
Hurrah, for the powers of the inquisition to suppress and silence their critics.
Whether any of what I have just said is true or bears any resemblance to reality is uncertain.
But, I do wish to idly claim that – NO DOUBT AT ALL REMAINS ON THESE POINTS.
Disagreement will and must be discredited and silenced.
You’re a Believer if you either haven’t seen the available climate data or have simply chosen to ignore it. These people believe in (C)AGW/climate change/climate disruption/carbon pollution or whatever else bad because they want or need to believe. The availability of more data disproving all of that bad human caused climate stuff will not remove their belief system. On the other hand if you have seen the climate data and accept it then you are a Disbeliever. Thus you can be either a Believer or a Disbeliever. I get accused of being a Disbeliever and am proud of it.
Though the word has been used earlier in terms of a type of argumentation and David Suzuki was using the term in 2001, skeptic was the main term being used on forums until this little dialogue in Deltoid from 2004 which seems to have launched the d-word into the blogosphere as a label – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/16/gwarming2/ Eli Rabett (#19) introducing it and William Connolley being first supporter, and within six months it had become the default alarmist term of abuse. Now look on Wikipedia and see who’s been promoting the term in the Talk sections…
Well done Anthony. I believe you deserve a lot of credit. I think that the demise of name-calling in the AP style book may well have been a consequence of the great influence of wattsupwiththat and your civilised and unvindictive approach to debate throughout the years that you have run this blog.
Except AP is still calling us names. They should drop the entire business and call everyone ‘scientists who disagree about various things’. Disagreeing about science is part of science. Nothing is written in stone even if many believe it is written in stone.
Anyone looking at the history of science can see that it is this long, long, super long debate between various people about how nature and the universe operates.
@ur momisugly Panda: You miss the point. The point is that Anthony is introducing censorship into what has until now been a great blog for open, adult discussion. Once one censors a word regardless of context one reduces the audience to the role of children who are told what words they’re allowed to utter. I will bet you anything that all that will happen is people will type “d****r” or “The D Word” instead. What the hell is the point in that?
Unfortunately the so-called Center for Skeptical Inquiry morphed in the mainstream science lovers fanboy club, and in the process has ceased to take a skeptical approach to examining claims regards man’s influence on the climate and weather.
That’s why these guys all got into a big funk when the CSI co-founder James Randi announced that he held a skeptical position regarding this topic.
Here out of interest is James Randi’s essay. It is also easy to find the outraged reaction of the appalled self-styled skeptics in his group, who were deeply shocked by the skepticism of their master skeptic.
Since they now deign that skepticism must have clear and precise limits.
If anyone from CSI is reading this, then can we please have a list of what we are allowed to be skeptical about. How about modern psychology, pharmaceutical research, social sciences, nutritional science? Are these areas all “official established science”, which is infallible?
How will we know what we are allowed to be skeptical about and what is in their opinion, establish FACT?
So, a detailed list is needed, immediately.
And then, are we to be skeptical of the contents of the list?
Or, will the list also be infallible?
I’m sorry to point this out, but defining skepticism as having only a small number of legitimate targets, is silly childish nonsense.
Here’s the Randi essay that caused the big stir: http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
That is why I stopped my subscription to Skeptican Inquirer in 2007.
Same here. Once they jumped on the Amazing Randi for having a skeptical view on CAWG, and his subsequent backtracking, I lost all respect for all of them. And they lost what little $ I used to give to them for magazines, etc.
I guess they’ll just have to scrape by on the $ they are getting from many of the same foundations hyping warming (and living with their hypocrisy).
what is the correct phrase for the believers?
The Climate Faithful.
“what is the correct phrase for the believers?”
Al Gore’s zombies?
Climate Change Funding Recipients (CCFR)
How about ‘liars’ or ‘thieves’?
Climate liars, and climate realists, may be a useful alternative to the now black listed terms.
I have a comment in moderation for the past hour because I used the word being discussed.
Many above have noted that this whole thing announced by the AP is another attempt to control the conversation, by controlling who can say what, and when.
It makes me sad to think of how damaging it may be to honest dialogue to fall into this trap…here of all places.
By the AP announcing this, they may have calculated that the rubes and dupes that they suppose us to be will fall in line, while most on the CAGW side will not.
The net result will be a hobbling of our ability to communicate our thoughts and respond appropriately and effectively to those who lie and cheat for a living, and to those who are merely sadly mistaken and astoundingly unscientific.
I believe those are already being used for politicians.
“WUWT will use terms such as climate change doubters or climate change proponents to describe the polarization of opinion in the climate change debate in all stories.”
I’m sorry, Anthony, but I think that’s appalling.
I’m proud to be a sceptic. Scepticism means that you base everything on evidence, data and proof. Scepticism is the opposite of gullibility. The very basis of science is scepticism. The ancient motto of the Royal Society is “take no one’s word”.
We should be proud to use the word “sceptic”.
Chris
+1000
I fully agree. Skepticism is a state of a healthy mind and a noble one at that. I’m sceptic as long as I’m not convinced. I’m not sceptic about climate change, I’m sceptic about any kind alarmism and I deny any exaggerated conclusion drawn from uncertain data.
Speech control will be followed by thought control, thought control will lead to RICO legislation. I don’t agree with Anthony, all the more because apologists will not feel compelled to adhere to it, in the contrary they will continue to use the word “denier” BECAUSE sceptics want to ban it.
I can see the objection to calling us just “sceptics”. It does imply that those who are scared of AGW are both gullible and not sceptical, e.g. not real scientists.
That’s also partisan.
So a better name would be “Climate Change Impact Sceptics”. That’s true and descriptive.
And it doesn’t distinguish between those who think the world warming isn’t a big problem and those who think we’ve no reason to expect the world to warm.
Which is the broad grouping that our opponents need to make when speaking.
Unfortunately, “Climate Change Impact Sceptics” is only accurate. It is not brief.
Can anyone phrase the idea more simply?
“Climate change contrarians” implies that we we disagree that there will be dangerous impacts, which is the core position of the climate change consensus.
Isn’t the core issue that of the cause (man or not) and magnitude (dangerous or trivial?)
That suggests we need a substitute for “CAGW skeptic” that the general public would understand.
Climate Alarm Skeptics?
or
Climate Alarm Sceptics
on the wrong side of The Pond?
I often ask the question “Are you talking about real climate change or phony climate change”. Good for setting how the tone of the conversation will proceed.
I think they are astoundingly gullible and credulous.
Or liars.
Hard to say which is worse.
I have to say I don’t believe in banning any words being used by individuals is constructive. I doubt anyone who reads this site can be reasonably described as a “climate science doubter” or a “climate change doubter” both are highly inaccurate descriptions of our position on this issue. We are, of course a broad church, indeed we have our own heretics in the sky dragons, but the one immutable fact is none of us deny climate change, or climate science. We question the science e.g. UHI effects, feedbacks, unknowns being glossed over by the climate science community etc. but we don’t deny it. We question the supposed catastrophic effects of climate change and their social impacts but none of us question climate science or climate change.
We might just as well be called Times Square Doubters as Climate Science/Change Doubters, and in there is the nugget of what the problem is. AP and other media outlets globally don’t actually know what the sceptical position is and see us as a group of people who doubt a reality – if we were such a group, then indeed “deniers” would be the right name for us. It has never been the word “denier” that has been my issue, (in fact I take the use of the word as an indication that the user has no sound arguments), it is the use of climate change/science that is offensive, it portrays us as nutters/flat-earthers and indeed irrational deniers. That’s when Seth Borenstein seems to be comfortable with the resultant change from AP, it still keeps the word “denier” implicitly. You can’t doubt Times Square without being a “denier”.
Geronimo – they are just reporters. Some may have a degree in journalism, but odds are they never took high school physics or even chemistry if they had the ability to opt out. They probably can’t even do a graph – well maybe with a graphing calculator. Most of them only have a 10 second sound bite mentality.
That’s probably rude, but having associated with a few journalists, they have quite a different mind set from the engineering fraternity – which I am part of and we all have seen the many sites of “engineering jokes” (which in many cases are not far off the mark). But it makes us understand limitations. We can use Newtonian Physics because they work for us even though special relativity may be the more correct theory. But since we are not worrying about bending light or whether time has changed or whether light is a wave or a photons, in most simple work on this planet, Newtonian Physics works just fine. Many models used in engineering only work within specific limits. I am not sure the GCM makers understand their limits.
I deny that I deny climate change.
Catostrophic Global warming skeptic.
“CAGW Skeptic” is the most accurate term for those skeptical of CAGW.
Simple, and true, insist on it.
It is really strange calling someone a ‘climate change denier’ when the one thing they don’t deny is that climate changes. I prefer ‘sceptic’, since scepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.
But control of the language is very important. In George Orwell’s fictional tale, a future totalitarian government introduced a new language called Newspeak which made it impossible to express unwanted ideas because the language simply wasn’t available. You notice this tendency in today’s politically-correct vocabulary where the argument against someone often focuses on the words they used and not the actual logic of the argument.
Censorship IS denial. Please rethink, and apply reason.
I think the new name, “Paris-ites” should be used to describe the Climate Catastrophists. The name: “Normal people going about their business” could well describe the rest of us. Not catchy, I know, but when did sensible normal people need a catchy title?
How about ‘realists’? 🙂
So you accept this crap….“proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.”
You accept that you are not a “proper” skeptic? None of the articles written for this site “promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason”?
Accepting their terms is a load of crap and simply casts you as wanting to maintain political correctness. In leaving the loaded term behind, they basically told you you have no basis in science, and for some reason you agreed.
have to agree.
I am PROUD to call myself a Skeptic, I am and will remain so on everything , not just AGW.
seems almost every day things I was told were 100% correct n true and the best science/advice/data etc etc said so..get proven not to be so.
some of the “best medical advice” damn near killed me as one personal reminder to never trust totally.
I would rather leave off commenting on WattsUpWithThat than to sacrifice my freedom of speech on the alter of political correctness. I also am proud to be a skeptic in ALL that I hear.
GaelanSClark has raised a point that is hugely important. By following AP recommendations, A W, you are effectively putting a gag on the very science you promote. Those that are data-free have wanted to silence this site for years and you’re just letting them lead you where they want you to go? You will be damaging yourself and your reputation beyond repair if you fall for this manipulation.