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)
Perhaps the real problem is with the term “climate change”. It has become code for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW). The CAGW hypothesis is almost certainly wrong and I suspect that it is, in fact, NOT mainstream science. Much of what CAGW relies on is, indeed, mainstream science, but the part that matters (the existence of positive feedback) is not. Mainstream science does not support the notion that positive feedback exists in the climate system.
EXAMPLE: It is almost certain that it was warmer during the various climate optima in the current interglacial. In other words, we do not have to worry about an imminent tipping point. That is mainstream science. There are a few doubters, such as Dr. Mann but they are not the mainstream.
The above example raises the question of who qualifies as a CAGW skeptic. In this case, I would say that historians qualify. A historian could assert that Dr. Mann’s science (sic) is wrong because it contradicts the historical record. A certain group of scientists should not be able to hijack the term “skeptic” and disqualify everyone else from using it.
As many other posters have pointed out, almost nobody except Dr. Mann doubts that the climate changes. The Associated Press has the problem of describing a complicated thing in a simple way. It can’t be done.
I disagree that the Associated Press should be congratulated for making the change. All they’ve done is replace an ugly word with euphemisms. We don’t doubt climate change or reject mainstream climate science; we question the validity of the data, the speculations touted as fact, the taking of model projections as reality, and the hijacking of scientific inquiry. The AP is only half way there and while they may deserve some credit for moving away from the pejorative label, they need to correct, not merely politically correct.
I agree. A bit of journalistic integrity would go a long way. For instance, for every pro-warming statement, a response by somebody that doesn’t have both fore-hooves in the trough is needed.
Names are important. May I propose a much simpler and easier terminology to understand:
Instead of “climate change proponents” try “rent seekers” if you think they are real proponents. If simply a me too-er, then “sheep” (Lewandowsky, anyone?)
Instead of “climate change doubters” or “skeptics”, try “thinkers” or “people who can think for themselves”.
How about calling us all ‘realists’ or ‘truth tellers’, AP???
Good But nothing was wrong with skeptic. We are just as much skeptics as these groups who say they are “real skeptics” are. Most, if not all of those who the AP calls “real Skeptics” have never looked at the science at all.
Does “Mainstream Climate Science” even deserve to use the term “Science”?
“Orthodox” would be a better word than “Mainstream”.
So “Believers in Orthodox Climatology” would best describe the Alarmist Group.
So “Climate Modelling Believers” or “Orthodox Climatology Believers”: CMBs or OCBs
And “Skeptics of Climate Modelling ” or “Skeptics of Orthodox Climatology”: SCMs or SOCs
So, only someone who is not skeptical of “mainstream climate science” can call his/herself a skeptic?
And this is because it offends an insignificantly small group of “skeptical scientists” who are offended that many credible scientists are skeptical of mainstream climate science? Balderdash!
I will, however, follow Anthony’s lead on this very fine site.
I think AW has done another mild but serious error (LOL). To oblige people here not use “skeptic” is absolutely ridiculous.
Eliza, you are certainly most welcome to go rant with abusive language all you want at Steve Goddard’s place, where such things are not just common, but a feature. And, I’ve not obliged anyone here to not use the term “skeptic”, only “denier” in comments.
Commenters are advised to adopt terms other than “denier” in any context. Let’s all hope other blogs will follow.
Get your facts straight before making accusations.
@ur momisugly Anthony: “In any context.” What is so evil about any word “in any context”? As I said earlier: censorship IS denial.
Well, dag-nabbit, it was entertaining letting them publicly expose their vileness & turning it back on them.
OT but a very important posting from a Senior meteorologist member of the mainstream RMS ect. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/09/23/uk-weather-trends
Which better describes the individuals that frequent this site?
doubt – to be undecided or skeptical about: began to doubt some accepted doctrines.
skeptic – a person who questions the validity, authenticity, or truth of something purporting to be factual,
I believe that Anthony Watts is so anxious for even the smallest bit of courtesy from our Rulers that this crumb being tossed to him is happiness.
I, on the other hand, see the claws holding the bread and know that they are still attacking us viciously and maliciously and they still will not include any number of very real, respectable scientists who dispute the entire global warming theology, in any stories about global warming.
They are still utterly locked out of the news cycle and are not interviewed every time a climate hysteric yells about how we are going to roast to death. The doors are still very much locked, the conspiracy to impose draconian taxes on the air we exhale are going to be set in steel in Europe in November and we are all going to pay these crooks through the nose for the privilege of exhaling.
Note how the Pope who is screaming that we are going to roast to death is flying all over the world now! And the warmists will be flying in and out of Europe screaming that flying is evil and driving cars is evil and being warm is evil and that the Little Ice Age was the perfect climate.
These criminals continue to lock us out of the media and call us names and Anthony fell for this thinking that calling us a new dirty name is ‘progress’. IT IS NOT.
But hey! I’m not a skeptic. I’m a denier!
Like some comments above, it isn’t a climate change proponent, it is a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming proponent. And it isn’t a climate change doubter (or denier), it is a doubter of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I personally doubt there are many that believe that there hasn’t been climate change occurring since the industrial revolution nor are there many that doubt climate change will continue in the future. The AP change changed the wrong word, which really doesn’t change the meaning. It isn’t so much the term doubter (or denier) that offends me; it is the linking of that doubt to climate change itself that is offensive. Using the acronym, I much prefer CAGW proponent, or CAGW doubter.
Plus 100
I agree with avoiding using “denier”, but I have no problem with “skeptic”. The real problem is calling “climate science” science.
Agreed.
Personally, I consider sceptic to be a much better word, since I for one am as sceptical about every argument ran against the proposition that there is no AGW, as I am against those arguing in favour of AGW.
This should be a science. Sceptic is a stance to be taken in science. That is the root of the scientific method. Doubter makes it look like a one way street. Willis is a sceptic of AGW, but look at how sceptic he is about the impact of the sun as being a significant driver.
People (or MSM) do not understand that being a sceptic is a two way street. Not accepting anything without seeing the underlying data and considering its weaknesses and veracity, and the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn therefrom. Doubter on the other hand subtly conveys the subjective impression that one holds only one position, namely against everything posited by Climate Change Promoters.
Nonetheless the revision to the language being used by MSM is to be welcomed.
It is far worse, for it is propaganda to insult you as someone who doubts climate change.
You do not doubt climate change. You are a CAGW skeptic. Insist on nothing else.
This sounds like Vatican speak. Maybe science fact checkers and science process will make it to the terminology list in a few decades or centuries.
I rather like the term “skeptic.” All good scientists are skeptical about any theory, hypothesis, or observation, especially their own.
I’d like to see how (if) this plays out in blogdom before committing to the new terms. I know SkS won’t have anything to add to the debate, but Joe Romm might have an interesting musing or two. Roy Spencer and Judith Curry will likely have the most level headed responses.
Ric Werme – Joe Romm already had his meltdown over this. It was laughable – as usual.
How about the over reach lords at the WH?
Im just not a big fan of the labels no matter what they are. I prefer that those who are doing research on climate be referred to as scientists. Some of them may be doing good research and some not so good. Then we let the scientific method and peer review sort it out. In the end they are still scientists.
The labeling does not advance the discussion.
Some people are labelers; other people are non-labelers.
This is crazy – lumping these two disparate groups into an umbrella term is every bit as insulting. Why can they not be called climate scientists just like they do the nutter alarmists?
I believe that “those who reject mainstream climate science” is a far more insidious phrase than “climate denier”, or “Climate skeptic” ever was. It implies that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Cult is “mainstream” and that the rejecters are the uneducated (or ignorant, or stupid) boobs. Some of us believe that the opposite is true, but that media and academic propaganda have brainwashed the masses into believing the spin. I do not reject science. I follow the words of Dr. Werner von Braun: “In God we trust, all others provide data.”
I don’t like to be over pedantic with language when it is the understood meaning of the word that is important not its dictionary definition.
But one thing which a science should do is to properly determine the meaning of terms of art that it is using. There are notable defects in this regard such as referring to Carbon when one means CO2, or calling CO2 a GHG (when it is a radiative gas), when discussing the GHE which in relation to planet Earth the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse, for using warming when you mean slowing the rate of cooling, etc. The list is lengthy.
Heck, the major failing is the lack of a proper and accepted definition of climate. Until we fully understand what climate is, the debate regarding climate change cannot be meaningfully discussed.
Some people do not accept climate change because they argue that climate is continuously changing, always has and always will. But if that is so, then does it not mean something more fundamental, namely that climate change is not climate change in the sense being used by Climate Change Promoters?
If climate is something which constantly changes, it follows that change of and in itself is not evidence of climate change. That is simply what climate is and what it does. There are many parameters which go to make up climate (we are fixated on temperature but this is just one of many parameters), these parameters are never in stasis, and yearly, or decadal or multi-decadal variations is not itself necessarily climate change at all.
Climate change is almost a non scientific assertion due to the ever changing nature of climate itself.
Global warming on the other hand has a basis in science in the sense that if we had sufficient high standard measuring devices with sufficient accuracy and sufficient spatial coverage, with sufficient high quality audited data extending over a sufficiently lengthy period of time, we could ascertain whether it was or was not happening. The reason for it happening may not be so easily identified or understood, but at least it is a quantity which can be measured.
Climate change, on the other hand is almost incapable of measurement when measured on a scale of a few human generations, and the scientific debate is being lost by permitting Climate Change Promoters to frame the debate in that manner rather than as AGW..
“Climate Change” is the main stream media’s attempt to replace the term, “Global Warming,” which hasn’t been happening during the present pause/hiatus/plateau/etc. Thus, there are some who still interpret “Climate Change” to be “Climate [heat] Runaway.” (Obviously their computer models keep projecting ever-increasing global temperatures, and this is the data in which they believe.) So how should believers and skeptics proceed to get along?
Once both sides agree to a methodology of resecting time periods over an agreed-upon data set, “Global Warming,” “Global Stasis,” and “Global Cooling” should be the terms that are used, along with an agreed-upon algorithm for quantifying those summarizing terms.
(Now how many times did I use the word “agree?” Naw, it will never happen.)
To long and complicated. Stop calling CAGW climate change. CAGW is a very accurate description of the alarmists position.
Insist on CAGW skeptic, or be marginalized.
+1
I just read the linked article and it is an amazing example of bias and falsehoods. Only lay persons and a few climate scientists doubt the establishment? What a load of crap. They are still den…, er, doubters of reality.
Yes, good point. Many still characterize those who are skeptics as a tiny fringe group of cranks.
Do not doubt it.
Thank you to AP.
But I have some criticism. It is not logical to claim the the word “skeptic” is improper because…
” 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.”
Is quite insulting to the many fine scientists and logical thinking people who raise objections to global warming dogma. I am as much skeptic as James Randi.
http://web.randi.org/about-james-randi.html
Also the epithet “alarmist” should not be dropped in a spirit of compromise. The activities of many of the leading proponents of global warming dogma are designed to raise alarm. The are, objectively speaking, “alarmists.” We should forcefully state this position.
If you want buy a bicycle and offer $200, and the seller counters with desire for $1,000,000, then should you agree to $500,000 in the spirit of compromise? No, stand your ground and accept your victories. We need to act decently, but not be patsies.
We should be hammering term “alarmist” while the iron is hot.
the issue isn’t the word after climate its the words (missing) prior to it.
climate change skeptic/doubter is a LOT different than MANMADE climate change skeptic/doubter.
That omission is key to the strategy!!
Call me what you like. I’m still correct in my assertions!