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)
If the term “alarmist” is denied then this blog will have lost its rudder. The only thing left that applies to them is reality denier and that is off the table, I presume. I am disincented to be politically correct with that pack of liars.
Doubter?
I prefer to use Climate Realist. That really gets them wondering, because if we are realists, then what are they??
R
The term is a tool of the propagandist and the tyrant, deployed in the smug belief that the end justifies the means.
It has also become a badge, as visible as a Red Star on the lapel, or SS on the collar. Its usage instantly identifies the user as either ignorant (sometimes, witless,) or one in service to the cause.
I am an anthropological global warming heretic. I do not doubt climate change. I just doubt that the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels has very much or anything to do with it.
<blockquote"…complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase skeptic.
The Center for Skeptical Inquiry should practice what they preach. If they exercised “scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims” they would clearly see that the claims and conclusions of climate science far outreach the evidence provided.
Deniers suggest people who deny the evidence, skeptics are those who conclude there is not enough eveidence, faulty methodology or the conclusions are flawed based on the available evidence.
APs style sheet rational that eliminates the terms sketics and deniers only adds more supporting evidence to the notion that the news media has become filled with large reputations and tiny brains.
With the announcement of this http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-feds-to-manipulate-americans I have to wonder if this is an example. Our media is incredibly political and words are powerful. This I think is an example of a nudge and AP would absolutely fall all over itself to support the idea of whatever we going to call “this” (climate change caused by evil developed countries at the expense of under developed ones, maintaining a lifestyle that is inappropriately wealth….). The same thing has already happened with terms like “immigrant” replacing “undocumented” or “illegal” immigrant all in an attempt to twist the narrative. The only defense I’m aware of is to refuse to kowtow to their orthodoxy.
So much surprise that a science illiterate group dedicated to propaganda and nonsense still gets it wrong?
I prefer to be known as a ” Climate Change is Normal Believer ” !!!!
Or if that’s too long, how about ” Unadjusted Data Believer ” !!!
Quoting their Stylebook;
“global warming The terms global warming and climate change can be used interchangeably. Climate change is more accurate scientifically to describe the various effects of greenhouse gases on the world because it includes extreme weather, storms and changes in rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and sea level. But global warming as a term is more common and understandable to the public.”
Apparently, It is not necessary to understand something to describe it, especially if you don’t know the meaning of the words in your description.
Ich bin ein Doubter is the new je suis denier.
So in addition to adjusted their data, they are now adjusting their Strawmen.
I don’t reject mainstream climate science, because what they doing isn’t science, it’s political propaganda. So the more accurate phrase is “those who reject political propaganda”.
“Since it has now become convention in the AP stylebook to drop the term, which is used by both AP and non-AP journalists worldwide, WUWT will also follow the convention for all of it’s stories and will no longer use the term “deniers” in any context, be it in comments, or in a turnabout is fair play situation, such as this article by Dr. Tim Ball a couple of weeks ago.”
“In any context”?
I strongly agree with most, if not all, of the negative comments regarding this decision. One other observation: The AP doesn’t dictate usage to the rest of the “blogosphere” and other news providers. Rush Limbaugh may be able to argue with liberals with “half his brain tied behind his back,” but it is pollyanna-naive to impose a blanket embargo on words at WUWT. If other sources still use the “forbidden words”–say in the title of an article or its contents–are we now supposed to to contort our comments into a pretzel of euphemisms to avoid even citing the actual title or quotes?
Explain again why we’d WANT to label ourselves and others “deniers”, other than for the pejorative value?
People are fond of saying that when you’ve resorted to insults, you’ve lost the argument. My view is that you can win many more arguments with persuasive language than you can with labeling and name calling.
Otherwise, you’re just another hater with a blog, such as Joe Romm or Miriam O’Brien (aka Soubundanga).
I interpreted the comment from Robert as wondering how we should respond when others use the word, or call someone a d****r, without using the word ourselves?
Calling a person one is different than using the word in a discussion.
I myself decided to not be so agitated by the word.
The reason I have is based on two things, mostly.
First, as the word has now been used in the context of climate far more times than it ever was in it’s original usage, it has been co-opted and should no longer have the impact as it did the first few times it was used in the context of CAGW skeptics.
The second is that, in my personal life, my principle adversary in the debate is a close friend and family member by marriage, who holds a strongly warmista position in public forums, and everywhere else too.
It so happens he uses the word as the exclusive term for any skeptics, despite my initial protestations.
This may not seem very odd or extraordinary, until and unless one happens to know that this person is the son of two holocaust survivors. He is a highly educated person, holding a PhD in mathematics. Both of his parents had their entire families killed in the concentration camps, and each was among the very few to live through being interred in one for the whole war.
He uses the word, and will not stop, saying it is completely appropriate…to my shock and horror.
But after several years, I have stopped complaining every time he calls me one, although he mostly just uses it to refer to persons other than me. I refuse to call him a warmista though, at least not directly, because I think he is merely one of the hoodwinked. He has little knowledge of the actual applicable sciences, and al of his arguments are either appeals to authority, which he fiercely defends, or one or another logical fallacies…a subject on which he is an expert in any other context but this one. Giant blind spot, has he, for his own lack of rigor in examining the facts. I thought for sure the chicanery with adjustments coming to his attention might sway him, but he simply refuses to acknowledge any doubts at all.
Anyway, I guess I told a longer version of this story than I needed to.
People who should not use it do anyway, and will not stop.
Finally, I think Robert was simply voicing a concern I had myself, Mr. W.
Great Caesar’s Ghost! Here I am–having just broken my Yom Kippur fast and settled down to get the latest from one of my favorite and daily-visited websites–and, lo and behold!, I find myself cast a hate-monster cavorting with the likes of Sou (telepathically, however, since I’ve never actually frequented her lair). In less than a day, I am already saddled with a new, back-breaking burden of Teshuva (repentance); unless, of course, my name was found unworthy of being inscribed in the Book of Life for the coming year.
I think Menicholas has got it right. I was surprised and very grateful for his(?) willingness to take the time to compose the lengthy, self-revealing, and impassioned effort in my defense. On the other hand, Mr. W., I can put myself in your shoes today. You certainly have gotten a lot of “push-back” –much, much more than usual–for your editorial stance, and it is easy to be defensive. I am not exactly sure how I specifically managed to pique your ire, given all the other numerous possible target-dissenters. But, obviously, I have done so. And to the extent I have managed to hurt your feelings, or in some way acted to compromise your good intentions, I truly apologize.
Your site has a well-deserved reputation for welcoming diverse opinions. As one person said, in addition to complementing you: “To your readers, I say keep up the spirited debate.” I suspect you and I agree on this.
Shalom
Menicholas, thank you, again. I have noticed that you have been a very active participant in a number of threads recently. I typically find your comments cogent and well-argued. My maternal grandfather and his family were impacted by the holocaust (they never discussed the details).
Shalom Robert,
And thank you for the kind words.
(And, yes, his is the correct pronoun.)
– Nick
Oops, not sure what I did wrong. Everything after the wide break was me, before it was Robert’s quoted text.
The AP has obviously been taking note of their comment columns where all their alarmist stories are being eviscerated by knowledgeable commentators. I’m sure the pay-per-view greenie sites will still use the more inflammatory term ‘denier’, of course, and ‘doubter’ is still a pejorative. Frankly, I’ve warmed up to ‘skeptic’ although it’s not linguistically correct, although I prefer ‘realist’ (and calling me a ‘denier’ within arm’s reach is risking a punch in the snoot).
AP’s rebranding is, at least, sign of push-back in the general population – a positive sign, if not nearly enough to reverse the tide against They Who Wield Power – although considering it’s coming at a time when they’re also talking about putting us in jail, it’s a small comfort at best.
It is your place Anthony, but banning words is not constructive.
Right, should I now allow all the four letter words and spam advertisements for sex sites that we send to the bit bucket by default?
Banning non-obscene words is censorship. This is your blog but we readers make this place ‘the place to go’.
@ur momisugly Anthony: YES, you’ve got it, spot on! You should indeed allow all four-letter words (and five-, six-, seven, and all letter words) IN CONTEXT. If people are being abusive, then fine, see them off to the sin bin. But if someone is making an intelligent, rational point, which happens to include a word that some petty-minded individuals may find offensive, LET IT THROUGH! This is the difference between being a rational human being and an irrational fingers-in-ears, hands-over-eyes censor. Are you also going to censor the use of the phrase “The D Word?” What next? “D****r?” Let’s censor “alarmist” too. We could all argue endlessly about what words we like and what words we want to be censored.
Or alternatively we could all just be *adult* about it and forget this childish censorship.
Can we now have ‘climate change’ altered to ‘a belief in dangerous man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions’?
I’m confused,
I was under the impression that the ones generating all of the bogus climate models were the climate change deniers/empirical evidence skeptics and that everyone at WUWT are realists?
Does this mean we can go back to calling them Climate Change Believers? Some objected because that term was too religious, but if skeptics are now doubters, then that leaves believers for the opposite side.
The problem is the AP is NOT doing this out of any concern for truth, only because the term is loaded and causes even some AGW supporters to feel uncomfortable with the party line, and perhaps have sympathy for the other side. Have no doubt, they still view us as poorly as ever, look at the whole focus on calling “doubters” those who go against what everyone knows is true attitude. This is pure propaganda, and I think our host gives them too much credit. This is nothing more than a minor tweak to the Newspeak dictionary, which even in Winston’s time had revisions and new editions now and then. This change is not plusgood, but rather doubleplusbad because of it’s intentions, which are not honorable.
Total unbeliever in the “climate change” (a.k.a. global warming) religion–and the false dogma known as “climate science”–on the basis of definitive evidence against it.
I would only wish to be called a doubter if it is a “CAGW doubter”. Climate change doubter is just plain wrong.
Even with removing the term “denier” they still found is necessary to slight us.
“..proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims”.
By not calling us “Skeptics” they are still defining us as not using or understanding science or the scientific method. Basically they went from calling us “a@ur momisugly@holes” to calling us “anal sphincters”. I don’t see this as a win.
If I had been drinking milk, it would have come out of my nose at that comment, Brian!
A “person in doubt” can be a person confused which is the connotation, I believe, the AP would like to use with doubters of CAGW. Skeptic implies reasoned questioning of the purported facts.
I am not confused, I am skeptical.
I still prefer “realists” versus “alarmists.”
What about “realists” versus “modelists?”
The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic.
Yes, indeed.
Denier is ugly, doubter is still a bit perjorative and muddled.
They need a term that signifies those of us who are informed and educated about the issue, and unconvinced by what is being offered.
It needs to convey the idea that the task at hand is very large and difficult (claims of the ability to predict the future of an inherently chaotic climactic system based on a single minor component of the atmosphere), and that the evidence needed to convince us is lacking.
If they come up with a workable model that hindcasts observed temperatures, predicts the hiatus, and then forecasts certain doom, that would be an improvement over the current sad state of affairs.
While abandoning the term ‘denier’ for ‘doubters’ is still a propaganda tactic.
It play wonderfully into Oreskes ‘Merchants of Doubt’ narrative.
Skeptic is accurate, it would be a error to let them frame the language, as they did when they changed ‘global warming’ with ‘climate change’. Their propaganda is remarkably homogeneous.