Climate "Dismissive": The New PC Term for "Denier"

Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe has noticed that calling someone a “denier” tends to end the conversation. Her solution – call them an evidence “dismissive” instead.

There Must Be More Productive Ways To Talk About Climate Change

May 9, 20175:03 AM ET

Rachel Martin talks to climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who stresses how unproductive it is to label someone a “climate denier.”

With the White House threatening to pull out of the Paris accord, environmentalists are speaking up more strongly than ever about the need for policies that help reduce the effects of climate change. This is getting personal. When Scott Pruitt was tapped to leave the Environmental Protection Agency he was labeled a climate denier, and that has become the go-to phrase for anyone who expresses skepticism about climate science.

MARTIN: What do you think about the term climate denier? What does it conjure up for you?

HAYHOE: Climate denier is a good way to end the conversation. So if our goal is to label and dismiss whoever it is that we are speaking with or to, then that word will do it. What I use instead is a word I think is actually more accurate, as well as having less baggage associated with it, and that is the word dismissive. I use that. It comes from the six Americas of global warming, which separates people into a spectrum of six different groups depending on how they feel about climate change science and solutions.

The group starts with people who are alarmed. And then there’s people who are concerned. And then those who are cautious, which are actually the biggest group. Then there’s people who are disengaged, those who are doubtful. And then at the very end we have about 10 percent of the population who is dismissive.

And I think that’s the perfect term because a dismissive person will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented because dismissing the reality of climate change and the necessity for action is such a core part of their identity that it’s like asking them to, you know, almost cut off an arm. That’s how profound the change would be for them to change their minds about climate change.

Read more:

Is calling someone a “dismissive” better than calling them a “denier”? Both pretty insulting.

Scientists like Hayhoe can’t bring themselves to call people who disagree with their speculative theories “skeptics”, because skepticism is such an important part of science – except apparently when it comes to expressing skepticism about the validity of the estimated lower boundary of the IPCC climate sensitivity range, which seems to be totally forbidden.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The ONLY people dismissing NATURAL climate change are the AGW scammers…
… and Ho-Hum is one of the top of that list.


I recommend us “good guy” Lovers of Liberty and ethical science deploy a certain retaliatory, “PC” term for the Gaia-freaks–“thermhorroids”.

Walter Sobchak

What’s wrong with watermelons?


Because a lot of them aren’t. Many just actually believe their conclusions, sketchy though the evidence is. accusing them of being communists shuts them up even faster.


How about carbophobics or thermophobics? Factophobics?


Yr: ” ..watermelons?”
“Watermelons” has its appeal, for sure, especially when employed in genteel circles, of which the best part of the metaphor is its clever, green-outside/red-inside imagery. At the same time, “watermelon” is just a little bit too high-toned, too “tasteful”, too dependent on a faintly hoity-toity, “intellectual” word-play, for its edge, to be ideally suited for general-purpose, “head-shot”, Alinskyite “wet” work.
In contrast, “thermohorroid” has a good, crass, smash-mouth quality to it, that, in turn, subliminally imparts the suggestion that the good-comrades are an “indelicate”, unsavory, malodorous, “fundamentally”-inflamed bunch of socially-retarded creep-outs.
IMHO, of course

george e. smith

Hayhoe. hayhoe, it’s off the chart we go !!
And bring more grant moneys.


Other possibilities include MWP d@niers, Roman Warm Period d@nier, photosynthesis d@nier, anti-humans, or genocidal maniacs.


“dumbsh!t”, “climate crook” and “ignorant tool” work for me.


I call them Climatists, and their belief system Climatism.


mike’s “bullsh!t” “climate crook”…”
Hmmm…not moi–rather a “mike”-bot beta-test, I’m thinkin’.

george e. smith

So we are the ” DDs ” The Dismissive Deplorables ”
Well it has a nice ring to it; I’ll take it any day.


First of all, this appears to have been broadcast at 5:03 AM. Because it’s such a low-interest topic that most people tune out immediately. The word changes are yet another symptom that the MSM are no longer controlling this narrative, their watertight illusion of certainty is now confined to preaching to their acolytes; everyone else has either Googled the truth for themselves or has ceased to care entirely since few even understand the enormous amounts of money involved to begin with. Just like the narrative change from “global warming” to “climate change,” this semantic spin is yet more proof that we are, by degrees pardon the pun, WINNING!

I know what I’d call Hayhoe, but she’d probably sue me!
So let’s just call her a dismisser of history:


Dismiss it!


The best response to Hayhoe is to sigh and roll your eyes. I do wonder if she’s ever held a conversation with a real sceptic or just assumed that anyone who remotely contradics her with logic must be in the pay of Big Oil or suffering from some rare mental condition.
You’ve got to wonder how many people are employed who never have to demonstrate any quantifiable success in their work. She’s a perfect example of how good a career you can have without ever being good at it.

Samuel C Cogar

how many people are employed who never have to demonstrate any quantifiable success in their work.

Sowell said it best …….
“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”
— Thomas Sowell

D P Laurable

Great quotation. Thanks.


Sowell is great. Here’s another
“In democratic countries, where public opinion matters, the left has used its verbal talents to change the whole meaning of words and to substitute new words, so that issues would be debated in terms of their redefined vocabulary, instead of the real substance of the issues.”
Dr. Thomas Sowell
or Carl Sagan
“An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions or actions which under their old names have become odious to the public.” Carl Sagan
or this timeless one which gets to the heart of it
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.”
Galileo Galilei

How about we label the “eye roll” a “Cooper” (as in Anderson Cooper). So I give her one Cooper!

george e. smith

Well and in climate science, you can retire before the end of one standard climate 30 year period, so you will never be called on the crap you produced.


Most of these types have NEVER had a conversation with a real skeptic, because we have the same effect on them that a garlic clove and a crucifix have on a vampire; they CANNOT engage our arguments, which is why they instead resort to shrill, emotionally-charged hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. It’s all they’ve got.


Truth fears no question. 🙂


Dismissing the evidence fabricators.

Pop Piasa

She’s a “pot calling the kettle black”.

george e. smith

And these days, one can actually be on the recreational pot gig !

ron long

Hayhoe, you are dismissed, you may now go back to your safe spot.


Hayhoe apparently said

What I use instead is a word I think is actually more accurate, as well as having less baggage associated with it, and that is the word dismissive.

Whereas I prefer the simple term “skeptic”. And perhaps she can reserve the term “ignoramus” for herself. Because when she thinks “dismissive” accurately describes people like Judith Curry, she’s clearly got no idea.

Do you infer that she has demonstrated that she is so clueless that she doesn’t have a clue that she is clueless? Well, just how insultingly dismissive can you be, anyway?

Alan Ranger

This is getting rather complicated. Since Hayhoe summarily dismisses any evidence, data, logic etc. presented to her by one of her “climate dismissives”, then does that make her a climate dismissive dismissive? Or perhaps a second order climate dismissive?
Do we need a new notation here? CD and CD²?
What if a skeptic then dismisses her dismissal of the dismissive? CD³?


” Because when she thinks “dismissive” accurately describes people like Judith Curry”
How do you know she does?


Nick writes

How do you know she does?

So who do you think she’s referring to? Mann does and I’ll warrant she’d stick up for him on that.

“So who do you think she’s referring to?”
So you don’t know.


Nicky ole boy, anyone who disagrees with you is considered a “D’nyer”, like Judith Curry….So obviously the Tool Man is correct…


And you, Nick, don’t know he doesn’t know.
So why are you so sure about what YOU know?
(Don’t represent yourself as an expert in areas where you’re clueless. And don’t denigrate me for doing exactly what you’re doing.)

Nick: Is it your assertion that we need to ask whether Dr. Curry, Drs Pielke, Dr. Soon, Dr. Lindzen, Dr. McKitrick, etc., etc., are called “deniers” by all the right people (so to speak)? Because if we are going to limit that term to sky dragons, the debate has moved forward a long LONG way. Your comment is disingenuous. It is below you.

Sadly, his comment IS him. That is the caricature he has become.


Based on her accepted six level categorization (alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive), she should be calling herself an “Alarmist”.
Where do you fit in on her list? Obviously not a dismissive or a disengaged … Are you simply concerned, or are you an alarmist?


Nick writes

So you don’t know.

In response to my ““So who do you think she’s referring to?””
Lets make it an actual question, Nick.
Who makes up the approximately 10% of “deniers” Hayhoe mentioned. Skydragons?
Or is it people who dont accept the science. Maybe they’re people who might say things like ..paraphrased…. the models are worthless. I’m sure Judith wouldn’t paint them as being completely worthless but she’s already on record as recommending climate science stops focusing on their results and starts focusing back on the observation systems.


CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does
In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isn’t a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.


The oceans are warming? Do you have evidence to support that conclusion? I’m talking about proven, statistically significant warming.


I’m simply referring to the ocean temperature chart that shows warming, as well as the El Niño impact on the atmosphere. The oceans contain 2000x the energy of the atmosphere so the math simply isn’t there for the atmosphere to warm the oceans.


The atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans. Instead it prevents the heat that the sun puts into it from escaping as easily. Which also results in warming waters.
My point is that while it is quite possible for a warmer atmosphere to result in warmer oceans, there is no evidence that this is happening.

george e. smith

Can happen about every 24 hours, and often does somewhere or other.


Is it the water warming the air, or is it the sun warming both the water and the air?


In addition, I maintain that there is no valid evidence that the increased CO2 you say isn’t doing any warming is from anthropogenic sources. See Harde 2017


I agree, warm the oceans and they release a whole lot of CO2. No argument there.


Surely the only intellectually acceptable position is total denial?
I’d rather be called a denier than anything else. Meanwhile, any supposed connection with holocaust denial is so far in the past as to be forgotten. Ahhhh hubris!
[False. .mod]

Paul Penrose

Wrong. Any xxx denier label has a very strong connection to holocaust denier. And hopefully the holocaust will never be forgotten.


There are many actual videos on You Tube of the horrors of the holocaust, and the Internet never forgets…(unless Agenda 21 becomes a reality, then all bets are off)

Anyone who uses “denier” gets the same response from me: “You are using that term to evoke Holocaust denial, which is not a logical argument, but a despicable smear tactic. Unless and until you can find a different term, no rational discussion is possible with you.” In that regard, I agree that “denier” ends conversations rather than starting them, because the people who use that term aren’t interested in a conversation; they’re interested in bullying their opponents into submission.

John F. Hultquist

Doris Kearns Goodwin (historian) made the connection a few years ago. I think it was on a Boston TV broadcast. It may not have been original with her, but it became popular after she said it on MSM. Sorry, I’ve not got the link now.


If anything, it’s invoked too often. In these days of moral relativism gone mad, there’s very few things that are still generally agreed upon as being unequivocally evil. The Holocaust (and the persons behind it) is one of them. Child abuse (sexual or otherwise) is another. It leads to that handful of things being constantly invoked, either to signal one’s own Goodness (“We’re doing this for THE CHILDREN!”) or someone else’s Terribadness (the Hitler of this, the Hitler of that).
Those who suffered and died deserve better than to have their memory turned into a bloody shirt for the armchair moralizers to wave around. 😐

Tom Gelsthorpe

Why doesn’t Prof Hayhoe stop beating around the bush, call everyone who questions her a “heretic,” and get it over with? Then she can dispense with the mumbo-jumbo, wheel out the thumbscrews and the boiling oil, admit that climate science is a new religion, her true calling is priestess, and it’s about time to knuckle down to the real work of punishing unbelievers.
So what if sea levels rose 400 feet between 18,000 and 8,000 years ago, well before humans were a significant species? So what if China passed the U.S. in CO2 emissions 20 years ago, now makes and consumes eight times more steel and concrete than the U.S., and doesn’t give a damn what we do? Who needs facts when virtue-signaling makes us feel so much better?
Australia is the virtuous place. With 3/10ths of 1% of the world’s population, and an economy dependent on exporting coal and iron ore to China, Oz is making strenuous efforts to reduce their domestic carbon footprint to stem the tide of climate change. So what if Oz ends up paralyzed or being taken over by China, who is still going to need the commodities?
The “good people” are morally obligated to shoot themselves in the feet. Even if crippling yourself doesn’t make your neighbors limp, it signals virtue. That will keep the Neo-Torquemadas at bay.

Samuel C Cogar

Australia ———- With 3/10ths of 1% of the world’s population,

Oh, my, my, …. Australia population expressed in the above “terms” sure puts a different perspective on their ……. “anti-CO2 ‘green’ energy push to save the world”.
Even if Australia’s 24.6 million people cut their anthropogenic CO2 emissions to zero, 0.00%, …… it would not make one bit of difference in “the grand scheme of atmospheric CO2 reductions”.
To put Australia’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions in perspective, to wit:
The current population of Australia is 24,592,391
The population of the New York-Newark metropolitan area is 23,723,696
The population of the Tokyo–Yokohama metropolitan area is 37,843,000


I lost track of how many times I’ve responded to a Global Warming fascist with the question “What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2”, and got back the answer, “It doesn’t matter!”
At first I thought it was because they knew that 400 parts per million equates to 0.0004, which means CO2 is 4/100 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, but I slowly came to realize that they had no clue at all, neither to what the answer is, nor how to calculate it from 400 ppm.


It is strange to think that there are cities in the world with higher populations then the CONTINENT of Australia.


Some parts of the planet are ridiculously over crowded.

Being the “evidence denier” that I am, I thought I’d go look at “the evidence” again, and I remembered that NOAA had updated the tide gauge data, so I thought I’d start there. At random, I picked the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel data, and jeez, here we go again with the false accuracy. It gives the rate as 5.94 +/- 0.74 mm/year. Are we supposed to believe that a tide gauge can give accuracy to the hundredth of a millimeter? That 0.74 variance, too; one decimal place of error is the rule.
If, as I assume, the measurements are in mm, the best they could do is 5.9 +/- 0.7 mm/year for a trend. It’s pretty easy to be “dismissive” when the “evidence” is made up to begin with.

Roger Knights

“It gives the rate as 5.94 +/- 0.74 mm/year.”
Are you sure it was per decade? 6 mm per year is way high.


Agreed. All the data I’ve seen puts it closer to 2 mm/yr. A rate that has held pretty steady for a few thousand years or so. I note other studies which seem to show that the eastern seaboard is slowly subsiding as the interior of the North American continent continues to rebound after the unloading of the ice cap glaciation.


Possibly they are having subsidence issues.

0.004…..not 0.0004. 🙂


Check again. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Look it up. That equates to 0.0004 or 4 parts per 10,000, which is the same as 400 parts per million.

Phil R

I live in the Chesapeake Bay region (southeast Virginia). I didn’t look at the tide gauge data, but they do talk about sea level rise in this area of about 5 mm/yr, which is greater than the global average and sounds scary. What they don’t tell you (and most people don’t know) is that half of that figure is due to land subsidence (dewatering of Coastal Plain aquifers, etc.) and therefore absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Which means 1) that sea level rise (attributed to GW) is about average in this area, and 2) no amount of spending to address GW/CC will have any effect the half of the sea level rise due to land subsidence.


In a radio interview, Hayhoe said she found it frustrating talking to skeptics. Every time she thought she had them out argued, they’d come up with another objection.
Any expert, which Hayhoe is, can come up with as many facts as necessary to bolster her argument. It’s not surprising that Hayhoe can out argue a skeptic on any given point. What she’s missing is that skeptics are rather well informed. There is an almost overwhelming body of evidence against CAGW. That should give her pause. She should ask herself why it’s possible for skeptics to keep coming up with objections.
I can’t remember if she actually used the term whack-a-mole but that’s what it sounded like.


You say

In a radio interview, Hayhoe said she found it frustrating talking to skeptics. Every time she thought she had them out argued, they’d come up with another objection.

Then she has only been confronted by incompetents.
The basic ‘skeptic’ point is that the issue is whether human activities are discernibly affecting variations to global climate that have always happened naturally, and there is no evidence that human activities are doing that; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.
The standard ‘believer; responses are easily refuted as follows.
Believer Response;
The earth is warming.
Skeptic Rebuttal;
Yes, it has always been warming or cooling and it always will be warming or cooling, but there is no evidence that humans are discernibly affecting that.
Believer Response;
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Skeptic Rebuttal;
Yes, it is. But that does not mean its increase from present levels in the atmosphere will cause discernible warming. The climate is complex and changes to CO2 in the air are seen to follow temperature changes at all time scales: a cause happens before – not after – its affect.
Believer Response;
Most scientists and their official Institutions believe in man-made global warming.
Skeptic Rebuttal;
So what? More people believe in Father Christmas. People with a vested interest tend to believe their interest is true. Global warming research is ‘big business’; Governments are spending more than $2.5 billion a year on it and scientists are entitled to support their jobs so they can provide for their families.
Believer Response;
But the scientists are experts in the subject.
Skeptic Rebuttal;
So what? The authority of proponents is not relevant; if it were then Galileo would have been wrong. What matters is the evidence, and there is no evidence that human activities are discernibly affecting variations to global climate that have always happened naturally; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.


“But the scientists are experts”
No the scientists are infamous. Withholding research data, climate gate, hide the decline, and the rest of the post-modern “scientific methods” show this position of “expertise” to be laughable.


I agree, the evidence against CAGW should be overwhelming given an impartial audience.
We only have the reports of Hayhoe’s discussions with skeptics from her point of view. It is telling that she found those debates to be frustrating. It’s almost certain that the facts presented by any skeptic will not change her mind. No matter how competent the skeptic, experts like Hayhoe have an armory of techniques they can use to protect themselves from having their minds changed.

Monna Manhas

Actually Richard, Galileo WAS wrong, since the sun is NOT the centre of the universe. You might want to use a different example for your last Skeptic Rebuttal.


Does the universe have a center?


Monna, Galileo said “Center of the KNOWN universe” at that place and time…


MarkW May 11, 2017 at 6:24 am
Does the universe have a center?

Most Canadians would tell you that the citizens of Toronto think Toronto is the centre of the universe. 🙂


I agree the facts of what you say, but I was describing how to be effective in a live broadcast discussion. Disputing the expertise and/or honesty of the experts is not effective when addressing an uninformed audience.
The BBC stopped interviewing me when I adopted the suggested method although many people went out of their way to say how good they thought my use of the method had been. A group of us intends to resort to law against the BBC if we fail in our attempt to get the broadcast regulator to stop the BBC’s biased promotion of the global warming scare.

Monna Manhas

Butch, can you please cite a reference for your assertion that Galileo said that the sun was the centre of the known universe at that time and place – because I can’t find one. Additionally, such an assertion (by Galileo) would be an admission that he could be wrong, and history doesn’t suggest that he thought he could be wrong.


Monna Manhas:
The precise details of what Galileo said are a ‘red herring’: they have no relevance to the matter under discussion and are (intended to be?) a distraction from the matter under discussion.
However, it is relevant that,as I said, “The authority of proponents is not relevant; if it were then Galileo would have been wrong.” And he was not wrong because, as he said of Jupiter’s moons, “But they do move”.


Commiebob, for an “expert”she doesn’t do very well as her sloppy science behavior is bad for science,for example:
Katharine Hayhoe Texas Climate Fraud Update
“Two years ago, Canadian Texas Tech evangelical Katharine Hayhoe, claimed in the movie “Years Of Living Dangerously” that heatwaves in Texas were becoming much more common, and cherry-picked a start date of 40-50 years ago to begin her analysis.
The reason she picked a start date of 40 years ago, is because that was the coolest date in the Texas temperature record. This is spectacularly dishonest, as heatwaves have declined long-term in Texas and were much more common prior to 1960.”
She tends to mislead with her overt warmist positions,when the official NOAA data and HCN stations doesn’t agree with her.

H. D. Hoese

The drought of the 1950s lasted from when I went into high school until I graduated from college. It was hot! It has been wetter in Texas since then, except for the one a few years ago which was the closest, but shy, approach since then. It will be interesting if we return somewhat to the previous cycle of droughts in the first half of the last century.
There are people at Texas Tech that know better and surely the old timers around there could tell her a thing or two. It is sad that she does not realize how this effects the credibility of science.

Just asking her about the Texas permanent drought should end any conversation.


sunsettommy May 11, 2017 at 5:47 am
Commiebob, for an “expert”she doesn’t do very well …

Sadly, she does just fine for an expert. Experts are really crappy at predicting things. link Smart experts realize that. Dewy-eyed climate scientists don’t. They qualify as false prophets and belong in the eighth circle of hell. link


I listened to the interview and have seen presentations by Hayhoe in the past. This sort of condescension is expected from someone who openly mocks people (she straw-man’s Ted Cruze) who disagree with her point of view. Never once was she challenged by NPR on her false prophecy of unending drought in Texas. This is the frustrating part of the debate, alarmists are given a pass when wrong because of the “appeal to consequences” argument even after predicted consequences do not come to pass. We have years of data that are not lining up with predictions, why wouldn’t everyone now be skeptical? Throw in fiddling with data (Karl et al, 97% claim, loss of antarctic ice, &c) in the past and the whole enterprise stinks.


This sort of condescension is expected from someone…
who has never held a job other than one funded by taxpayers.


Climate extremists and profiteers like Prof. Hayhoe dismiss the evidence daily. But someone as deeply hypocritical as she is doesn’t get it.


‘Climate Speculation’ – that’s all it ever was and will be.

Wim Röst

‘Climate Optimist’ is better as opposing ‘Alarmist’.


“Cargo Cultist” is the term that best suits if you don’t want to use “Alarmist” or perhaps “Climate Opportunist” would suit her ilk better.

Since the catostropic anthropogenic global warmists are unwilling to consider either the potential benefits rather than just the negatives of warming and the natural contributions by nature I have decided they do not get to label themselves. Henceforth they shall be known as Unnaturals.

Tom in Florida

feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration.
Yes, the climate change scare is not worthy of consideration.


I prefer…. Climate Realist.
It explains the skepticism many people have much more clearly.

Wim Röst

‘Climate Realist’ indeed is a better term, but it doesn’t ‘sell’ that good to the big public. Too serious. I myself I try to be ‘a realist’ but I don’t think many people will be interested to listen to ‘realists’.
‘Climate optimist’ sells much better: it means that you are not in panic about what could (!) happen and that you are optimistic about the ability of the Earth to be more stable than ‘alarmists’ suggest. People like to hear optimistic stories. They don’t like serious and critical debates. Too dificult for 95% of them.
We must ‘sell ourselves’ better. Climate Optimist sells.


“We must ‘sell ourselves’ better.”
I agree . . but the “elitists’ approach (too difficult 95% of them) is not a real big seller, as Ms. Deplorables seems to me to have demonstrated recently . . and I’m pretty sure 100% is more like it, depending on the subject . . and in this world full of propagandist dominated “fake” serous debate, it’s not like we can get a realistic read, it seems to me.
“Climate Optimist sells.”
I agree that for a two word “label”, that one is pretty damn good.


The term, ‘climate realist’ would immediately be co-opted by the ClimateCatastrophists™ and the stupid media to refer to themselves. Happens all the time. He who holds the megaphone and has the government funding “wins” the argument. Even if they don’t win, they’ll claim that they did and use the megaphone to “prove” their victory.
Now submit, peasants!

Eustace Cranch

Notice they’re never specific about what we’re supposedly “dismissing.” It’s quite reasonable to dismiss a “catastrophic” trend, since the evidence is weak to the point of non-existence.


The true “den-eye-r’s” are those that think that the climate does not change naturally !


What is the most productive way in which we can insult our enemies? How best to arrange our hate of the other side? Gosh we are reasonable, unlike them.

Berényi Péter

The term “dismissive” is at least not connected to “Holocaust denier”. However, we are all disengaged, because we are doubtful, not because we would dismiss any evidence.
Quite the contrary. We are not willing to dismiss lack of evidence either.

Alan Ranger

I’m certainly NOT dismissive of the AGW alarmist agenda! It is having detrimental effects across virtually every western economy on the planet – a truly global tragedy. I will continue to do whatever I can shoot it down.

“The term “dismissive” is at least not connected to “Holocaust denier”. ”
That’s probably the primary point as the debate reaches the mainstream. It’s pathetic AGW advocates ever had to reach rhetorical overkill of “Holocaust Denier” in the first place so consider the morf a coverup. There’s still a slice of the debate audience that refuses to accept the mendacity of the Green left culture. The move is in fact deception.
More honest is when they talk about killing “deniers”, reeducation camps, Marxist collectivism, one world government, Agenda 21 and so on.
I doubt it will catch on among AGW advocates. The rank and file need the hate and there is real attachment to Holocaust “Denier” with plausible deniability of dropping the silent “H” prefix. It’s open secret culture code which is very popular in media and leftists circles as if they were Free Masons with special hand shakes.

Rick C PE

Utter claptrap. Obvious “projection”. Heyhoe even starts out by saying that using the term ‘denier’ is being dismissive. The term is used extensively and almost exclusively by the warmists. So who’s being dismissive?


I always find it interesting when someone claims that Loathsome Group X is evil because they do this and think that – but the description actually matches the claimant’s actions and beliefs.
Example: She claims that skeptics will not change their minds because their beliefs are too connected to their identity. Does she really think that could not be said of the alarmists, or any other group? FWIW, I think that there is some connection between our beliefs and identity that can make changing those beliefs difficult in the face of ACTUAL evidence. However, I do not think such a connection is going to automatically override a person’s sensibility simply because he has a firm opinion. I think the biggest obstacle to changing one’s mind is one’s self-interest. If you are likely to benefit from CAGW being real (or perceived as real), you have a big incentive to “cling” to that idea. If you are able to recognize that CAGW schemes will be harmful to you (and most of the planet), you have a big incentive to keep on dismissing the “alarmed”.
I find it alarming that this woman has an audience. I also find it alarming that so much of the world seems keen on keeping the developing world in squalor and dragging the developed world down to the same level.

The glib_lib_rename_game (US version)
Back in the 18th century, the evil British arbitrarily confiscated property using “writs of assistance”. There was a revolution over that, and after the evil Brithish were kicked out, the US Constitution got the 4th and 5th Amendments to stop arbitrary seizure of property. Now “writs of assistance” aren’t used to seize property in the USA. Instead, “civil forfeiture” and “arrest of property” are used.
In the bad old days, black people were subject to racial discrimination. The people favouring this were evil white racists. Nowadays, white people are subject to racial^H^H^H^H^H “affirmative action”. The people favouring this are evil^H^H^H^H “upstanding civil rights activists”.
According to the Geneva Conventions, “Prisoners of War” are supposed to have certain basic rights. The USA has invented a new catagory… “enemy combatants”, who have no rights whatsoever.
Black people in the USA have gone through so many name changes, it’s ridiculous. At one point, the officially accepted (by blacks) term was “colored people” (NAACP == National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Then it became “negroes”, as in the United Negro College Fund. Since then, it’s cycled through “Persons of Color”, “Afro-Americans”, and who knows what else.
Getting more on topic, the alleged problem has been renamed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” to “Climate Weirding”, etc. And people who call themselves skeptics have been labelled “Climate Deniers”, and now “Climate Dismissives”. Is “Climate Deplorables” next?


Walter, it really does help if you spend some time learning what you are talking about.
The Geneva Conventions goes to great lengths to define who is a legal combatant and who isn’t.
Legal combatants have do things like wear uniforms and they do not target civilians or hide amongst civilians. Since the terrorists do none of these things, they are by the rules of the Geneva Convention, illegal combatants. This isn’t a term the US invented.
The US would be in it’s rights under the convention to have all such prisoners executed on the spot.
The fact that we don’t means we are going beyond what the Geneva Conventions require.
PS: The Geneva Conventions allow the capturing country to hold POWs until the war is over. The war isn’t over.


MarkW, …+ 1,000 gold stars !


Great, accurate comment, MarkW.

The term “enemy combatant” gained prominence with the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. The “enemy combatants” actually were wearing identifiable clothing. And they were targetting invading foreign troops, not civilians.
Our history books get quite huffy about the treatment that captured allied servicemen received at the hands of their German and Japanese captors in WW2. “Waterboarding” is something I would expect to read in those history books, but instead, it’s something being done by the USA.
And ignoring peoples’ rights is not restricted to outside the USA. The US CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) is essentially a martial-law state within 100 miles of any US border or coastline. See
And don’t think it stops there. CBP agents play fast and loose. And they now claim jurisdiction within 100 miles of any international airports (“ports of entry”). I’m old enough to remember the Cold War, when Russia had a wonderful-looking constitution, that was merely a decorative piece of paper. The west is sliding in that direction. I’m in Canada, and it’s happening here too.


If the Chinese invaded the US, and you resisted, you’d be an “enemy combatant” according to the “rules” you allude to . . right?


Walter, I refer you back to the first rule of holes.
An enemy combatant is and has always been someone fighting for the enemy. The issue is legal vs illegal combatants. Just because you are ignorant of the terms doesn’t mean they entered use when you first heard them.
The Allies were upset about the treatment of POWs precisely because our soldier were legal combatants and entitled to Geneva convention protections. So your example isn’t relevant.
As to your comments regarding the border patrol. Your delusional. It’s time you stopped reading propaganda and rejoined the real world.
John, if I failed to join the US Army, then I would be an illegal combatant.


I am a citizen, so when a foreign army invades America I am already a legal combatant. The small fact I served in US Army in the past is not relevant to the issue.


“John, if I failed to join the US Army, then I would be an illegal combatant.”
Then the law is grossly immoral, and contrary to the right of self defense, as far as I’m concerned. I have that right, I say, whether or not my assailant is wearing a uniform.


For one (to me) obvious example;The French resistance were criminals, according to your (to me) ‘invading military are as gods over civilians” doctrine . .

Alan Ranger

In Australia, “climate contrarian” became popular for a while, from the left. “Climate vandal” appeared briefly. These have also morphed under the left-handed broad brush, to science denier, unscience etc. Pity they can’t come up with as many logical arguments for their case, as they can pejorative/ derogatory names.

Tom Halla

One should be careful using language. It was not “enemy combatant”, it was “unlawful combatant”, a class that was defined in the Geneva Accords. You probably should know that, and like a good many others in political debate, are trying to be deceptive.

I heard this interview announced on NPR and got all excited, now at last NPR was going to be reasonable and try to reach across divide. After listening to the interview felt I actually hurt. The lesson, never expect any fairness from these radicals, because that’ what they are, radicals. Then the hurt changed into anger and through day I thought about if the climate debate was in reality a sexist issue. Well us men who did the weather in by doing things. How many of these 97% are women, any studies on that? Do women more than men believe the weather has been done in by us men?


They can call me a climate “Nazi” or Climate “deplorable” or whatever. It makes no difference. They still have not proved their case; ipso facto, I remain sceptical.

The real problem here is that scientists have been allowed to spend time doing things other than science, which does not involve advocacy. Once a scientist indulges in advocacy they cannot be trusted to produce accurate science or commentary.

Eustace Cranch

I understand your point, but no one should be in charge of what a scientist is “allowed” to do. They are free to advocate if they want, and we are free not to trust them.
Freedom is the sacred foundation of America. It’s scary to see it eroding.


Freedom is paid for by everlasting vigil against those who would take it from you.
Skeptics are those watchers.
They stand in the way of those who would claim “it is for the greater good” when they really mean “We want you to acquiesce to our mastery”

Samuel C Cogar

They are free to advocate if they want,
But not on the “taxpayer dollar”.


But not on the “taxpayer dollar”
Exactly. What part of this is so hard to understand?

Eustace Cranch

The original comment did not say “government-paid scientists.” There are quite a few scientists on “our side” who are advocating. Do you not want them to be allowed to do it?


If you would permit, I would like to refine your statement.
Being on the government payroll does not prevent someone from being advocate, but they have to do it on their own time, not the governments. Nor can they use the authority granted them by their government position to advocate positions in opposition to that of the current government.


Questioner, I like the term questioner.
Question everything and come to terms with everything.


One World Order, wooden idols plenty, professed by clerics (those championing the untruth-partial beliefs) using CAGW as one idol. Projecting to the front a much earlier concept – “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Blindfolded fear is driving the mass of minions via the clerical idols. Media-tower-babel is the primary tool within the tenets of worshiping wooden idols.


Including the concept of questioning everything.


Good grief. If one applies those terms honestly, then “Climate Scientist” Katharine Hayhoe is a “dismissive” since she dismisses both evidence and people with whom she disagrees.

All “dismissive” does is remove the problem of association with the Holocaust denier. That was the real problem with denier–it is too naked, too blatant, too honest about the thought processes of the alarmists. It lets the cat out of the bag.
But “dismissive” doesn’t improve anything from the standpoint of civil debate. It still dismisses out of hand the other person’s position, assumes from the start that they cannot be reasoned with and are therefore undeserving a reasonable hearing.
And her main problem is still the main problem with alarmists everywhere–dishonesty. Nobody denies the climate changes, what they are firmly unconvinced of is that the data support the conclusion that humans are affecting the climate in a way that is a serious threat to the future of civilization and that the evidence supports changing human behavior, even at great cost, to maintain a favorable climate.


changing human behavior
most people with an ounce common sense know that you cannot change human behavior. It has been tried over and over again for thousands of years, with millions upon millions of dead the result.
because in the end, everyone that wants to change human behavior wants to change the behavior of everyone else. their own behavior, well they are perfectly happy to leave that unchanged.

Samuel C Cogar

Right, one cannot change another person’s behavior to the behavior they themselves prefer.
The best one can do is provide the person a “good enough reason” that would cause them to “want to” change their own behavior.
And you better be giving those persons a “good enough reason” before they finish maturing through their teenage years, ……. because after that time has elapsed, …… its’s darn near impossible to suggest or offer them a “good enough reason” to be doing anything that they don’t want to do.
You are your own “proof” of the above.

“six different groups depending on how they feel about climate change science and solutions.”
so from what she is quoted as saying, Hayhoe the climate scientist is measuring is people’s feelings. why is a climate scientist studying people, not climate? outside of psychology, what have peoples feelings have to do with science? peoples feelings are based on what believe. belief is the province of religion. science is a method. if your methods are poor your science is poor.


Perhaps Hayhoe has finally realised calling sceptics “deniers” has backfired on the CAGWers and is trying to change the narrative.


How long till all the trolls get the memo?


I want to know what this person Katharine Hayhoe has ever brought to climate science? What science has she produced? All I can remember is that she has been dead wrong any time she has put down a marker. Such as her claims about the duration of the drought in Texas. For the most part she seems to do nothing more than speak at forums where she cannot be questioned or debated on a level playing field telling like minded alarmists how to debate skeptics.


how to “debate” skeptics


I’m dismissive about the term “climate dismissive”.

Nigel S

Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

I have recently become an avid reader of Scott Adam’s blog — he has a very different way of looking at events than I am used to. He’s done a number of posts on the climate debate and he always starts out with the admission he’s not qualified to understand, let alone debate the scientific issues. Instead he concentrates on what works and does not work in persuading people to believe something. Here is a recent post:

Climate scientists probably believe they have convinced about half of the public to their side using their graphs and logic and facts. That’s not the case. They convinced half the public by using fear persuasion disguised as facts and logic. And it probably worked best with the people who have the least knowledge of how often complicated prediction models have failed in the past.
For the purpose of this blog post, you don’t need to know who is right and who is wrong about climate science. My point today is that cognitive dissonance is preventing scientists from seeing what is actually happening here with their messaging. Scientists believe their facts and logic convinced all the smart people to their side already, so now they need a new strategy for the dumb ones. A different version of reality, as seen through the Persuasion Filter, is that citizens who don’t understand history are doomed to believe whatever the experts tell them. Half the country has been persuaded to climate alarmism by fear, not an understanding of the issue. At the same time, those who know the most about both history and science realize that complex climate models are generally not credible, so they are not persuaded by fear.
I remind new readers of this blog that I’m not a climate science denier. The consensus of climate scientists might be totally right, but I have no practical way to know. My point here, and in past posts, is that you can’t sell a truth by packaging it to look exactly like a huge lie. And those complicated climate prediction models look exactly like lies we have seen before, albeit in unrelated fields.

Mumbles McGuirck

I took the Yale survey several years ago and received the coveted “Dismissive” rating. It came with a downward pointing arrow so I used that as my Facebook profile picture for years. Of course, the ‘top’ rating of the survey was ‘Alarmist’ with the arrow pegged on the upward side of the scale. The implication was obvious Alarmist = Good while Dismissive = Bad. As I said on another thread here on WUWT, irony is lost on the left.


“dismissing the reality of climate change and the necessity for action is such a core part of their identity that it’s like asking them to, you know, almost cut off an arm. That’s how profound the change would be for them to change their minds about climate change.”
from her words, I expect Hayhoe would rather cut off her arm than change her mind about climate change. I expect that climate change is at the core of her identity.

Dismiss/deny? Yup. I am going to dismiss/deny that northern Illinois where the city of Chicago presently sits was under a mile of glacial ice as recently as 25,000 years ago.

Well at least it doesn’t have the baggage of the Holocaust. And she claims the dismissives are only 10% of the spectrum, so maybe she’s onto something. It seems to me most of the articles here are about directly challenging the conclusions of the CAGW side rather than dismissing it. So would that exclude WUWT from the ‘dismissive’ label?


These professional alarmists seem rather obsessed with what they claim is only about 10 percent of the population.


Non-Believers are a threat and must be silenced or converted. It’s that simple.


“What a lot of people don’t realize is that the most important skill any climate scientist has is programming,” – Katharine Hayhoe
Hayhoe appears to be sincere unlike the political-activist types, but her basic assumptions are wrong, as evidenced by this quote. [Computer] programming is a most dangerous skill when you accept false premises. I suppose that makes it important, but not in the way Hayhoe means it. Richard Feynman thought reasoned self-doubt was a much more important skill for people, particularly scientists, to have.

Well, if by “important” she means “needed for convincing the world we’re right”, then it’s a true statement – regardless of whether “programming” is understood in the computer sense or in the cult-psychological sense,

People, please read the references before posting some stupid knee-jerk reaction. It’s really not that hard. Here’s a little more context:

Hayhoe runs simulations on a supercomputer, then she combs through the data to interpret the output. On a practical level, this means Hayhoe exists in a world of numbers, thousands upon thousands of lines of them. A single file dealing with one variable—say, temperature across the country over the next hundred years—can be almost five gigabytes in size. And she runs these simulations for multiple variables and scenarios on multiple climate models. (Some 42 global-climate models exist today, run by labs around the world.) These reams of data are shapeless until she translates them by writing code. “What a lot of people don’t realize is that the most important skill any climate scientist has is programming,” she told me over pizza in Lubbock one afternoon last fall.

Next time perhaps you can come up with a knee-jerk reaction that, like meteorologists, climate modelers should stick their head outside once in a while.

Yeah, and climate scientists probably think that if the program compiles, it’s correct.

Sigh. These people are engaging in as classic a case of Bulverism as I have ever seen. To quote C.S. Lewis:

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant – but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. …
In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father – who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third – “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.


I was waiting for the term “Bulverism” to morph into a more earthy term. Oh well. Maybe next time.

Juan Slayton

Excellent. Take away quote for me: In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. I can remember that….


Every time I read C.S. Lewis, I learn something new.


Another label….thanks.
How about calling them “colleagues”.


“Climastrologist” is the correct term.
Those who appear to be scientists at first glance, but once examined, are found to be little more than astrologists of the climate alarmist variety.

Alan Ranger

Fits nicely with climate modellers being “numerologists”.


Of course “colleague” maybe more insulting


“When Scott Pruitt was tapped to leave the Environmental Protection Agency” ? Should that be LEAD not leave ?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

Another interesting Scott Adams post on the climate debate:

My point is that Leonardo DiCaprio would have a tough time persuading me that climate science is both real and serious. But it isn’t his fault, because science has packaged climate science to look like a hoax, and sent him out to sell it. I respect and admire DiCaprio for his heart on this matter, and his effort on behalf of the planet. But science has failed him by giving him hoax-looking sales collateral.


DiCaprio is a hypocrite, nothing more.
If he believed anything he preached, he wouldn’t be jetting around the world or taking vacations on yachts that burn more diesel in a day than most cars would in a year.
He is of the “do as I say, not as I do” type.
He is nothing more than a pretty face used as a tool.
Once his usefulness is at an end, he will be discarded just like those before im.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

That’s my instinctive reaction as well, but I find it very interesting to at least consider Scott Adams’ point of view: DiCaprio has been persuaded by fear, and his desire to “do something” and be seen as a hero take over. He is now kept in his belief by cognitive dissonance. As I said, Adams has a very different way of looking at debate and persuasion than I have always had. He may not be right, but I think it very unlikely that calling DiCaprio a hypocrite will be effective in convincing him he is wrong, just as Hayhoe calling climate skeptics “dismissives” or “deniers” is unlikely to move anyone to her side of the debate.
I’m willing to look at things from Adams’ perspective if it offers a greater likelihood of moving people to the skeptical point of view.

I heard the interview while driving to Boston yesterday. She actually sounded fairly reasonable (compared to how she usually sounds, of course).
Don’t focus on the term “dismissive.” She suggested six terms:

The group starts with people who are alarmed. And then there’s people who are concerned. And then those who are cautious, which are actually the biggest group. Then there’s people who are disengaged, those who are doubtful. And then at the very end we have about 10 percent of the population who is dismissive.

WUWT is sometimes called a lukewarmer site. “Doubtful” doesn’t quite fit, “cautious” doesn’t quite fit either, though. At the other end of the spectrum, “alarmed” doesn’t go far enough, I’d add another. I hesitate to call it “evangelical,” as some evangelical Christians are mostly reasonable people. Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian, so I doubt she would agree it should be used as an extreme. “Zealot” might fit, at least it would cover Gore/Obama/Hanson/etc.
Personally, I’m quite happy to call myself skeptical. All good scientists are skeptics, especially about their own work.


Totalitarian might be the word you are looking for.
Either agree with her completely, or you are evil and to be destroyed.
And we all know the types of horrors people like that who get into power can cause.

Ron Williams

I agree with liking the term Skeptic which is already used by the rational ‘alarmists’ as a more polite way of describing anyone who doesn’t swallow the MSM version of CAGW/Climate change narrative. I take no offence whatsoever when called a Skeptic, since healthy skepticism is the foundation of all real science. Which makes me wonder why a real committed scientist would call anyone a skeptic when they too know what the word really means. Especially as related to matters of science.
If someone calls me a Denier, I am also not upset, because it shows their level of ignorance in labelling people who disagree with them as inferior and equating them to a denial of a holocaust. Especially when you try to have a reasoned conversation with them, and all they can do is call you a Denier. To anyone else watching that is sitting on the fence maybe, they too see that the one calling names is generally the loser.

The religious faith angle is always worth exploring. For some Christians, the approach to faith is separate from the approach to the science, but for others it is sentimentally connected. In this respect Hoyhoe’s (renaissance religious) humanism appears similar to Houghton’s divinely ordained stewardship in that the envisaged self-inflicted climate catastrophe provides a mechanism of self-determination, a moral choice and the prospect of atonement by good works:

For Christians, doing something about climate change is about living out our faith – caring for those who need help, our neighbors here at home or on the other side of the world, and taking responsibility for this planet that God created and entrusted to us. Katharine Hayhoe


I think it is quite necessary that we read more of C.S. Lewis, and others like him, if we want to use logic on these closed minds. An alternative would be to answer the Climate Science Peeps, the Warmians, and their accompanying ilk in Latin or Classical Greek, speaking logically, of course. That would not only confuse them because most of them are of closed minds, but would also end their illogical arguments because they are uneducated for the most part.
I am, therefore, reviving the Latin I learned in high school long before these twits were born, and I have a friend who is a Greek immigrant who has agreed to instruct me in Classical Greek.
One thing that is difficult for either side to do to the other is to change the determined mind of the opposition. The usual response is emotional, not rational, and it most frequently comes not from the Skeptics, but from the Warmians, despite Ms. Hayhoe’s assertion to the contrary.
My response to Ms. Hayhoe would normally include asking her ‘So, how much grant money will you lose if your conclusions turn out to be incorrect?’ The other questions might include ‘Have you always been such a control freak?’
My cynoglossum (forget-me-nots) have finally begun to sprout, despite the cold weather and the squirrel digging in the pot to find nuts that aren’t there. This is the one thing that is always missed by these closed-minded people, and I sometimes think it is intentional on their part: Nature is a very resilient force, with no need for any help from we, the Puny Human.


Pure projection, Hayhoe is dis-missive.