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.
…
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.
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.
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”
“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?
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.
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
fify
I’m dismissive about the term “climate dismissive”.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
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:
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 http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/katharine-hayhoe-lubbock-climate-change-evangelist/
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:
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:
I was waiting for the term “Bulverism” to morph into a more earthy term. Oh well. Maybe next time.
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.
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 ?
Another interesting Scott Adams post on the climate debate:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.