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.
“…a dismissive person will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented …”.
Does this describe us? Does this describe readers and contributors to WUWT? We do dismiss appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, but those are not evidence or arguments. Sometimes we are rather dismissive about the results of computer models, but again, model results are not evidence or arguments! Climate models start with the assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperatures and are self-fulfilling prophecies.
What happens here when evidence or an argument supporting a climate crisis is presented? It is not dismissed. It is REFUTED! It is logically and rationally dismantled. It is scientifically examined and found to be incorrect.
Frankly, I can’t wait for some scientist to present their ‘evidence’ for a climate crisis so I can watch the skeptics tear it to pieces. It’s like watching sharks in a feeding frenzy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen much any more. There never was any real evidence of a looming crisis and the alarmists have learned what happens when they try to manufacture some evidence or present an argument to support their case. It is thoroughly refuted!
All they have left is name calling…and being dismissive.
And then at the very end we have about 10 percent of the population who is dismissive.
Actually there is a seventh group at the bottom that is a very small but vocal percentage of mostly so-called intelligentsias that are status contracted.
And I think that’s the perfect term because a contracted by position or status person must reject any evidence, any arguments or skepticism with which they’re presented because the necessity for maintaining their occupational eminence is such a core part of keeping the money rolling in 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 admit to their peers, and even more so to themselves, that they knew all along that AGW is a Grand Swindle and it is really ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
NOTHING so sullies the integrity of humanity as the subversion of science by servitude to politics – – and/or MONEY!
MODS / Anthony. You might want to put a reminder that a certain word leads to automatic moderation of comments. Those that are appropriate will pass moderation. That word is appropriate in the context of this article, but dropping the policy is not in the interest of this site.
I’m a CO2 advocate. I’d like to see it at a healthy 2,000ppm, even it means promoting concrete construction. If we’re lucky, we might get 2C of beneficial warming out of it and delay the return of the ice sheets. But we’ll never know it because that’s well within natural variation.
To paraphrase Ms Hayhoe :
“a person will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented because dismissing the reality of 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.”
Funny how blind Ms. Hayhoe is to how the exact same sentence applies to her worldview yet it is somehow deemed acceptable.
Stay Skeptical my friends !
Exactly, Jeff. Hayhoe is describing herself.
Agreed. Freudianism, taken as a coherent model, is a crock, but did have a few useful concepts. Hayhoe is engaged in what was called “projection”, of attributing her own thought processes and faults onto others.
How about optimistic?
We have freezing temperatures in N Europe and new record low and would love some warming.
How about this label “climate hoax resistant” ?
To me, neither is insulting. The words say nothing about the minds of the accused, they simply give an indication of the mind of the accuser. It is the accuser who is projecting his own bias and lack of intellectual curiosity on the accused.
To answer the question, … as long as you understand that the term, “evidence”, is implied with the term, “dismissive”, then, YES, because it is more precisely INCORRECT, thereby more poised to be obliterated by evidence that it lies about.
It is more easily turned upon the person making the claim, as a reflection of the true ignorance of the person making the accusation.
It is insulting, yes, but even more insulting to the person employing the label.
A person who has NOT looked at all the evidence, who calls someone else a(n) (evidence) “dismissive”, looks more like an idiot than ever, and this is good for unfolding the truth, I’d say.
.. interesting how labels unfold. We’ve gone from “global warming denier” to “climate change dismissive”.
Insulting more politely will surely gain more converts. Seems a bit of a passive-aggressive tactic.
Perhaps I should lighten my use of the word “stupid” to the phrase “intellectually hasty”, or just “hasty”, for short.
Nah, “stupid” is more fulfilling. I’m past being polite. If you want to see the true meaning of the term, “dismissive”, then look no further than the folks using this term.
No matter how neatly and nicely you dress it up, calling people names is not the way to win friends and converts. Because the climate selling industry functions in a manner that is not really out to win friends but rather make sure no one knows what a farce the whole thing is, they spend all their time insulting people and hoping no one catches on if they use “nicer and nicer” insults.
Global warming believers who are in this 100% have no desire to get converts by being “nice”—they bully and insult, demanding everyone believe. They also believe everyone will agree with them if they seem authoritative enough. None of this has anything to do with science, but rather marketing. And not very useful or smart marketing at that.
“None of this has anything to do with science, but rather marketing.”
That’s right. They don’t have the science on their side so they have to do marketing instead. Then when people don’t buy the marketing, they claim the people are denying science.
It sounds like she just defined herself: “Dismissive of Evidence”.
I notice she didn’t use the word nature, or experiment, or experience, or observation as Feynman did. She probably knows this quote (maybe not):
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.” – Richard Feynman
Prof. Hayhoe, depends on the climate gullible to push their agenda.
Why don’t they stick with “deplorables”? It worked so well for them in the last presidential election, and I’m sure it will continue to produce the same results.
She says calling someone a denier basically ‘ends the conversation’. And then she tells us about the term she uses instead, ‘dismissive’, implying she doesn’t want to ‘end the conversation’.
OK, sounds reasonable.
But then she in her explanation of what a ‘dismissive’ is, she says “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.”
So she doesn’t seem to believe that her ‘dismissives’ will listen to reason (or what she claims is reason) and won’t change their minds. So, just why does she want to talk to them if she claims it is a waste of time? Is she just a masochist?
Sounds more like she just wants attention and decided that coming up with a new term for skeptics would get her the attention she craves.
Denier was coined to equate skeptics to those who deny the holocaust. While “dismissive” may be insulting, it does not carry the weight of denier. And if dismissing bad science makes you dismissive, then count me as a deplorable dismissive.
I always loved this line from — of all places — the movie “Galaxy Quest”: “You don’t have to be a great actor to spot a bad one.” The same applies to scientists.
“Denier was coined to equate skeptics to those who deny the holocaust” and that’s why dismissive won’t catch on – it’s not mean spirited enough for them
Why does Hayhoe call people “dismissive” when there is not much evidence to dismiss?
Cuz we’re not dismissing evidence, we’re dismissing people – those unable to supply evidence to support their fantasy.
Gerald
We an dismiss content-free assertions.
We can dismiss unfalsifiable hypotheses as a waste of time.
We can dismiss conclusions based on unreferenced data sets and unknown computer code.
We can dismiss assertions about climate and weather disasters that are blamed on human activities which lie well inside the historical limits of natural variation.
She dismisses actual Data.
ie. on hurricanes, global cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, precipitation, actual raw temperature data, sea level rise – lack of acceleration, forest fire data, total icecap data including Greenland and Antarctica combined, snowfall, the greening of the planet, and etc., etc., etc.
Do I have to reference each one of these? You can find most of it on the WUWT reference pages.
This is an encouraging trend! Climate Denier → Climate Dismissive → …. Climate Realist!?
[But, to remain alliteratively accurate, should that not be “Climate Denier → Climate Dismissive → Climate Datist” ?? .mod]
I’m an engineer Jim not a poet!
“Is calling someone a “dismissive” better than calling them a “denier”? Both pretty insulting.”
The whole point is to denigrate people with a different opinion. It is quite judgemental to decide what someone else’s reasons are for making a decision. To project ‘dismissive’ onto anyone is itself an improper act.
One cannot know the motivations of another – only what they show, and even then, only what is perceived within the spectrum of what they show.
We do this a lot when calling people ‘alarmists’. I find that alarmism is common and hardly something new. The common approach is, “There is something to be alarmed about, give me money to check.”
How often do you hear the message, “There is nothing to be alarmed about, give me money to check again”?
Ms Hayhoe is correct: calling people names is not a very effective way to engage them. On the other hand, listening to her interview on the CBC last week was painful as she clearly has no intention of listening to pan-topical arguments herself, only projecting onto others her surprisingly strident and ultimately incoherent views. One can say she is an ardent believer, which is fine on its own, but serves as no basis for demanding that others drink the Koolaid, as it were.
I did not find her well-informed on the topic of AGW, and did not detect a willingness to discuss a subject she feels, as Michael Mann said in 2003, is closed for further discussion because the discussion has already concluded that most climate change is caused by human-sourced CO2. Fourteen years later the claim is an unfounded as it is misleading.
Goebbels would be proud….keep adjusting the language even though the concept remains the same. By the way, the word “dismissive” can be equally (or perhaps more appropriately) applied to AGW bedwetters.
Considering we’re constantly told ‘the science is settled’ isn’t it amazing how often the Katharine Hayhoe’s of this world speak of sceptics yet refuse to debate with them? It’s almost as if she secretly worries sceptics are winning the argument.
Just had a very civil conversation with an environmentalist with whom I am on very good terms last evening. The same phenomenon keeps happening in these discussions. I state my understanding of what the real evidence shows us and explain the evidence supporting those conclusions. I explain that given the scanty evidence it does not make sense to conclude that human activity is having any serious detrimental effect on climate. I ask my friend why they reached the conclusions they did about climate change and what evidence they rely on. At this point it generally turns out that they have a belief system based on climate change for which they can’t state objective evidence. They state it simply must be true because it so obviously makes sense that we can’t keep consuming Earth’s resources without doing harm. And they likely walk away thinking there is something wrong with my reasoning.
Either that or they are so wedded to the notion that any change, no matter how small, that is caused by man is bad.
As soon as you concede the fact that there have been trivial changes, they consider themselves to be victorious.
If Hayhoe wants a neutral D-word for us, here are three: Dissenters, Dissidents, Disbelievers.
Other neutral words are Contrarians, Critics, Naysayers, Protest-ants.
Here’s another D-word, for mainstream Warmists to apply to those in their camp who favor nuclear power over renewables: Deviationists
Warmists’ collective and emphatic rejection of nuclear power is driven by greenie utopianism and PC-ness, not science, and means the movement is operating under false pretenses. IOW, it is Deceptive.
Hayhoe’s prediction of permanant sothwestern drought caused by global warming was 100% wrong.Shes an idiot .So who cares what her next opinion is?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/katharine-hayhoe-opens-up-evangelicals-and-other-skeptics-to-climate-change-1.3065561
The above link is to the 6+ minute interview with Dr. Hayhoe in which she outlines her choice of the word dismissive and preaches a little bit about the bible and its role in climate change.
In my view, Ms. Hayhoe is one of those individuals who is fighting a good-vs-evil religious war in their heads, and they believe that they (the CAGW believers) are on the “good” side of the battle–they are the “holy warriors”. It is of course a holy religious war to “save the planet” from the “evil” of fossil fuels. Those who they see as being on the “evil” side of the war are the skeptics who do not necessarily view fossil fuels as evil.
The battle lines in this holy war are clear. Those on the “evil” side here cannot possibly have their climate science correct because they are on the wrong side of this holy religious war to protect the planet. Only those on the “good” side of the war can possibly be right. The believer’s climate “science” has too be right because only an “evil” person would place fossil fuels over protecting the planet. Michael Mann’s bashing of fossil fuels seems to put him in this category.
For the “good side” holy warriors though, it is perhaps more of what they see as a morally correct “good” and “right” rather than a scientific good and right due to the “evil” label that fossil fuels have acquired. It doesn’t matter if those on the climate change “evil” side have a scientifically valid case, those skeptics are still wrong because they are morally wrong. The planet must be saved, and this why contrary evidence from the skeptics doesn’t matter.
This is a cult-psychological means of treating and looking at this issue which was mentioned in a comment above. Anyone lacking in good critical thinking skills and/or is scientifically illiterate will be especially vulnerable to succumbing to the treatment of the CAGW issue in this manner. Unfortunately, this probably includes many in the mainstream media, in academia, in the internet blogosphere, and in government at all levels.
I do not know if, when and how this psychological cult will die out someday. It could happen from the faultiness of the CAGW “science” becoming more widely known or from the cutoff of funding or something else. And I do not even want to see what the actual economic and financial consequences are going to be someday if and when the cult actually succeeds.
Hayhoe, Mann and the others are all probably genetically wired to think and behave this way. And that is why it is probably a waste of time and effort to argue with them.
Think you have hit it, CD.
Its in the wiring.
Some are positive Earth
Some are negative Earth