Who's Exploiting the Holocaust?
Whether you believe the term”climate denier” is used accurately or unfairly in the climate debate, I’d be curious to hear what you think of this headline atop Andrew Bolt’s latest column:
Six million Jews didn’t die so Combet could smear a sceptic
I don’t like the term “denier”, and agree with Bolt.
Not only is the term insulting, but the term “climate denier” is also a poor label, because it doesn’t even make sense.
Who is denying climate? No one.
Who is denying that the climate changes? No one.
I personally don’t believe that the warming we have experienced since 1850 is outside natural climate variability, and therefore I am skeptical that the recent warming is due mostly to increased CO2.
Why is the warming since 1950 any different than the MWP warming?
Or the warming from earlier periods?
So, I personally don’t like the label, and consider it an insult, which is surely what the people who use it intend.
It is nothing more than childish name calling.
Oops – I meant the warming since 1850, not 1950.
Tom Fuller’s obscure reference aside (I’ve no doubt he will turn up with it at some point) the term denier in reference to climate science is only associated with Holocaust denial by those who want to create a sense of victimhood. Yes, it is meant as an insulting description, but a description of someone who either actively denies well understood and well accepted climate science or who is in denial of the reality we face as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change.
This is a deliberate misunderstanding of a term, and RickA takes it further by also deliberately misunderstanding the short-hand of ‘climate denier’, as though there was real confusion as to what was claimed to be being denied.
Bolt is beneath contempt, but we don’t need this article to know that.
“Yes, it is meant as an insulting description”
There you have it.
Heraclitus:
“Yes, it is meant as an insulting description . . .”
There are real differences on the science.
I don’t see scientists pointing to carbon black as a bigger factor than conventional wisdom, or glaciers freezing from the bottom up requiring modification to global climate models, or the host of other new developments which require tweaking the models, calling the other scientists “deniers”.
It is rude to label someone with a term which is considered “an insulting description”. It doesn’t promote good dialog. It is not convincing to resort to name calling during an argument.
So why do it?
I also think that the term “denier” is given many different insulting meanings by those who use it – and it is not as simple as your description.
Also, just because it is “well accepted climate science” doesn’t mean it is correct.
All we have to do is wait until 2100 and we will see whether the estimates of warming and sea level rise were correct.
Right now, I think all the models are wrong, and the fact that they tweak them every week to take into account some new factor, or modify some existing factor, tells me that we should not be relying on them to make trillion dollar decisions.
Maybe the models will improve enough to be “validated” someday – but they sure aren’t validated yet – and are therefore not worth relying on.
I would say Bolt is definitely, explicitly, exploiting the holocaust there.
I think you need to read Bolt in the context of Australian politics with the political antagonisms having recently gone feral over climate change, and in particular whether not to impose a carbon tax.
Our PM herself not a religious believer in the ordinary sense, proclaims belief in climate change with religious zeal. Listening to her and her Parliamentary colleagues, to label a person as a climate change ‘denier’ (whatever that means) is to describe the lowest form of life, best squashed, and quickly too, and all the better if that person is your political opponent.
Andrew Bolt is simply one of the partisans, in his case from the media, holding his end up.
I won’t deny that some people overuse the term denier but the reality is there are many people who do actively deny science because they don’t want to believe it or, more nefariously, because they don’t want other people to believe it and these people deserve to be insulted. But note, the insult is not equating them to Holocaust deniers. Most people who choose to use the term denier in the climate debates have concluded that no rational argument will sway their opponents and use it to dismiss them. In the large majority of cases I think they are right to do so.
“Well accepted climate science” isn’t beyond all doubt, but to reject it without reason is where the denial lies.
Heraclitus, just to meet your expectations, the journalist who coined the term with reference to climate change skeptics, Ellen Goodman, explicitly associated them with the skinheads who denied the Holocaust, as have many since.
Which commenter on this weblog in your opinion denies the science? As opposed to the larger number of commenters here who are called deniers?
When you use the term about me, I feel as though you are equating me with anti-Semitic thugs. It both hurts and angers me. I sincerely doubt if I am alone in this feeling.
It makes me wonder why you would continue to use it.
But I don’t use it, or at least I use it very rarely.
I also don’t think it applies to you.
Heraclitus, I’m happy to hear that.
But I don’t believe that you really believe you are being equated to anti-Semetic thugs.
Actually, Heraclitus, I do. But I don’t expect you to believe me when I say so.
What Heraclitus said..and further I would say that if one does feels hurt and angry and that they are being equated with ant-Semitic thugs when referred to as a climate change denier are either knowingly and intentionally being hysterical or are actually clinically so.
I would prefer the term skeptic except that in many (most) cases it lends an aura of scientific legitimacy (skepticism being the basis of science) to those who merely refuse to accept (deny) facts.
Denial is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate psychological description for such behaviour.
Oddly, nobody’s answered my question about the headline my post references.
It is actually almost clinical. I just don’t see any examples here at Collide a Scape. In fact, every time I see that explanation (and I have seen it frequently), it is never used with a concrete example.
The normal routine is that shortly afterwards the term ‘denier’ is used as a broad brush adjective to describe anyone who finds fault with the consensus.
Funny how that works.
I think Stuart R provided an answer at #6. I agree with him.
“Oddly, nobody’s answered my question about the headline my post references.”
I thought I did, Keith.
Look at the context, just part of the rough and tumble of Australian politics. Personally I don’t pay much attention to the headline, I read the story which was fair enough if you accept Bolt as an intelligent but partisan right winger, self a rarity in the media which is why he has such a following.
I agree with Stuart R at #6 as well..
@Tom Fuller
The normal routine is that shortly afterwards the term “˜denier’ is used as a broad brush adjective to describe anyone who finds fault with the consensus.
Funny how that works.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/22/climate-bloodhounds/
Watts: spoken like a true MWP and RWP denier , which is the crux of the problem ““ A
Watts: Oh gosh, put in my place by yet another anonymous troll who can’t or won’t understand the base issue presented here, but complains that we are spending too much time looking at old papers while denying the existence of the MWP[…]
Esther Cook: I personally LOVED Anthony’s use of “denier” appropriately for those who really do deny reality.
It is indeed “funny how that works” because on one day of the week “denier” is such an awful word to use you can’t even quote Anthony Watts using it because it puts your post directly in the spam bin while on other days of the week, well it’s just fine and dandy to use it.
I agree with Heraclitus above, I don’t believe anyone really thinks they’re being compared to skinheads or whatever else.
A simple example of the principle is Delingpole’s reaction to his Horizon interview
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/
He’s repeatedly attacked “consensus” as being unscientific so in the interview he’s asked a fairly simple and straight forward question: If he was being treated for cancer would he not go with the “consensus” treatment over whatever random thing he read about himself.
Delingpole reacts with outrage to this question and wants to present Nurse as comparing him to medical kooks pushing cures that don’t work.
Naturally he’s too busy being outraged to answer the question or explain why consensus is acceptable in that situation but not elsewhere.
Isn’t the real issue the intent of the person using the word…?
I would object to Anthony’s first use of the term (MWP denier), even though I’m sure he’s just pirating the usage. I think the second instance is marginal, but I would still call him on it.
Barry, in a perfect world of course the intent of the user would be most important. This world isn’t perfect, however. In other social contexts we judge offensiveness by impact on the person labeled, and I think we should do so here as well.
It leads to a certain stiffness in conversation, often lampooned as ‘corporate speak’ with some reason. And it is awkward to always be thinking about the names you use. But we take it seriously when we talk about race, ethnicity, gender and religion. I don’t think adding restriction on using slurs to describe political positions (and that’s what this is–it has nothing to do with science, or Lindzen and Christy wouldn’t be called deniers, which they routinely are) shouldn’t be overly onerous on anyone.
” If he was being treated for cancer would he not go with the “consensus”
Ahh yes, I’ve read this little jewel before. The difference – as I’m sure all are aware – is this: The medical consensus is based on a substantial body of experimental evidence to include rigorous clinical trials, to which the patient has ready access, BTW. The climate consensus is not. The two situations are not comparable in any meaningful way.
Now, that’s not necessarily a climate science slam. We don’t have a spare earth climate with which to experiment; there’s simply no way to do climate clinical trials.
But comparing a medical consensus to climate consensus is just plain silly.
Tom,
In kindergarten I learned that name calling reflects on the name-caller. Just something to keep in mind.
@23
What climate consensus are you referring to not being backed up by evidence? My understanding is that AGW is based on a substantial body of evidence spanning disciplines.
Now, if you’re talking about projected impacts, the timing, degree of severity, etc, that’s a different story.
So can you clarify?
Stuartr(6), Tom (17), David (18), Steve (19),
Sorry for overlooking your answers and thanks for answering.
nobody with any sense should use the term ‘climate denier’ (what does that mean?).
that’s what I find offensive about the phrase, propaganda, to paint your opponent as anti science & therefore stupid, easily dismissed, the next propaganda step from the previous wining ‘CAW denier’ (that’s a no no i presume on advise from the PR/get the message out brigade)
what most Sceptics are sceptical about is the evidence for CAGW (remember that old climate/science/political consensus fact, which drives all developed nations to decarbonise).
but words/phrases are cleverly juxtaposition by certain people/MSM to confuse the public.
almost fools me at times, are we that bad?
what am I, I’m a murderer – Aisha – Death in Vegas.
@kdh33
The difference ““ as I’m sure all are aware ““ is this: The medical consensus is based on
Regardless of your perceptions of the difference in merit between the two consensus positions Delingpole and the skeptic community at large argue that consensus is a fundamentally unscientific concept that its invocation is unique or unusual.
Delingpole’s response is purely to avoid dealing with the issue. Climate change skeptics are unable to explain the difference between their position (“The scientists are wrong and conspiring to fool everyone!”) and other forms of denialism. Obviously skeptics believe this time this topic is special and they’re in the right and logically there’s no reason why they couldn’t be but nevertheless they don’t want the association.
Personally I don’t find the word “denier” a useful term. If nothing else it encourages a sort of intellectual laziness where it becomes easier to label an argument than to respond to it or at least link to where it’s responded to.
I’m sorry Keith, perhaps my italics weren’t obvious. I said experimental evidence and clinical trials.
In the case of climate science that would be increasing atomspheric CO2 by 10%, 20%, 50%, etc, etc, and then measuring the impact on climate. And not global average temperature, but regional weather changes; who gets more rain, who gets less, who has storms; who benefits, who losses; who’s crop yields increase; where the tipping point, if any; and quantifying those changes.
These kinds of (analogous) tests are routinely performed in medical clinical trials. You can learn more here: http://clinicaltrials.gov
An excerpt (kinda long, sorry, but please notice the bolded description): In this proposal, studies will be performed to define the actions of resveratrol on the Wnt signaling pathway in a clinical trial in which patients with colon cancer will receive treatment with resveratrol and correlative laboratory studies will examine its effects directly on colon cancer and normal colonic mucosa. These studies will provide data on the mechanisms of resveratrol action and provide a foundation for future prevention trials, correlative studies and therapeutic clinical research with this agent.
It simply is not possible to do these kinds of studies on our climate because, as I stated, we don’t have a spare climate with which to experiment.
Comparing a medical consensus to a climate consensus, as in the cancer example above, is simply silly.
Sharper00: Climate change skeptics are unable to explain the difference between their position (“The scientists are wrong and conspiring to fool everyone!”) and other forms of denialism.
This is not the sceptic position, as I suspect you well know. I’m not sure there is a single “sceptic postion”. I interpret sceptic to mean: those who oppose doing something about AGW (forced decarbonization, for example). And that’s a more complicated decision.
I have no survey data, but my sense is that most “sceptics” believe the earth has warmed, many believe it is antrhopogenic; but most think the consequences are not known with much certainty and that the cure is very very expensive and poses risks of it’s own. The sceptic cost benefit analysis is that the certain cost of decarbonization outweights the uncertain (for now) risk from AGW. Notice I did not use the word conspiracy.
What term would be useful then to refer to those who have been responded to or have been pointed to links etc. and continue to ‘deny’ the reality of what the links or response present? From my experience (admittedly limited) the use of the term ‘denier’ is used not to label an argument (usually non-existent) as to label the person who refuses to enter into a rational discussion.
And kd33..I am not aware of the vast difference between the example of a consensus view as to cancer treatment and the consensus view underpinning global climate change…As Kieth has pointed out, evidence for AGW is abundant from various sources and the remaining uncertainties are mainly to do with outcomes based on differiing strategies or responses to this evidence..much the same as outcomes are based on which strategy would be used in treating cancer.
Aren’t all theories from AGW to the theory of relativity based on consensus resulting from evidence?
Personaly I find the term offensive. Whether those here use the word as a reference to the holocaust or not doesn’t diminish that some do use it in that way. Hansens “trains of death” or however he worded it comes to mind.
If people don’t want to be associated with those who use the term in way, then don’t use it. It’s quite simple.
The second usage of the word is as an ad hom. By labelling the opposition as “in denial” you are attempting to call them mentally deficient or willfully ignorant. By doing this you demonstrate that you actually have no interest in what your opponent says or any scientific points they might bring up. You are saying “Me smart, him dumb and evil. Me no listen.”
If that floats your boat fine, but don’t claim to be wanting any sort of intelligent discourse. Used in either way the term is an impediment to the exchange of ideas.
One has to wonder about the social competence of those who believe that you can talk rationally to people by insulting them.
Concerning the cancer and consensus bit, let me reverse it for the warmers.
Would you be willing to place your family on an airliner that has never been test flown (but it works really well in the modelling) that is piloted by a person who has never actually flown an aircraft (but has 100s of hours on Microsoft Flight Simulator)?
Put it another way given that we know a hell of a lot more about aeronautics than we do about climate. Would you support FAA approval for aircraft based solely on the computer models of its performance? If not, why not?
Steve Mennie. Don’t inflate climate to the status of relativity. Relativity is probably the most strongly tested theory we’ve ever had.
Experiment after experiment has been designed specifically to prove relativity wrong. They have all failed spectacularly.
The same cannot be said for climate science.
This is one of the bugbears the sceptics have. Climate science has a tendency to look for things that are “consistent with” AGW theory and we don’t view this as the correct approach.
The idea is to test the theory. To attempt to falsify it. When those attempts fail, the theory gets stronger. That is how science is done.
I could very quickly be in way over my head here but bear with me…Isn’t it also science when phenomena predicted by a given theory are actually observed? When scientists discovered black holes and this was found to be consistent with predictions of the theory of relativity how was that ‘designed’ to prove relativity wrong? Wasn’t that just accepted as further strengthening the theory? Further proof, if you will?
And how is that different than, say, AGW predictions of stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming (borne out by observation) being accepted as further proof of global warming theory?
just askin’.
“Aren’t all theories from AGW to the theory of relativity based on consensus resulting from evidence?”
’nuff said 🙂
I love it…..As I trust Lamb and his research on the MWP and the LIA more than Mann and his shoddy stats, I am “science denier”.
Actually…the more shrill the MWP deniers get, the better I like it. The louder and shriller these deniers get, the more they turn the public at large off.
In 25 Keith Kloor writes
<blocjkquote>@23
What climate consensus are you referring to not being backed up by evidence? My understanding is that AGW is based on a substantial body of evidence spanning disciplines.
<blockquote>
As I understand it the current consensus fro climate sensitivity spans a range in temperature increases from the benign to the catastrophic. So one could well state that the current consensus is a consensus that is impossible to be wrong. It is also a consensus that is of very little use to policy makers.
So we ahve a consensus that cannot be wrong
It is a consensus that is of little to no use to policy makers
And yet we have a consensus that is impossible to criticize. The “substantial body of evidence spanning disciplines” does not lead to a definitive prediction
I don’t understand the Holocaust comparison. Holocaust deniers are in denial for very different reasons than global warming deniers. They’re only related in the most abstract sense of the word. There are far better comparisons for GW denial, related to natural science, such as smoking/cancer denial, or CFC/ozone denial, which some of the same characters have been involved with.
While I don’t agree with the Holocaust comparison, and I’m sure a few have used it, those bringing it up the most seem to be GW deniers trying to play victim, as Heraclitus notes in #3.
Sharper00 has a nice find in #20. A. Watts to my understanding is regularly outraged by usage of “denier”, but he clearly has no qualms using it when it suits him. Others just think the term is insulting. Fair enough. It’s not meant to be nice. Those who are offended and chastize others for usage of such a term often have various derogatory “-ist” and “-ista” terms used to describe those who support mainstream climate science. Glass houses…
I agree with Tom Fuller @ 17 who agrees with Stuart R…Bolt is exploiting the holocaust. That being said, it comes as no surprise; those on the extremes of any belief system will attempt to disseminate exploitative analogies to further an agenda. ‘Deniers’, ‘warmistas’, it’s just so easy to smack down an opponent’s viewpoint with a label. Thank god for the ‘luke warmers’…:-)
I love it”¦..As I trust Lamb and his research on the MWP and the LIA more than Mann and his shoddy stats, I am “science denier”.
I tend to doubt Lamb would hold to his early limited 1960’s paleo work as gospel over modern reconstructions. He seemed to be someone who understood that science advances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb#Climatic_Research_Unit
JohnB (31)
We can take the models out of the equation and my statement about AGW resting on a substantial body of evidence spanning disciplines would still hold. Do you agree with that?
Again, people need to clarify what they’re talking about when they refer to a consensus position.
Personally, I don’t use the term denier, but if we’re talking about the context it’s used in, then my understanding is that it refers (in its purest form) to people who deny the basic findings of climate science. Of course, I realize that the term is also used liberally by one camp as a broad brush, as well.
Is the term “denier” useful the attempt to come to a political decision on AGW?
How doe calling a group of people “deniers” aid in coming to a political consensus on AGW?
Medical science asks: what happens if we give drug X to a cancer patient. They round up some cancer patients, give them drug X, measure the response.
Climate science asks: what happens if we increase CO2. They have a computer model. We don’t have a spare earth to spike with CO2.
It’s not the same. Not even close.
Andrew Bolt’s latest column:
Well yes, but what does that have to do with calling Bolt a denialist?
Climate science asks: what happens if we increase CO2 knowing that it is a greenhouse gas and is instrumental in controlling the temperature of the planet?
We pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
We measure the response. Glaciers melting, sea level rising, arctic ice disappearing etc. etc. And the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling which rules out solare output as a source of the warming.
The evidence keeps pointing in one direction..and you’re correct, kd33..we don’t have another planet earth to try this experiment out on nor to move to if we screw this one up. What else do we have but modelling?
I guess it depends on how lucky you’re feeling.
NewYorkJ Says:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:54 pm
#39 Obviously you are just another MWP denier.
Steve,
We don’t know that CO2 is instrumental in controlling the temperature, and we don’t know climate sensitivity. We don’t know that the measures you reference are responses to CO2, and none of them are particularly dangerous.
We agree that we have to use models. Models are by their nature incomplete – climate models particularly so. The models have a lot of uncertainty.
Decarbonization is no slam dunk. I’ve yet to see anything I consider a realistic global decarbonization strategy – the BRIC countries just don’t wanna play along.
Neither you nor I can claim to know with certainty the answer. We each do our cost benefit analysis weighted according to our world view – I am disinclined to government intervention, for example.
In the end we’ll disagree. Don’t call me a denier :-).
But I’m afraid I’ve gone O/T. I object to the equivalence implied by the cancer patient example – a jewel I first encountered many, many months ago on one of Keith’s favorite sites: Climate Progress. The irony.
The term “denier” obviously has its roots in likening sceptics to holocaust deniers, as Tom makes clear. Deny that and deny history, it makes no difference, because it is what it is.
Use of the term “denier” to refer to a climate sceptic is completely unrelated to the holocaust these days. I don’t think common use of the term in climate matters relates, today, to anything to do with the holocaust or denial of its place in history. The disconnect is complete.
Nobody owns the word “denier”. Nobody. It is perverse to demand that it should be limited to a 20th century event, either in use or inference. Of course 6 million Jews didn’t die so that a sceptic could be smeared. What seriously sick framing that even is. Yes, Bolt is over-reaching on the victim-hood.
How do I personally feel about the use of “denier” in reference to climate sceptics? About the same as I feel about the word “nigger”, or the word “kike”. I don’t hear these words wielded and think fondly of the person using the word. The intention with each is pejorative. It is used in a purposeful attempt to wound, to belittle, to smear and to insult. Invariably it is derogatory. People who use that kind of language for that purpose are worthless scum. Why would I listen to, or give credence to, anything they say if that’s their angle of attack? Trash talk is for trash.
Over at Climate Skeptic, Walt Meyer has written several times about a useful way of looking at this. He postulates that there are two theories involved regarding climate change.
One is utterly non-controversial. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a doubling of CO2 concentrations should raise temperatures by about 1C.
The other theory is that the atmosphere is highly sensitive and temperatures will rise dramatically following this rise caused by CO2. It is not nearly as supported by evidence as the first.
But if you have any questions about theory number two you get accused of denying theory number one. Which is dirty pool.
The “doctor analogy” is so frequently used that Delingpole should have had a quick answer at his fingertips.
Instead, Ben Pile at Climate Resistance blocks the shot:
“…there are many good reasons for not accepting [the] analogy. The most obvious being that the climate is not like the human body; climate change is not like cancer; climate scientists are not like oncologists; and climate science research institutions are not like hospitals.
I could care less if people decide to call me a denier for my scepticism. Because, as a general rule these people also believe that warming sceptics are funded by big oil, use tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry, do not believe in Evolution and, at the more extreme end, are unconvinced by the Round Earth theory.
Most of all, I don’t mind because the people resorting to the charge of “denialism” are losing the public policy debate and have already lost the support of the vast majority of the various voting publics. Which suggests that the slur did not and will not work in the face of the growing uncertainty surrounding CO2’s contribution to “climate change/AGW”.
Bolt calling the dolts on their Holocaust invoking slur is simply underlining the desperation and incompetence of the warmists. He is noting their slimy appropriation of a term which was intentional and which was intended to cast sceptics into the same mucky barrel as the David Irvings and Ernst Zundels of this world. It was a cheap bit of agitprop and called out as such from the go.
The warmists should know better. Some of them do.
before we skeptics were taged with the name “Climate Denier”, there was only one group of people who were labled deniers. When you heard it, you knew instinctively to discount anything they said. You probably didn’t think of them as ignorant, but evil. People trying to persuade people that a horrible truth didn’t exist. So of course the term was intentional and well thought out. It is clear the intent is to discredit us, and protray us as evil (10:10 video comes to mind). But of course you have to save the planet, so the ends justifies the means. Whatever…I ain’t scured.
Tom, you probably mean Warren Meyer, perhaps confusing him with Walt Meier (a qualified climate scientist). Warren Meyer runs a company intent on privatizing public state parks, while spending spare time running a blog denigrating climate science.
Jack,
The universe is not like the human body either, but gravity and relativity are generally accepted. I do like kdk’s unintended insight in #42, though. We have no spare Earth for which to exeriment on and destroy. The AMS position statement comes to mind. I’m paraphrasing Dr. Richard Alley here, but I recall a recent talk where he said that a curious scientific mind might want to keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at increased rates, but some very basic ethics would indicate that isn’t such a good idea to begin with, and especially when all observations and evidence suggests the same. As for uncertainties, they swing both ways. Some labeled “deniers” seem to be in denial over that. Others realize it, so try to compensate by stating confidently with high certainty that global warming is nothing to be concerned about, but then we’re into Duning Kruger territory.
“Denier” is the new “nigger”. It’s a politically correct, nasty epithet applied by those who feel themselves superior for no other reason than that they hold a certain belief and consider those who are agnostic, heretic, apostate or infidel to be untermenschen.
I don’t mind, as an agnostic sometimes thought an infidel, having a derogatory term applied to me. Call me a wanker, a dickhead, an idiot, call me anything you like, but do not equate me with those who would deny the facts of history because at some level they sympathise with Nazi genocide.
For some, religious faith has not disappeared; its object has merely changed from an omnipotent and infallible God to omnipotent and infallible scientific assertion. Neither has prejudice disappeared; it has merely transmogrified into yet another form of self-righteous supremacism.
I find it disingenuous in the extreme for anyone to assert that, whilst they themselves don’t use the term, they are sure that it isn’t meant as harshly as interpreted and that people are overreacting. That’s like saying that those who are black are not only niggers, but oversensitive wusses who should just suck it up and smile.
Well, frequently being labelled a new nigger myself, I can affirm that the use of the term, or the complicit failure to condemn its use, or the attempt to play down its significance, is not only insulting, but completely counterproductive. All it does, by cementing solidarity amongst the white folk, is create more and more resentment and opposition to their cause.
Andrew Bolt is, in my opinion, spot on in his assessment. The real abomination is the crass insensitivity and lack of humanity of those who would trivialise the murder of six million souls in order to come up with as scathing an insult as possible. Shame on them.
@NYJ,
How do you think that astronomers figured out gravity and the solar system without a “spare” solar system for experiments ?
This is how they did it. They came up with hypotheses and tested them with exact predictions. “In 6 months time Mars will be over there and Saturn will be over there”
If the prediction came true then the hypothesis survived – otherwise it was re-think time.
At no time did they come out with these ridiculous “range of scenarios” or “ensemble” ideas. Oh no.
Consensus ? Ha ha.
International panel ? ha ha ha.
Perhaps it says more about people using the word, and other stronger ones..
Tony Juniper and Thom Yorke..
Without these 2 individuals (especially Tony) we would most likely NOT have a UK Climate Change act..
The interviewer is Franny Armstrong (10:10 founder) the mindest is totally alien to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3A2N_VTp2c&feature=player_embedded#
the intent is to labet someone as, not worth listening to, like labels as flat earthers, anti-science..
Once a side of the debate is given that labe,l it is then easy to say, I don’t debate with deniars, or flat earthers or 911 truthers,etc,etc.
once you have labeled someone this way, you then do not have to listen to anyquestions they have, or answer them. You then encourage others to do the same.
Following Copenhagen, (especially) the idea has been a failure to communicate, and it is just some deniars and sceptics that need to be wished away..
And of course most activists use the word not to mean those that deny climate, just as a generalisation, to ignore people with..
just this week, Bob Watson complains on the BBC about having to appear on the BBC alongside scepticsand deniars, in this case Lord Lawson (whose main thrust is critical of economic policy)
In my view it is used to silence any debate.
Keith say-
“my understanding is that it refers (in its purest form) to people who deny the basic findings of climate science. Of course, I realize that the term is also used liberally by one camp as a broad brush, as well.”
The problem (or what actually irks me the most) and I think Tom spells this out pretty well in @48- is the broad brush usage of denier which is used by some in a reinforcing way, for example- the way Joe Romm uses it almost constantly, often in tandem with ‘anti science’, ‘fossil funded’, ‘discredited disinformer’, etc etc. Just the other day he used the phrase ‘hard core denier’ which was a bit amusing.
If this was just a word that was getting tossed around on some obscure climate blog- it wouldn’t be so bad. But it is almost universally used amongst journalists, some politicians, etc- and I think the main reason for that is that climate scientists themselves are using the word- mostly in reference to people who do NOT deny climate science basics. I rarely agree with Bolt- and I don’t here either. I think Tom has it best… it is ‘Dirty Pool’.
Stu (57):
You say the term is “almost universally used amongst journalists.” I don’t see that, at least in the U.S.
In fact, I was curious what terms my colleagues used (and why) and received some some answers in this post.
Actually, I reread over my post and thought that ‘universally’ shouldn’t really be there. I do find the word widely used, but universally is pushing it. And I rarely ever here the word in a straight up news report on climate matters.
NYJ: I do like kdk’s unintended insight in #42
Actually, NYJ, I first posited this in #23. It was neither unintended nor insightful, and certainly not original – “experimenting on our only earth” is, and has been for some time, a very common rendition of the precautionary principle, as I’m sure you well know.
I had a brief exchange with Watts about this a while back. He asked for a peer-reviewed paper that used the term and I supplied this. His response seemed to indicate that it is fine to use the term “denialism” unless it is in the pejorative sense. ie
Nice try, no cigar. It is still not the word “denier” used in pejorative. ““ Anthony
Nice strawman, we are talking about the pejorative use of one word, “denier”. Concentrate on that instead of the strawman diversions. ““ Anthony
I replied at one point
This is fine with me of course, as long as it is noted that using the root of the phrase”to deny” is legitimate in specific cases, as outlined in the piece I posted.
and the final word was
But that is not how it is used, “denier” is used in the rephrehensible “holocaust denier” connotation. ““ Anthony
So what I took from that conversation is that as long as we are using it in the sense that it is used in science denialism, it isn’t an insult. Now, I realize that Anthony isn’t speaking for everyone, so I really only use the term in extreme cases even though I believe it can be used more often. The problem is even if you not are being insulting, the word carries too much baggage. It is still the best word to use for people described in the article I posted, but it is also unproductive and gets overused.
But some of the victimhood in this thread is unreal. And Larkin’s is absolutely epic. Now check that out and think about who’s exploiting what.
Tom Fuller,
The examples he uses aren’t good ones. The 1C is theoretical. You need to combine in the feedbacks to make it a realistic number. A GCM can get that number using an atmosphere that is not real or you can use basic radiative transfer numbers without feedbacks to get 1.2C. So if someone uses that number they either don’t believe in feedbacks (which means they don’t believe the majority of evidence), or they don’t know what they are talking about. The second example “sensitivity is high” is undefined. Does that mean above 3? If so, there is plenty of evidence that it is 3-4 or 4.5, and, in fact, the lower bound is much better constrained than the upper. So the first example doesn’t exist in reality and the second does have evidence, so I don’t think Warren’s argument works either way.
Keith:
“We can take the models out of the equation and my statement about AGW resting on a substantial body of evidence spanning disciplines would still hold. Do you agree with that?”
Are you talking about AGW or CAGW, Keith? If you’re talking about CAGW then no, you can’t drop the models or the conjecture. The term “denier”, if it can be genuinely applied to anyone, can only be applied to a small sub-set that deny there is even the possibility of climate changing, or a few more who deny the possibility of a human warming effect. Those subsets are so small that any use of the word “denier” to refer to climate scepticism can only BE a broad-brush insult. But then I’ve heard tell that you can legitimately refer to the indigenous people of the banks of the river Niger as “niggers” too. Some might even claim it’s legitimate for anyone from Nigeria. That doesn’t cut it for me either. No, no way. Not an option. Use of the word is insidious and purely pejorative, and its use is ENJOYED by those who use it, because they know they’re getting away with using an N-like word in plain view. It’s hate, and we all know it.
“Again, people need to clarify what they’re talking about when they refer to a consensus position.”
What needs clarifying is what this “consensus” is. It most certainly isn’t the 2,500 scientists involved in authoring and reviewing the IPCC AR4. That myth has been thoroughly debunked. So what IS the consensus? Substantiation is demanded, because it hasn’t been yet. Declaring a thing exists does not make it so. Of all people, scientists and journalists should know that.
The use of “climate denier” by journalists is not universal, nor do climate scientists use it universally. But, there are times that both of these camps use it quite casually, and they have no problem linking “climate deniers” with those who who don’t believe in evolution, who don’t believe in a link between cancer and smoking, etc.
Keith, you posted an excellent example of this when Kerry Emmanuel was interviewed on National Public Radio’s Science Friday with Ira Flatow:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2011/02/05/the-other-climate-heretic/
Both use denier or denialist quite freely. There is no doubt they are using it to delegitimize opponents to the consensus climate view.
It is a rude term, plain and simple. The term “warmist” doesn’t even come close as a pejorative.
Also, in my opinion Bolt is wrong, he is way overplayng the victim card here……he pulls a Romm in that his overreaction does a disservice to his point of view….
Jack: At no time did they come out with these ridiculous “range of scenarios”
Doctors can’t pinpoint the hour when an advanced lung cancer patient will die either. They can give a range – one that is also might be partially dependent on the patient’s choices.
Those upset with the term “denier” can cry me a river. Many of them are in the business of personally attacking individual climate scientists, throwing around various “ist” terms to describe them, dismissing scientific evidence out of hand, and/or claiming the scientific community is perpetuating a grand hoax. “Denier” is a pretty innocuous and timid term when one considers their behavior and transparent intentions.
There is a legitimate theory that with AGW the world is faced with a a real issue. The issue could be very serious or it could be benign. There are differing views. Instead of discussing and researching the matter, we resort to calling each other nasty names.
And now, to beggar belief, instead of addressing the issue we have long philosophical discussions on the nature of nasty manes.
How will calling each other names help foster a political resolution to this issue?
Why is the philosophy of nasty names and hidden abuse so important and interesting?
re my own 65
Maybe a deep philosophical discussion into teh nature of nasty manes and hidden abuse does have some utility. maybe the people wiritng these posts will actually read them and see how foolish and pointless they really are.
C’mon, denialist has been used like forever to describe those who (for fun or profit) denied the harm of tobacco, the cause of AIDS, the need for vaccination, the cause and harm of acid rain and release of CFCs and, of course, the current topic under discussion. Denial it is and denialists they are.
Denial is a lifestyle as well as a political movement.
“Those upset with the term “denier” can cry me a river.”
On the contrary, I merely dismiss you completely for the crass trash you incessantly spew. More to be pitied than blamed for your vitriolic poor judgement and lack of self control, you’re not worth getting worked up about.
Simon, you’ve shed an impressive stream of crocodile tears here. I also suggest you upgrade your glass house.
Because I refuse to be affected by your vitriol? There’s no reason at all to take seriously anyone who purposely resorts to insidious and despicable name-calling. So I don’t. Get over it or stop resorting to it.
Rabett, denier is a crude political insult with deliberate associations to Holocaust denial.
The cute thing about it for vacuously dishonest pseudo-intellectuals is it gives you the chance to be viciously insulting while hiding behind the faux innocence of ‘it’s a perfectly harmless term.’
I’ve heard that smarmy garbage about ‘pinko’, ‘queer,’ ‘girl,’ and a thousand more.
I’ve heard a lot of criticism of U.S. higher education and the people who inhabit it. I guess some of it’s true.
“But some of the victimhood in this thread is unreal. And Larkin’s is absolutely epic. Now check that out and think about who’s exploiting what.”
Thank you for the illustration of exactly what I meant when I said it isn’t enough to call a man “nigger”, but to call him a wuss because he objects.
Some folk in the climate debate want to have their cake and eat it. They may claim they use the term “denier” sparingly, and only when it’s actually deserved. Or, they may use it habitually, and claim it doesn’t mean anything.
“Come on, you soft bastard,” they may say, “get a sense of proportion. Just because it’s exactly the same terminology as used for Nazi sympathisers, specifically originated to draw the comparison, whatever makes you think that we use it that way?”
The kinship of this attitude with institutional racism is obvious. For all we know, history may prove that it is the proponents of cAGW who are in error. When has the the nearest equivalent epithet, “eco-nazi”, ever been uttered by institutional figures, such as politicians, to brand a significant proportion of the electorate as not just wrong, but evil?
Some folk are so steeped in politically correct self-righteousness that they can’t see their own warts in the mirror.
No, I just think you trying to make your situation alike blacks is epic victimhood. And then you continue on the nonsense by making up more epic victim-hood by correlating those questioning your attribution to attitudes of institutional racism.
The fact that you can’t see the difference between real racism and people using the word denier for those who deny something is what is worth pointing out in a thread about exploiting holocausts, or in this case, racism.
It is as Eli said and as Greg Combet said…
“When you stop denying the climate science, we’ll stop calling you a denier.”
Don’t let political correctness destroy accurate and descriptive language.
As I’ve said previously, I don’t use the term “denier,” because of the connotations and how loosely it’s applied. (Additionally, as I’ve explored in other posts, the term is not really used to characterize the anti-evolution, anti-vaccine, et al crowd.)
That said, I agree with grypo (73) that the victimhood card being played in this thread is a little much. I imagine that most of you who take offense at being called “denier” only have to experience that in faceless internet discussions like this. I don’t deny you the legitimacy of your complaint. But the harm you experience is a far cry from the harm experienced by the recipients of actual racial and ethnic epithets.
I don’t see an equivalence.
KK, it isn’t equivalent. Obviously. Shall we then establish a ranking of epithets, starting with ‘nigger’ at the top, never to be used, anathema and taboo, with denier somewhere down at the bottom, okay for internet use only but verboten for broadcast media and f2f interaction? Do you want to serve on the jury judging that list?
It’s a political term meant to class opponents as ignorant and evil. It hurts those to whom it is applied and many object to its usage.
Isn’t that enough? Do you want Rabett to be the decider in chief on this? Tobis? NewYorkJ?
I tend to agree with Tom Gray that this sort of discussion has limited value. It amounts to tone trolling, and those shedding the crocodile tears over “denier” tend to make most frequent use of the ad hominen style of argument.
Tom Fuller,
I think that’s the point of this thread. Using something that isn’t equivalent to put a shine on something you really want shined on. Making the argument like you did
“It’s a political term meant to class opponents as ignorant and evil. It hurts those to whom it is applied and many object to its usage.”
is again highlighting the problem. Ignorant, yes, if I call someone a denier, I am saying they are ignorant, of something specific — not ignorant of everything, and definitely not evil. It’s not political or class. I have no problem being told not to use it, like in the conversation I showed above with AW, but I’m certainty not going accuse people who continue to use it as being equivalent to racists. Suggesting that this is at all like institutional racism is exploiting what it that really means.
Keith, this is what you asking, right?
Tom (76)
You obviously get it’s a political term, so I don’t know why you continue to conflate it with racial and ethnic slurs.
I know it’s a political term, just as I know wamista and warmists are used as political terms. (New York J asks rightly why those terms are deemed okay to use by some of those who object to being called deniers.)
The fact is, people abuse language all the time to score political points.
To reiterate, I see “climate denier” used as a political cudgel–yes meant to delegitimize everything the “denier” says, but I also see racial and ethnic slurs in a different class. Such slurs are deeply personal and dehumanizing; they cut to the bone.
Tom (76):
One other thing: why do you care so much what faceless people on the internet call you? People I don’t know have come up with all sorts of choice names for me since I started blogging two years ago.
At the end of the day, all I care about is what my friends, family, and colleagues think of me.
Sure, I’ll push back on occasion if something is said that has wide distribution, such as a post by Joe Romm or a cut and paste headline and link to another post by Tim Lambert. But even then, I recognize what’s going on here and that this all this comes with the territory.
So my advice is not to personalize this stuff.
The political is personal in the 21st Century, or haven’t you noticed? If grypo wants to call me ignorant, why doesn’t he call me ignorant? Why a term that he knows is offensive?
KK, I’m not trying to convince my friends and family of the correctness of what I believe. I’m trying to convince a wider community that there is a third (at least) legitimate position regarding climate change, that of the lukewarmer. Being dismissed as equivalent to an anti-semitic thug is an attempt to deligitimize me. Those who use it do it intentionally for that purpose, and do not care about the offense it causes, using it with a wink and a sly grin each time.
When I was hung out with the VVAW (marched, was not a member), getting called ‘pinko hippie commie scum’ was par for the course. It was used to convince people that they didn’t need to listen to people describing what was actually happening in Vietnam. Worked for a long time, too.
Roger Peile Junior has commented on a review of this book “The Climate Fix”. He published this extract from the review
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/03/jonathan-adler-on-climate-fix.html
==============
Is warmingista OK?
I personally don’t take it personal. It doesn’t change the fact that the term was well thought out, to discredit sceptics. I can see someone being offended by the term “warmista” (tit for tat thing i think). But “warmists”, what’s the problem with that? I prefer “alarmist”, pretty good discription. “Denialist” doesn’t fit the sceptics either. Denialism- chosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth. It is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. Please someone tell me the empirically verifiable reality we refuse to accept.
“You obviously get it’s a political term, so I don’t know why you continue to conflate it with racial and ethnic slurs.”
You (and possibly Tom) perceive it in political terms but the climate landscape outside partisan politics of the US demonstrates that it’s ideological.
Being British, I don’t mind being called a “Brit”. I have Pakistani friends who object to being called “Paki”. Why is it okay to use the term “Brit” but not the term “Paki”? Because one is accepted and the other is not. Ergo one is acceptable and the other is not. “Denier” is not accepted and it is not acceptable.
” If grypo wants to call me ignorant, why doesn’t he call me ignorant? Why a term that he knows is offensive?”
This is good. I would love to agree with you on this very point if you allow me to. If someone says, “hey that term doesn’t really apply to my beliefs so don’t use it. I actually don’t believe the *_blank* science because…” then that’s a real conversation. Jumping to conclusions that this person is equating holocaust denial or racism, or even thinking that everyone sees it that way is not helpful and will probably do nothing but make the problem worse. It allows you to play victim and me keep thinking that you are a denier and that you aren’t being reasonable. Perhaps people don’t like be accused of calling you a holocaust denier when that certainly wasn’t the intension? Perhaps being called a racist in the middle of a discussion about science isn’t exactly comfortable? This goes more than one way if your true intension is to continue or start a debate.
I thought that was what Keith was getting at when he started this thread.
grypo, you have my complete and unqualified permission to prevent me from ever playing the victim card again. Just quit calling me a denier. See how easy that is?
I personally find it astonishing at the lengths people are going to on this thread and elsewhere in an attempt to retain the right to use this term.
I don’t think I ever did, but, either way, I don’t think you get what I am trying to tell you so just forget it.
Personally, I am not offended when someone calls me a denier; to me it merely reveals the ‘lack of intelligence and insularity. I strongly dislike the term because it is used to intimidate young scientists in academia and enforce groupthink.
My only dilemma is that if I were to apply the term to warmists in the manner which it deserves to be applied, I feel that I would be appropriating a term that is owned by Jewish people to describe a particularly evil form of lying. If Jews don’t mind the use of the term in climate debate, and fail to exert ownership over the term, I am happy to call out warmists as bias deniers, scientific method deniers et cet. If this regularly started happening on a larger scale, then the warmist groupthinkers would have to invent another hateful term of derision that excuses them from thinking rationally and rigorously. Undoubtedly, they would.
JD
JD Ohio (90),
That raises an interesting question, one I never thought about before: has anyone of Jewish faith objected to the use of the “term” denier being applied in the climate debate.
Anybody know?
My belief is that those who are affected most negatively by the use of name-calling (denier, denialist, warmista, watermelon etc) are in fact those that spout them.
Presumably, a major reason we come to these message boards is to debate others and try to persuade them to see our particular side of an issue. Lacing an argument with language that is perceived by others as antagnositic immediately weakens your argument and guarantees escalation rather than meaningful back and forth because people become defensive and less receptive to your perspective.
Imagine an attorney:
“Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I am going to present you evidence that confirms my case and if you don’t believe it 100% you’re probably stupid or willfully ignorant.”
Now if all you want to do is score high fives from the people who already believe what you believe then by all means, keep it up but it’s my opinion that there are plenty of people out there who are malleable to a good argument and it isn’t prodcutive to start lumping everyone in with the most partisan members of a particular side.
KK
When Hansen referred to the death trains caused by coal, there were substantial Jewish objections.
JD
Menth, I found your comment striking. In fact, I liked it so much I broke it out into a new post.
#84 – Exactly.
I am called a denier, even though I actually believe we have warmed around .7 C since 1850, and will warm around another 1 C by 2100.
I just don’t find the evidence of the feedback and amplifications very convincing, so I am skeptical of the other feedback induced warming estimates.
I don’t think that makes me a “denier”.
Like Keith Grubb #84 said – what am I denying?
The estimate for climate sensitivity seems to be very uncertain. None of the models seem to be correctly predicting the warming, at least over the last 10 years or so (based on Lucia’s blog – The Blackboard).
So I don’t like being called a denier for merely being skeptical over feedback warming, when even the climate scientists themselves disagree over the range and uncertainty of feedback warming.
But many use the term to label anybody who doesn’t buy the whole CAGW theory.
#92 Menth:
I agree with everything you wrote except the first paragraph.
However, I don’t name call – and it still really pisses me off to be called a denier.
Menth, I would love to see some examples. I personally save my invective for individuals, on the whole, and try very hard to make sure they are apt. As I’ve mentioned here, I hate to be rude uninentionally.
However, I have lost my temper here and elsewhere, so I imagine people can dig up examples where I don’t follow my own guidelines.
Really, though, I tried to quit using alarmist and warmista after objections in comments, and have tried to stick to consensus holders.
I must say I think the consensu team is far freer with their insults.
The problem with the word, is its attempt to prevents debate…and intimidate people into silence
A parallel, A little while ago, if you were to attempt to discuss immigration in the UK, you ran the risk of being called a bigot or a racist..(still true to some extent)
(not withstanding the population increase and climate change issue)
Gordon Brown probably lost a million or 2 votes from his own supporters for calling a certain lady a bigot (who wasn’t)
How many ‘lukewarmers’ like Tom are they that keep quiet because of the d word. or scientists or environmentalists that dare not discuss the issue, lest they be cast as a ‘deniar’ or George Monbiot calling David Bellamy an ex-environmentalist
(The green/environmentalist movemnt would not exist in it’s current form but for people like Bellamy in the 60’s,70’s and 80’s, he popularised it in the UK for a generation, and was being jailed for protesting for the environment)
You can be called a ‘deniar’ merely for not agreeing with ‘policy’ (ie like Lomborg who totally believes in gobal warming)
JD (93):
That’s a separate example, unrelated to the use of the term “denier.”
Thanks Keith.
I’d also like to point out that anybody who doesn’t 100% agree with my comment is probably stupid or willfully ignorant.
JK
Ment @ #100
🙂
Menth@ 100
And beleived the tobacco companies and is paid by “Big Oil”.
Attempts to frame a complex issue such as climate change in such fundamentalist terms inevitably just manages to piss people off… it might be fun to call people deniers but at the end of the day, if your plan is a plan of action, you’re doing it wrong…
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/carbon-tiff-takes-on-religious-hue-20110323-1c6pd.html
Why would Jewish folks be upset with the term “Climate Denier”? The term “Holocaust Denier” is not offensive to Jewish folks. It’s the actual “Holocaust Denier” that is offensive. It’s the lumping of sceptics in with the trash that is offensive.
Knowingly using a term that is considered perjorative by those at whom it is directed is an act of hostility, rudeness and disrespect. The discussion of the original intent of the label or root word is irrelevant. Once one realize that person for who the label is intended finds it offensive, there are only 3 choices.
First, stop using it.
Second, intentionally offend.
Third, offend and justify the offense dismissing or denying the sensibilities of the offended. It doesn’t matter if a speaker directing the term “denier” at an opponent means to imply that they are like a holocaust denier, They KNOW that the term denier is taken by those at whom it is directed as meaning “like a holocaust denier” and as such is a serious insult. So using denier has NOTHING to do with DENIAL and everything to do with insult, disrespect and hostility.
Eli Rabett Says:
March 24th, 2011 at 11:45 am
“…Denial is a lifestyle as well as a political movement…”
Eli is a prime example of a MWP denier. His denial of the MWP is as anti-science as it gets. Funded no doubt by Big Oil and Big Banks who are looking to increase their profit margins.
One could get into name calling, as in “denier”. So much less thought needed.
Just shout “denier” and nothing else need be said
KK #99 “That’s [Hansen death trains] a separate example, unrelated to the use of the term “˜denier.'”
You make a very reasonable point. Hansen in his death trains comments was criticized for comparing coal use to the Holocaust, not specifically for using the term “denier.” However, in my view the use of the term “denier” is innuendo comparing the criticized person to Holocaust Deniers. In that sense, the comments of Kenneth Jacobson, deputy national director of the Anti-Defamation League quoted on dotearth are relevant:
“From every side, I think the use of these kinds of holocaust analogies is counterproductive, disturbing, and offensive. People who use these kinds of arguments, as Hansen did, are trying to be deliberately provocative, knowing full well that the Holocaust is the epitome of evil in the world. But I think there’s a price to be paid, in terms of the offensive element for Holocaust survivors, and it also debases the currency of genocide. It trivializes what the Holocaust was about.
Clearly there are serious environmental issues, and I think he’s raising very important matters. But to resort to this kind of argumentation it also makes you wonder about the confidence he has in his own argument.”
Would add that Andy Revkin has stated that he has a relative who is Jewish who objects to the term “denier” being used in the context of global warming. (Don’t have the cite, but he has mentioned it several times.) I am not Jewish and by avoiding the use of the term “denier”, I am trying to avoid trivializing the Holocaust. However, if Jewish people as a whole don’t find it generally offensive to use the term in the context of climate change debate, I have no problems with the term and will use it against those who make irrational arguments in favor of CO2 restrictions.
JD
#108 Omitted link for Jacobson quote above is: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/holocausts/
JD
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Tom Fuller notes;
“an attempt to retain the right to use this term”
This acknowledges that there is an effort to remove that right.
This debate then is over the power of;
1) the audience to choose what the author meant, even when the author meant something else
But only those in the group of self-selected victims are to have that power. Says the self-described victims.
Whom define their victimhood by ‘what the author meant’.
Which they get to choose.
Because they are victims!
Now we know what it is like to go down that rabbit hole.
2) power to deny “the right to use this term”
Even though ‘denier’ has a well established average/shared/common meaning that is unspecific as to the cause and object of denial, and is silent on ethical equivalencies, whatever that means, and describes the behaviour of a group of people very well.
As Simon Hopkinson rightly stated;
“Nobody owns the word “denier”.”
@33 Steve Mennie. That’s a fair comment. The difference being that the predictions made by relativity are very, very specific. One of the first was that due to the behaviour of gravity the orbit of Mercury would be displaced by 16 seconds of arc.
This displacement had in fact already been observed and Newtonian physics couldn’t account for it without there being another mass close to the Sun. There was quite a search for many years for the planet “Vulcan” but it was never found of course.
Relativity explained that the intense gravitational field near the Sun would act like a mass in its own right due to mass/energy equivilence, thereby providing the extra gravitational energy to displace Mercury by 16 seconds.
And there lies the difference. Relativity didn’t just predict that Mercury would be displaced, it predicted the displacement to be a very specific figure. Note that if relativity had predicted 12 seconds of arc and the observations were 16 seconds, then this would have been evidence against relativity.
Similarly relativity predicts that clocks onboard satellites will run slower due to time dilation by a very specific amount that must be adjusted for. Without those adjustments, the GPS system would fail after a short time, however the predictions are correct and the adjustments are made and the GPS system keeps working. Note that if adjustments had to be made other than those predicted by relativity, it would be evidence against the theory.
Because of this AGW theory cannot be elevated to a similar status as relativity until it sterts producing very specific, testable predictions. This isn’t to say that it isn’t a theory and deserving of research, it’s simply saying that it isn’t as good a theory as relativity until it meets certain criteria.
What you are doing is the philosophical reverse of the creationist who dismisses evolution as “only a theory”. All predictions are not equal and neither are all theories.
Sorry for the derail. 🙂
40. KK. That would depend on what you mean by the large body of evidence spanning disciplines. I keep hearing that phrase but when asked for some of this evidence I keep getting evidence that the climate is changing. Well Duh, we know that.
The question is not whether the climate is changing or not. Of course it is, it always has and always will. The question is “How much of the change is attributable to CO2?”. Proof of change is not proof of attribution.
If, as you said, “models are taken out of the equation”, I would very much like to see this evidence if you can provide it. (I think you are in for a surprise.)
Lazar, we have thankfully put some terms beyond the Pale. A partial list has been provided above. I am glad that they are no longer seen fit to use in thoughtful discourse.
Not one of them was suggested for inclusion on that list by the users.
I don’t care if a royal ‘we’ has put ‘denier’ “beyond the Pale”.
Andrew Bolt is a denier.
And, from the first link, a hypocrite…
“Reader RunningScared warns that this is the Global Day of Climate Action, which, to judge from this Friends of the Earth ad (see from 2:30) requires greenshirts to stage rallies eerily similar to the ones once seen at Nuremberg.”
“And, from the first link, a hypocrite”¦”
It’s Godwin’s Law and everybody loses.
Keith, when you say “I imagine that most of you who take offense at being called “denier” only have to experience that in faceless internet discussions like this” you are not in touch with the situation downunder right now, and you frame the debate very wrongly for mine.
I never objected to the term – largely because I felt it to be one of those ‘blog’ terms that I could usefully ignore, even though it was clearly designed to be offensive. I stopped taking that approach when on New Year’s Eve last a fine chap I’d met over dinner and thoroughly enjoyed batting various arguments back and forth with came out with the comment “Oh, so you’re a filthy denier” when I tried to turn the conversation to climate. To say I was taken aback is a serious understatement.
This week in the Australian parliament our Prime Minister used the epithet in reference to a leading memebr of the opposition, who strenously objected and was howled down along the lines of many commenters above.
The term has moved from the blogosphere, where perhaps it can be seen as part of the cut and thrust and into general discourse.
Think what you will of the science and the arguments on both sides, this term is certainly not a welcome addition and anyone who pretends it is – whether by airy assertion or by splitting of hairs as to meaning and attribution – is frankly kidding themselves.
Was Bolt justified in thre headline? I’d find it hard to mount an argument he was, that’s for sure.
But attempting to legitimise the term? Nope.
Lazar,
Andrew Bolt is a skeptic. He also writes as if he’s a jerk. See how easy it is?
Lazar, in this case (and perhaps in others) labelling Bolt a denier actually lets him off the hook too easily. I really abhor what he writes about immigration, for example.
But you just can’t let go of that rock in your fist.
mct (116),
You write:
“The term has moved from the blogosphere, where perhaps it can be seen as part of the cut and thrust and into general discourse.”
I would agree with that, and I see your point.
The rock is apt, it is concise, descriptive and relevant. Why would I want to let go, Tom.
Lazar,
First, because a rock is a blunt instrument than can communicate only force and pain. Second, a hand occupied with holding a rock cannot be used for other purposes. Third, a man with a rock in his hand will be perceived as a threat rather than a communicator.
Lazar, I would also add that the term is certainly concise. What it describes in my opinion does not correspond with reality and its aptness relates only to the smug feeling of self-satisfaction with which it imbues the user of the term.
Tom.
“a rock is a blunt instrument than can communicate only force and pain”
‘denier of xxxx’ describes the behaviour of some individuals sharply enough for my purposes. Those individuals may or may not feel ‘hurt’, They have the choice to not feel hurt, or to modify their behavior. But they are not the target audience.
“a hand occupied with holding a rock cannot be used for other purposes”
But the hand is not holding the rock all of the time, or even most of the time.
“a man with a rock in his hand will be perceived as a threat rather than a communicator”
A threat is a communication. But ‘denier of xxxx’ is not a threat. I would suggest that those who feel threatened take some chill pills.
Tom,
“does not correspond with reality”
That is your opinion, as is your right. I will not demand that you modify your opinion, or desist from its expression, to satisfy the demands of political correctness in the case that someone may be ‘hurt’ by reading your opinion.
“smug feeling of self-satisfaction with which it imbues the user of the term”
You cannot read minds.
“Denier” is not just insulting, it’s a special kind of insulting, with a particularly vicious moral insinuation attached. An obvious alternative, cleanly severing a claim of technical confusion from a claim of famously spectacular moral depravity, is “flat-earther.”
Compare a hypothetical characterization of the IPCC position as “Tuskegee climatology.” If IPCC critics chose to bypass obvious insulting analogies (to astrology or to Freudianism or to cold fusion or to physicians bleeding their patients) and instead jump to a much more strained analogy to the bad government-funded science of the Tuskegee experiment, it would be the same special kind of insulting. One doesn’t naturally arrive at “denier” or “Tuskegee” terminology unless one intends to bring in not just technical issues, but the universally vilified nontechnical ethical issues involved in those comparisons. To choose such an analogy when the nontechnical ethical issues don’t match is a special kind of rhetorical dishonesty, whether or not one is willing to the claim that the technical issues match.
I somewhat agree with the criticism (@20, @37) of Watts for picking up “denier” and using it. But note that once offensive terms are introduced, it sometimes happens that the targets to start using them perversely as defiance. (E.g., “Whigs” and “Tories.”) It’s also very common and logical when a class of unreasonable arguments becomes common for the targets to start using them to point out a dishonest double standard. (E.g., I don’t think “peer-reviewed literature” is a very good touchstone, but given how broadly it was accepted by the IPCC and its supporters, it’s logical to beat them up for it when they violate the standard by screwing around with submission dates and gray literature.)
I think the text of Bolt’s article isn’t well characterized by the headline. I would guess that the headline is what you’re referring to by “who’s exploiting the Holocaust now?” The headline suggests something like “because of the moral force of the six million dead, it is incredibly disrespectful to use the term ‘denier’ in this context.” But the article seems to be making a different argument, roughly “because the situation isn’t analogous to premeditated mass murder for purely corrupt motives on an industrial scale, it is incredibly dishonest to use the term ‘denier’ in this context.”
I could almost answer “yes” to Kloor’s question w.r.t. the headline of Bolt’s article. I fully agree that the headline writer is making an invalid appeal to the moral authority of the victims of the Holocaust. I would disagree with “exploiting” only because that verb has connotations that don’t seem to quite match. (For comparison, “Jesus didn’t die on the cross so that I would be tacitly complicit in scientific dishonesty,” “Jesus didn’t die on the cross so that we would give up Palestine,” “God didn’t grant us Palestine and miraculously facilitate our return s.t.w.w.g.u.P.,” and “the Prophet didn’t devote his blessed life to sweeping the mideast as the miraculous scourge of God s.t.w.w.g.u.P.” all resonate in part by appeal to the moral authority of dead bodies. While those appeals all seem invalid to me, I wouldn’t use the word “exploiting” to describe what’s wrong with any of them.)
I think the article text seems fairly reasonable, and it doesn’t seem to me that it’s exploiting the Holocaust. What about you (Kloor)? Do you think the article text is exploiting the Holocaust?
Sorry Lazar, I find your arguments in 123 and 124 to be not up to your usual standards.
On the other hand, William Newman at 125 and 126 makes some compelling points.
Lazar #113
“..I don’t care if a royal “˜we’ has put “˜denier’ “beyond the Pale”.
Andrew Bolt is a denier…”
LoL… Lazar is a typical MWP denier.
He insults Andrew because he does not go with the “consensus”.
Andrew: What consensus? The American Physical Society reports:
As others have already mentioned the problem with the label skeptic is that it confers a legitimacy that in most cases isn’t warranted. To be a skeptic one needs to have a degree of expertise in the subject matter at hand, which for most people isn’t the case when it comes to climate change. Roy Spencer and Judy Curry get to be skeptics, Tom Fuller doesn’t. Sorry Tom, but you just don’t. As I’ve said many times before, in the absence of relevant scientific exptertise the only rational position is either acceptance of the consensus position (i.e. 1.5-4.5) or at most agnosticism.
This debate about how hurt one’s feelings are if they’re called a denialist or a denier is tedious. It is an interesting point about whether or not the use of such terms is effective at swaying the opinions of those engaged in the conversation, but that’s a separate question altogether. As to why we blog, well I think that for many it’s mostly about sh1t$ and giggles rather than harboring a delusion about ‘converting’ someone over to your side…
I personally like flat-earther and knuckle dragger better than denier, but I’m also willing to go with card-carrying-member-of-the-tinfoil-hat-club. It’s a mouthful but it points to the conspiratorial thinking of many so called climate skeptics.
Sorry, Marlowe
You’re not the decider in chief either. I know it hurts, but that’s the way it is.
lazar.
Bolt is a denier? what exactly are you pointing to in that article that makes him a denier? Romm, for example, recently called me a denier.
1. I believe that man has increased GHGs
2. I believe that more C02 warms the planet
3. I believe that the temperature record is largely correct
4. I believe in a sensitivity that is within IPPC guidance
5. I believe action on climate change should start Now.
Oh, I happen to think that some processes in the science profession need addressing, open code, open data, better ethics, better administration. For calling attention to some practices that are not the best science can do, I get thrown in with the idiots who dont understand basic physics.
So, why do you call Bolt a denier? That’s a open honest question. what are you pointing to? whats it take to be called a denier
I think Marlowe misunderstands the difference between skepticism and agnosticism.
“To be a skeptic one needs to have a degree of expertise in the subject matter at hand, which for most people isn’t the case when it comes to climate change.”
This seems hardly correct. For example, Without knowing anything about a topic whatsoever, I can hold certain skeptical positions. For example, once I knew nothing about tree rings. Zip, Nada. But, I do know this. it is utterly rational to withhold judgment when a researcher withholds his data. It is utterly rational to be skeptical of the claims of a branch of science that engages in certain data practices that do not represent best practices. Now, of course, having read, a ton of dendro lit, I’m even more skeptical. On Climate sensitivity. In the beginning I knew nothing, well that’s not true, I knew the basic maths of feedbacks and forcings and gains in other types of systems. Basically understanding the proceedures we use to determine these types of these. I then compare the quality and completeness of the work in the fields I know to the quality and completeness of the work I see in climate science. Color me unimpressed.
There are various forms of skepticism. Various ways of doubting. Some require no subject matter expertise, they are purely process oriented.
I’d like to start a discussion about which end of the egg that one should cut. Should one cut the narrow or the broad end.
Marlowe, would you care to define “relevant scientific expertise” – with some specificity please, I’d like to sort out who gets to question the consensus and who gets to buy a tin-foil-hat.
Or is this just a weak appeal to authority to go along with your other lazy strawman: that skeptics believe in a grand scientific conpsiracy.
And I assume you will agree the climate scientists, lacking relevant expertise, are not qualified to comment on energy policy.
Lazar
“A threat is a communication. But “˜denier of xxxx’ is not a threat. I would suggest that those who feel threatened take some chill pills.”
I’ve explained this many times. There is a key turning point in the debate over climate. the key turning point is the point at which one side says “the debate is over.” Now what does this mean? It effectively is a signal by one side to the other side that the time for talking and discussing is over. It’s time for action. When such a statement is made unilaterally by one side in a debate it also signals the following: If you keep talking, we will ignore you. passive banishment. If you still persist, then we will banish you in other ways. We will call you ignorant. If you still persist we will banish you morally. We will call you liars. If you still persist in talking we will banish you with criminal terms. This is a well known pattern of handling people who continue to speak when an issue is settled. first you ignore them. Then you might call them stupid or uneducated, then you progress to calling them crazy, or immoral. Then you criminalize their beliefs. At first metaphorically. Once you have done this, then there are two following steps. First is fantasizing violence against them. Lastly, if they persist, you hurt them.
So it’s not that the word “denier” constitutes a threat. It just means that some people have begun to characterize one side of the debate in a way that metaphorically criminalizes their beliefs. And yes, after that term entered the debate, we did in fact see people argue that climate change skepticism WAS criminal. And yes after that we did see people fantasize about doing harm to people who refused to get with the program.
Simply, when you tell me the debate is over, that means, the fight is on. That means, literally means, that now is the time for the application of power and force.
re 130
=======
As I’ve said many times before, in the absence of relevant scientific exptertise the only rational position is either acceptance of the consensus position (i.e. 1.5-4.5) or at most agnosticism.
=========
Does “relevant scientific expertise” in climate science include a knowledge of undergraduate statistics?
When one falsely claims or insinuates that mainstream climate scientists are perpetuating a fraud or doing various evil deeds, while throwing around various labels at them, their hysterical complaints over an innocuous label directed towards them is laughable. Far worse labels are deserved than “denier”, or “idiot” (a term Mosher uses in #132 to describe those who are more skeptical than him, part of an Argument to Moderation fallacy designed to appear more credible).
Yeah, New York J, like ‘incorrect’ or ‘mistaken.’ Oooh–the burn.
I’m reminded of a classic George Carlin line. Mosher provides the Denier-Leads-To-This-Which-Leads-To-That-Which-Leads-To-Ever-Worse-Things argument. As part of this, he states:
If you still persist, then we will banish you in other ways. We will call you ignorant.
Just previously, Mosher describes those who don’t accept his view of science as “idiots”, so by his logic we can only presume he wants to hurt people and subjugate them with power and force, and he’s already much beyond the “denier label” stage that initiates these horrible dominoes.
I get thrown in with the idiots who dont understand basic physics.
The debate’s over! They’re all idiots. Reminds me of Curry’s recent bout with a dragon-slayer. She tried, but got tired of arguing with an idiot, too dumb, too blind, too driven to sell nonsense to accept science that no serious knowledgeable person disputes. Yet anyone who accepts more of the science is close-minded, trying to stifle debate. Any conspiracy nut uses this argument. It’s another victim ploy, similar to claiming “denier” means Holocaust Denial.
On to George Carlin:
“Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”
Are you then saying that there is a conspiracy of conspiracy nuts out to take down climate science?
I think you’re just thowing random insults out trying to pick a fight and hijack the thread. But then, ascribing a motive to you might be too generous.
Steven Mosher,
“So, why do you call Bolt a denier? That’s a open honest question. what are you pointing to? whats it take to be called a denier”
Here…
“No consensus, and no warming, either”
“And still the planet won’t warm”¦ And the seas, since 2005, won’t rise.”
The planet is warming. The seas are rising. There is a consensus that the planet is warming and sea levels are rising.
“I happen to think that some processes in the science profession need addressing, open code, open data”
Do you have any thoughts on Watts’ claims to ownership of some surfacestations data? Also an open, honest question, since I remember you recommending ‘warmists’ getting involved and contributing to the project, and don’t know what the legal or ethical grounds are…
“I have provided them with my surfacestations.org dataset to allow them to use it to run a comparisons against their data. The only caveat being that they won’t release my data publicly until our upcoming paper and the supplemental info (SI) has been published. Unlike NCDC and Menne et al, they respect my right to first publication of my own data and have agreed.”
Mosher,
“There is a key turning point in the debate over climate. the key turning point is the point at which one side says “the debate is over”. […] When such a statement is made unilaterally by one side in a debate it also signals the following: If you keep talking, we will ignore you. passive banishment. If you still persist, then we will banish you in other ways. We will call you ignorant. If you still persist we will banish you morally. We will call you liars. If you still persist in talking we will banish you with criminal terms. This is a well known pattern of handling people who continue to speak when an issue is settled.”
Individuals make statements. Individuals with different meanings of ‘debate’, ‘over’, and different ideas of what appropriate response(s) to science denial may be. If I say that someone is a denier, it does not imply that I will ignore them, nor that I will call them a liar, nor that I will invoke criminal law. It does not imply that someone else will, either..Heck, I’m opposed to the criminilization of Holocaust denial, which is the law in Germany iirc. And I was vocal against that horrid little “No pressure” film. Deal with individuals, We are not the borg. Individuals have free will. They are responsible for their beliefs. Those beliefs are justified, or not, by xyz, or not.
From now on, I’m going with ‘decarbonizers’. I’m gonna label my side the ‘non-decarbonizers’ and the other side the ‘decarbonizers’. Maybe I’ll use DCers and NDCers, for short.
Now, all you decarbonizers can call me anything you want, Just keep your paws away from my wallet.
Mosher,
The behavior, denial or whatever label you use for it, is real. You ain’t gonna persuade people to avoid discussing the behavior, however slippery the paths you may claim exist in discussing the behavior. You might persuade that reactions such as criminalizing the behevior are irrational. Hush hush, look away, doesn’t work. You know, you’ve said so, sunshine and all that.
Lasar #145
“…The behavior, denial or whatever label you use for it, is real…”
WoW….I find something that we can both agree with.
MWP denialism is very much real and insidious.
denialists HAVE to deny the MWP. Their talking points of “the warmest EVER” goes right down the tubes if they ever accept science over faith. They get down right anti-science in pushing their faith based reasoning.
Just some odds and ends,
Ed Forbes 106 – don’t think that Eli has said much about the MWP, maybe something like strong evidence for such in various areas. The Rabett, is a MWP agnostic
Tom Fuller, 112 – if you are going to tone troll about denialist, perhaps Eli should take strong umbrage at your use of the term beyond the Pale (look it up)
Steven Mosher,
“So, why do you call Bolt a denier? That’s a open honest question. what are you pointing to? whats it take to be called a denier”
Here”¦
“No consensus, and no warming, either”
“And still the planet won’t warm”¦ And the seas, since 2005, won’t rise.”
The planet is warming. The seas are rising. There is a consensus that the planet is warming and sea levels are rising.
#############
Really? I think if you look at what Bolt says he is cherry picking. Is the planet warming? well that’s an imprecise question. Over what time period?
Now, if some said it is cooler now than in 1850, I’d call him factually wrong. I have found that I have no trouble convincing “skeptics” that it has warmed, given a clear definition. The point is if you engage them in dialogue about what they mean, you can move the ball forward, with some of them.
“I happen to think that some processes in the science profession need addressing, open code, open data”
“Do you have any thoughts on Watts’ claims to ownership of some surfacestations data? Also an open, honest question, since I remember you recommending “˜warmists’ getting involved and contributing to the project, and don’t know what the legal or ethical grounds are”¦”
I find this question to be uninformed. i’ve answered more questions about Anthony and his project than you or any one has about Mann or Jones. But somehow people think it is clever or something to aks me to make statements about Anthony. On the outside chance that you havent read me before I will repeat myself. The surfacestations data is all public. What is NOT PUBLIC is the RESULT of Anthony’s categorization of sites. It’s very simple. The data consists of the photographs. the result consists of the RANKINGS. Look at a photo, Rank the site. The photo is the data. The ranking is the result of applying a method. For a week or so I sat down and started this ranking on my own. It’s boring and tedious. Further, even after Anthony posts his rankings my suggestion will be that his Rankings have to be verified. It has to be repeated by an independent group of people. I’ve said this a number of times. It’s getting tedious.
Anthony looked at all the data and did RANKINGS. the method for the rankings is public. I know because I found LeRoy’s ranking system and pointed anthony at it. he applied that method to the data. The output of that is a RESULT. Now, anyone can take the photographs and apply the method. in fact, I believe when Menne wrote his paper they also did some site rankings. Still from the begining I have requested publically that Anthony post his ranking results. He would like a chance to publish his temperature results first. Anyone who wants to beat him to it can sit down with the photos and apply the ranking. So, I don’t know what more people would like me to say. I’ve asked him publically to release the data. I’ve pointed out to others that they dont have to wait. they can do the Rankings themselves, in fact this must be done before I will accpet any conclusions. I’ve even said on many occasions that I do NOT expect the site rankings to show any significant effect. the planet is warming. C02 is a principle cause of this. Site Bias will be small, if its even detectable. Even if the bias were LARGE I would still favor action on climate change. (And yes, hiding the decline was bad science.) As for the Legal aspects, I’m not a lawyer. As always If you can cite the law, I can read and give my judgment. FWIW
Ethically, I understand Anthony’s desire to have first bite at his apple. I would act differently. If I had done the rankings they would be public because I have no desire to have my name on a science paper. So, the photographs are the data. they are open. the method is the ranking system. it is open. Anthony has not published his result: the site rankings. Nor has he published the result of any temperature analysis. Still, I encourage him to publish his preliminary result ( the rankings) so that people like me who dont care about publishing peer reviewed studies can do our own thing with it. If I were in is shoes I would publish. Is he evil because he does not publish his rankings, the result of applying an open method to open data? I don’t think so. If he published a paper showing an effect from site bias, and refused to release the photographs and surveys so that his ranking could be double checked, then he would be guilty of a Mann act. I’d have no issue saying that. In fact on several occasions I’ve castigated Willis for his failure to supply data and code. I’ve castigated Scarfetta. And yes, I’ve publically criticized Watts and D’Aleo for their SPPI piece and rebutted their arguments on WUWT. One final note, if Anthony finds himself in a position where he cannot get his result published, I think he has an obligation to share his rankings. Guess what? Anthony knows these are my positions and he lets me publish on WUWT.
Lazar.
For quite some time you and others who believe in AGW have controlled the dialog with the “other side”. How is your approach working? The Mann Jones approach of ignoring them? how about the approach of saying that McIntyre is an Oil Shill? how about the 10:10 video? here is a clue. Those of us who believe in AGW and who believe that we have to take action are sick and tied of the results the tactics of the past have delivered. When you have some success in getting the results that both you and I want, THEN and only then will I listen to your arguments about the right way to dialogue. Until then, I’ll question your tactics because 10 years of utter failure is getting kinda old.
10:10 was made because the people behind it thought it was a good idea and would help persuade others to the cause. What actually happened was the exact inverse of those people’s expectations. What turned people away from the 10:10 message is the same thing that turns people away when the label ‘denier’ is used. I would argue a simple case that using the denier label reflects more badly on the person using it than the target of the label. If that’s true, I can only assume that it’s usage is actually meant more along the lines of how Stuart R described it on the other thread- as shrieking bird calls in the jungle. To members of the same species, it’s beautiful bird song. Everybody else though hears a shrill, squarking mess.
When Romm refers to Steve Mosher as a ‘hard core denier’, it’s ‘progressive’ bird squarking. Romm has given up a chance at a broader appeal by choosing to communicate only within his subset of increasingly rare and threatened species. If someone wants to use ‘denier’ as a broadbrush label and an argument, then sure, go ahead. But think about what you’re really aiming for.
Think of it this way- everytime someone in the climate camp uses the word denier, a songbird dies.
The term “denier” does not offend me what it offends is this:
http://www.eilatgordinlevitan.com/kovno/kovno_pix/060804_1c_b.gif
Mosher,
Thank you for your response re Anthony that clears things up a bit. You have a track record of impartiality which I can trust and tend to be informed. You wrote a book. You talk about these issues *a lot*. That’s why I asked. It was an opportunity for info, not an attempted gotcha.
“Is the planet warming? well that’s an imprecise question. Over what time period?”
The mean annual temperature is increasing with time, from year to year.
“if you look at what Bolt says he is cherry picking”
Like the man who looks at the horizon and claims the earth is flat is cherry picking.
“For quite some time you and others who believe in AGW have controlled the dialog with the “other side”.”
I’ve participated in open forums. How have I “controlled the dialog”?
“How is your approach working?”
What approach? I don’t have *one* approach. Individuals are as they come. Spent a couple of months reasoning with one, others, like Ed above, I ignore. So, which approaches and what metrics are we talking about?
“The Mann Jones approach of ignoring them?”
Whom and what are Mann/Jones alleged to have ignored?
“the approach of saying that McIntyre is an Oil Shill?”
There is of course no evidence of McIntyre being an oil shill. It’s as silly as when McIntyre goes on and on about “The Team”.
“how about the 10:10 video?”
I believe I called that ecofascist.
“When you have some success in getting the results that both you and I want,”
What results do I want? Why do you believe that I’m participating in internet forums to get those results?
“THEN and only then will I listen to your arguments about the right way to dialogue.”
C’est la vie.
“The point is if you engage them in dialogue about what they mean, you can move the ball forward, with some of them.”
With some of them, certainly.
I’ve read enough by Bolt, including his responses to comments, to judge (attempting) engaging with Bolt to be a waste of time.
Bolt is another squarker. If memory serves, he’s equated environmentalists with nazis on atleast a few occasions I’ve happened over his opinion pieces. My old formed opinion of him is that if global warming were an issue that could help liberals get elected (as the term applies to Australian politics), he would ‘believe’ in global warming.
Mosher,
“Romm, for example, recently called me a denier.”
I don’t read Romm. You’re too clever to be a denier. Your problem, if you care, is one of trust. If you don’t care, then it’s someone else’s problem.
Rabett at #147, Yes, I understand what I write. Why do you think I capitalized Pale? And yes, I believe that you (although thankfully not many in your bunker) would cheerfully organize a pogrom against denializerists if you had the power.
Tom Tone Troll: Eli, of course, being one of the circumscribed would never organize a program, however, he would recommend some blood pressing medicines for you.
Eli Tone Deaf Rabett: You may be circumscribed–hell, I’m circumcised and I’m sure you wouldn’t have the guts to organise such a program. But you’d be walking along with the group, pitchfork in hand.
someone better call Andrew Bolt…
Baumeister, R.F., Dale, K. & Sommer, K.L., 1998. Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial. Journal of Personality, 66(6), pp.1081-1124.
Crosby, F., 1984. The Denial of Personal Discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(3), pp.371 -386.
Levine, J. et al., 1987. The role of denial in recovery from coronary heart disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 49(2), pp.109 -117.
Lazar, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
Ellen Goodman, “No change in political climate”, Boston Globe, 9 February 2009:http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/ .
She’s entitled to her opinion as I am mine.
FWIW, I can’t imagine what she could have meant by “on a par with” that would be logically sound.
I’ve had it up to ^^ here with being called a denier so I’ve resorted to calling some of my friends “global warming terrorists.” Its not fair and I’d rather not do it but I hope it drives the point home.
I don’t think logic was her prime consideration at the time of writing.
likely
OK Keith, gonna make Tommy take his meds or do we continue playing?
Eli and Tom: Your ugly little tit for tat is over. Seems like you bring out the worst in each other.
Lazar,
We clearly are not getting anywhere. I would say this. Every time I have slipped and referred to what “skeptics” or “contrarians or whatever the eff we want to call them, I have regretted it. Why? because I lost an opportunity to be more precise and potentially more effective. I guess calling Bolt a denialist ADDS NOTHING to the argument I would have with him. I would rather be precise and accurate in calling out his mistakes. I would rather hold people to account rather than lump them into groups.
So, I’ve tried to convince you and others that the word “denier” really doesnt work. Tom thinks its offensive. I can see that case. I think people can take it as threatening or presaging ultimate sanctions. You like the word. It does something for you. Maybe you think it gives you an economy of speaking. I think at the bottom, you and others can do better.
I just don’t think the word works very well for the goal we want to achive. I think we want to generate some measure of buy in from the populus at large for the painful measures we may have to take.
We can argue about this some more, but what will convince me is this: an argument that establishes that “denier” is the best tool in our chest. It’s not. in fact if you want to distract people from the real issue, keep using that word. It doesnt offend me when people use that label against me. It amuses me. But I do know that it does offend Tom. FWIW
Mosher,
That’s the point. I would not have an argument with Bolt. The information as to why Bolt is multiply wrong is out there and is easily found. You can argue with Bolt till you’re blue in the face, Mosh, the curve of diminishing returns is flat as a pancake. The ‘same’ arguments have been repeated ad nauseum. I use ‘denial’ or ‘denier’ as a shorthand description of the behavior of an individual. It’s also a flag that I do not take their arguments seriously. If anyone is interested why this person is not being taken seriously, they find out easily. They can also look up the behavior. If you want to counteract the behavior, you need to acknowledge it exists. If I thought this negatively effected public buy in, I would change. Dynamics of opinion and psychology in the populus at large are *very* different and largely independent of the climate wars and especially these online forums. Here, you can effect an individual, but public opinion? I doubt it very much. This is a sideshow, Mosh.
And I don’t think public opinion needs to change. I think it is and has been sufficient for a decade or more. Heck a minority support could be sufficient if the political will were there. Our elected representatives generally understand the scale and the urgency of the problem. Corruption is our/their stumbling block. And the public won’t march in the streets or make serious local changes until the problem is immediate to them — as someone once said it will take a disaster.
KK understands where the problem is and focus needs to be.
Not the denialist sideshow. The man behind the curtain.
And here is another point where Keith is absolutely correct, and I wish ‘my side’ would take note. If you want to communicate science, then communicate science. Explain what scientists do. Give the public something they can connect with. Something to spark the interest. Not these surreal inane arguments on permanent replay. Ignore the denialists. Ignore the PR games. Ignore the op-eds. Ignore them. Please. Engaging with them is not the same as ‘engaging with the public’, not even close. Even climategate blew over, was lost in the ebb and flow of the news cycle (and I was badly wrong about this).
See Mosh, we don’t have the same goals.
You think the public needs persuading.
I don’t.
You think engaging with the online skeptic tribe helps to persuade the public.
I don’t.
You think ‘my side’ are not engaging with the online skeptics.
I think we’re engaging too much.
Yeah, too much. Any time a scientist has a new result they write a decent paper and jump through the hoops just to get heard. Every week they do this, every week something interesting and worthwhile is published. Every week my side *ignore* the former and give attention to something unreviewed, messy, incomplete, irrelevant, illogical, empirically flawed, or inane published by Watts, PR by McIntyre etc. Now Mcintyre can publish in journals, so can McKitrick, so can O’Donnell, so can Condon, even Watts and Loehle can. But they generally don’t. Because they don’t have to. Because we don’t apply the same bar. Why do you think that Watts is happy to let you publish on his site? Giving Watts et al. attention is fine if our aim is to study logic, behavior and rhetoric. But it’s not. We say we want to communicate science. To the public.
Fundamentally this comes down to at what point do you have enough agreement to require (make) people do things that some of them don’t want to do? Everyone is never going to be on board. How do you deal with those who, although small in number (among the small in number) are rich in resources and buy FUD without limit?
re 174
Prof Rabbet
Democracy is a very messy thing isn’t it. You have to take peoples’s preferences into account. Even those people who do not agree with you. Fortunately many democratic institutions have been set up to do just that. They rely on compromise and respect between the sides. Surprisingly to some, they work
Folks should note what I said above about the logic of “the debate is over.”
It leads to someone somewhere contemplating how you “make” people do things.
ecofascists
re 176
Remember climate scientists are smarter than the rest of us. They should be obeyed in all things. They review each others’ papers .and are dazzled by the intelligence they find there. They should not be forced to listen to the ideas of lesser mortals who do not publish in climate science journals.
Phil Jones is a watermelon!
Mosher,
“someone somewhere contemplating how you “make” people do things […] ecofascists“
We have law and government to make people do things. Law and government are not fascism. We have laws that prevent people from dumping their filth into the street. Would you prefer those laws not exist? Laws to prevent dumping into streams, lakes, the atmosphere. Without law and government there is no society, no culture, no civilization, nothing.
Tom Gray,
Publishing in journals isn’t prohibitive.
School children do it.
Blackawton, P. S. et al. (2010), Blackawton bees, Biology Letters, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.1056. [online] Available from: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12/18/rsbl.2010.1056.abstract
“The present study (on the vision of bumble-bees) goes even further, since it was not only performed outside my laboratory (in a Norman church in the southwest of England), but the “˜games’ were themselves devised in collaboration with 25 8- to 10-year-old children. They asked the questions, hypothesized the answers, designed the games (in other words, the experiments) to test these hypotheses and analysed the data. They also drew the figures (in coloured pencil) and wrote the paper. Their headteacher (Dave Strudwick) and I devised the educational programme (we call “˜i,scientist’), and I trained the bees and transcribed the childrens’ words into text (which was done with smaller groups of children at the school’s local village pub).”
Peer review sets a minimum standard that means Watts must raise his game and McIntyre must drop the PR fluff and follow through to effect sizes.
But then how would the fans get riled up?
re 180
Lazar
I have published in journals and I have reviewed papers for publications in journals. I am quite familiar with the limitations of peer review.
I am quite familiar with communities who review each others work for publication. I know of one community that still reviews and publishes despite being told by outsiders that their work has been surpassed and has little to no application to real world problems. That this is true only reinforces their determination to ignore these comments.
The relation of this community’s behavior to that of some aspects of climate science is left as an exercise. The people who do research in innovation would not find this behavior surprising. it is a standard tactic used when a community is challenged by a disruptive idea.
Your comment on McIntyre and effect size misses the entire point of McIntyre’s critique of these reconstructions. This is common in climate science and another common aspect in the resistance to disruptive ideas
re 180 again
I was at a conference e once in which the keynote speaker was someone who had made a major disruptive advance in the field. The field changed direction because of her work. She described her ideas for the benefit of the broader community and then asked for questions. Her first question came from someone who berated her for not following the old methods and told her that if she did not then she would have no credibility.
I suppose that in climate science terms she would have been a “denier”. That she pointed out a fundamental limitation in the field and showed a technique to overcome it was one of the primary reasons that she had “no credibility”.
The term “denier” can then be seen in a broader context. It is part of a common reaction to novel and disruptive ideas. My suggestion is that it would be a good idea for people who study innovation to take climate science as a fruitful area of study. Their work has indicated that the incumbents in a field do not change their minds whn confronted with a disruptive advance. Indeed, the advance must be protected from them. As the advance matures, the incumbents are replaced and will leave still denying the importance of the advance.
Terms like “denier” are just examples of the tactics that incumbents will use
re 179
Lazar
Why did you direct your answer to Mosher and not Rabbett who asked the question? He was the one who asked how these decisions should be implemented.
re 181
Actually I have experience of this in two communities. That the outsiders are correct is not important to them.
“Your comment on McIntyre and effect size misses the entire point of McIntyre’s critique of these reconstructions.”
The point?
The Team! A six sigma tree! The Team! Six sigma! Hansen in Guatawherever! The Team! The Team! The Team!
PuRe fluff.
re 185
McIntrye’s point si that the reconstructions are not independent. They rely on the same small set of “proxies”
His otehr point is that the proxies seem odd in the in several examples, they relates to temperature with one direction in one century and to the directly opposite direction in other centuries.
In other examples, he shows how certain proxies are chosen and related proxies are discarded for no apparent reason. Reconstruction sdervied from thee different proxies show different results.
In other examples, he shows how certain proxies are trumpeted as proving something but that updates to these proxies fail to show the same thing or are withheld from publication. He has published a scholarly paper on this and been insulted for doing it.
There have been many studies with different sets of proxies. The still get the same shape.
FWIW, what Lazar said. Democracy does not mean that one or two or even a third are a blocking majority, SM has a very strange view of what fascism is. Pay your taxes even though you might not like to, and yes, you can be forced to. Same goes for pollution laws, not dumping your garbage on the street, not dumping your wastes into the lake and more. Insisting that people don’t do any of these things is not not fascism. Insisting that you have the right to do these things is, well, right un-neighborly and likely to get you into serious trouble.
re 187
==========
There have been many studies with different sets of proxies. The still get the same shape.
============
McIntyre has documented how this is not so
also re 187
Rabbett says:
========
Democracy does not mean that one or two or even a third are a blocking majority, SM has a very strange view of what fascism is.
========
To my mind, fascism is not a useful term in discussing this tendency in climate scientists. “Authoritarian” seems to be much more accurate.
There are many forms of decision making in a democracy. Decisions can be made by a legislature; they can be made by a court; they can be made by a general consensus. A f consensus decision can be seen in the recent non-acceptance of smoking, drunk driving etc. Courts make decisions about unacceptable discrimination etc. The important thing about this is that these methods are not ued in isolation. All of these methods ar involved in a “conversation” in which the competing values and preferences of the members of eh population can be aired and considered.
Contrast this to the naive authoritarianism of many climate scientists. They have published their temperature reconstructs and now debate is over. People must follow their policy proposals or they are anti-scientific deniers. To me, this authoritarian predisposition of climate scientists is just more evidence that they do not have the capabilities of making effective policy. They should leave that to people who do and the institutions that have been created to further the process. Hulme and Peilke Junior has shown this to be true