The Phony Victim
This is rich:
So after being bombarded with all the news stories about how offensive this term is, and noting that some of the same people doing reporting lambasting Perry over the name of a ranch called “niggerhead” have absolutely no trouble at all calling people like me and the readers of WUWT “deniers” (Think Progress, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, among others) which is also an ugly and offensive term due to the connection to “holocaust deniers”.
Yes, Anthony, I’m sure black people feel your pain. And the “Jewish race” too.
Everybody loves to play the victim card these days. Faux indignation uber alles.
But I find the term ‘denier’ is offensive even without the convenient holocaust link simply because it is false.
Denial refers to an irrational rejection of facts. One doesn’t deny theories, particularly ones as shaky as the one being promoted by the AGW Team. One only questions such theories.
Skeptics is the appropriate term.
I keep saying, the problem with the use of ‘denier’ is that it is intentionally used to injure and denigrate the addressee. It is not as pejorative as the ‘n’ word, obviously. But you would place me in moderation if I used an equivalent term for those who call me a denier.
Anthony’s got it backwards. He isn’t being compared pejoratively with enslaved black people. He is being compared morally to defenders of slavery.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/10/29/the-abolition-analogy/
Denying the holocaust and denying black people the right to freedom are both morally repugnant. And Anthony and people like him are being tarred with the same brush. He’s even being punched out in fictionalised television shows.
I’m sure radical environmentalists and card carrying socialists couldn’t care less.
It’s been said here many times, but the people screaming most loudly about the word “denier” are the ones making most frequent use of the terms “warmist”, “alarmist”, etc. while pretentiously likening their own views to that of Galileo, and hand-waving away any evidence presented that contradicts their views. They tend to invite the term.
@4
I don’t agree that they invite the term. Rather, to your point, they invite charges of phoniness and hypocrisy.
Watts and Morano doth protest too much. They both long ago forfeited the high ground in this debate.
Hypocrisy: I guess it’s kinda like how some left leaning bloggers were screaming “right wing rhetoric” after the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy.
No, NewYorkJ, I am screaming the loudest about the use of ‘denier’ and I use troll for people like you. You don’t rise to the level of alarmist.
On my 3 post, let’s switch off all energy derived from fossil fuels right this instant. Somebody give the order. Now have the guts to hold yourself personally responsible.
Then let’s talk about the morality of that act.
KK: I don’t agree that they invite the term. Rather, to your point, they invite charges of phoniness and hypocrisy.
That too.
KK: Watts and Morano doth protest too much. They both long ago forfeited the high ground in this debate.
I think we can extend that observation to the excitable individual behind door #7.
My views are based on science and (I hope) are reasonably well known. I can stand my ground against anybody, as Dr. Tobis and the RC team had a few chances to witness. I am perfectly happy to be called “denier” by the likes of NYJ. It tells a lot more about him than about me. I don’t give a flying f**k about his opinions. And don’t call me a victim.
Speaking of the word “alarmist” I honestly don’t see why would anyone consider it offensive. These people are alarmed aren’t they? And the want more people to be alarmed, right? So why not call them alarmists? This is is just a fair description.
I for one don’t really care when people use the word ‘denier’, it only damages their own case and reveals their own penchant for orthodoxy. See also: “pro-pollution” etc.
Hitting the boo-hoo button everytime somebody uses it is ironically similar to the pc types often decried by those on the right and is more than a little boring at this point. I suppose this is an attempt to prosecute progressives by their own rules by pointing out hypocrisy which is fair, but it shouldn’t come as any surprise that partisans use partisan language. The real problem as I see it is when it is used uncritically by ostensibly unbiased sources (scientists, government officials etc). This pathologizes the beliefs of a large swath of society, is needlessly antagonistic and damages the credibility of these institutions by politicizing them.
Re #4
“a·larm·ist/əˈlärmist/
“Noun: Someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.
Adjective: Creating needless worry or panic.
More »Dictionary.com – Answers.com – Merriam-Webster – The Free Dictionary”
Hmm. So what are the connotations of this word which in any way are comparable to those of ‘denier.’
Same question for ‘warmist.’
See title of this blog, then look in the mirror.
Menth is bang on.
Start using the ‘D’ word and you stop being a scientist.
Common definitions:
Deny:
To refuse to believe; reject.
Denier:
One who denies
Denialism:
Choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth
Alarmist:
A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
Sashka just can’t understand why such a term (used frequently by people like Lindzen and other less-sophisticated individuals to describe mainstream scientists) might be considered a little derogatory, but we’re talking about someone who on one thread, denied that skeptical blogs censor comments, and on a recent one, routinely hand-waved away a large body of evidence strongly suggesting climate sensitivity is > 2 C, then felt the need here to proudly proclaim great confidence in claimed abilities to stand ground on scientific issues.
Following the logic in #11 and #12, Lindzen has ceased to be a scientist. Fair enough, although I would argue such terms do not disqualify one’s argument. “Denier” and “Alarmist” are of the same variety, in that both suggest someone’s argument is not based on sound reasoning (EdG points this out for the former in #1). The key difference is that overwhelmingly, those using the term “denier” aren’t really complaining much about the general usage of other terms like “alarmist”, while those using “alarmist”, “hoax”, “warmist”, are screaming bloody murder and demonizing all who dare to use the dreaded “D” word. To them I would suggest they dry their crocodile tears and take a good hard look in the mirror. Like it or not, the word “denier” is not going away.
Sashka tries to equate being alarmed with being alarmist. I object.
Alarmist carries the notion of exaggerating. Calling “fire!” merely when there’s a smoky smell from a bbq. So yes, I do find the term entirely incorrect and an attempt to paint the other as irrational or as being misleading.
In that respect I find the term “alarmist” equivalent to the term “denier”.
I’m not sure what you position here is.
Is it that:
a) All name calling is fine. People should stop making a fuss. Jews and black people too.
b) All name calling is bad. Terms like “watermelon” and “denier” should be avoided in civilised debate.
c) People should consistently either allow all name calling or object to all name calling. To allow “denier” but object to “frauds and hoaxers”, or vice versa, is inconsistent – or at least, partisan.
d) It depends. Some names are OK to call and some are not, some people are allowed to call others names and some are not. We get to pick the rules, and change them when we like.
e) I can be partisan and inconsistent too.
On the one hand you allow “deniers” and see nothing wrong with it, so that seems to eliminate (b). On the other, I saw you object the other day to “card-carrying socialist”, so that eliminates (a) and (c).
You objected to Watts being insufficiently vehement in his condemnation of Monckton labelling totalitarians as “nazis”, but is that because you think Monckton was wrong and it required a stronger condemnation (I recall here your comments policy that public figures are “fair game”), or simply that while you yourself think nazi slurs are perfectly acceptable, people either have to accept them all or oppose them all with equal force?
Humans can no more be perfectly consistent than they can be consistently perfect. It’s a fine aspiration to aim for, but it can’t be a requirement. Watts is human, and so, it appears, are you.
“In that respect I find the term “alarmist” equivalent to the term “denier”.”
Agree.
Warmist is pretty innocent though.
After thinking about it for a bit, I find both denier and alarmist to be biased terms, which are un-scientific.
A person who uses the term denier has a smug certainty that the person they apply the label to is completely wrong on the science – so wrong that they are denying reality. But what if the labeler is actually wrong to be smug?
A person who uses the term alarmist has a smug certainty that the person they apply the label to is completely wrong on the science – so wrong that they are actually spreading falsehoods. But what if the labeler is actually wrong to be smug?
Both terms are non-scientific, and betray a biased viewpoint which is based on belief and not evidence.
The evidence is still equivocal.
There exist both deniers and alarmists. There are also skeptics and the alarmed. The partisanship comes from trying to label skeptics as “deniers” for weak point-scoring. Vice versa applies as well.
KK likes to point out the vice-versa, but not the weak point-scoring. No biggie- we all have partisan filters. To whit- we’ve seen a bunch of recent posts about the Tea Party and their alleged unspoken, unwritten obsession with both global warming and evolution denial, yet not a peep about the new left-wing tea party in KK’s back yard: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/10/04/house_progressives_embrace_occupywallstreet.html
If the Tea Party is instructive about the GOP then certainly the new Tea Party is instructive about the Democrats. Right? So, how do the alarmed feel about the new progressive tea party placing global warming low on the priority scale?
jeffn,
Occupy Wall st is an interesting development. But its preposterous to say they are the left wing equivalent of the tea party.
The Republican Party has become hostage to the Tea Party. The Prez candidates getting all the ink and maybe the one who gets the nomination (although Perry is tanking of late) are favorites of the Tea Party.
Let me know when Obama and the Dem party are taking their cue from the crowd at Occupy Wall st. Then maybe you can say they’re the left wing equivalent of the tea party.
Meanwhile, nice try.
“The left’s Tea Party” is the theme that most news outlets (especially those who want to downplay the incoherence) are going with. It is not my invention.
Here’s MSNBC making the point: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44775365/ns/politics-more_politics/
The Slate article I linked to above is about Democrats in congress “taking their cue” from the new lefty tea party.
So… yeah, it was a nice try. Are you suggesting that a group that is currently “occupying” the front pages of the NY Times, the Washington Post, and leading the nets’ news coverage is unrepresentative of the left?
People who deny that the earth is currently getting warmer, who point to the last decade as proof that it is really getting colder, and who deny that human activity has increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, deserve the epithet “deniers” in my opinion. They clearly are denying the existence of real events. If they take umbrage so what?
Eric, nobody in the climate debate deserves to be classed with skinheads who deny the Holocaust occurred. It’s a cheap and vicious insult.
If they take umbrage, maybe they will be driven even further away from agreeing on policy choices that could save the planet. So STFU.
On second thought, Bart is right. “Alarmist” does carry a notion of exaggeration. Of course this is exactly what I think about you guys but this is irrelevant. So, what would be a neutral inoffensive term? Is “warmist” any better?
Tom,
I strongly doubt most people (anyone?) using the term denier means to classify their opponent as a holocaust-denying skinhead. I dislike the term myself as I find it pejorative, but lets keep some perspective here.
Hi Zeke,
It is with some trepidation that I disagree with you, but I do. I’m sure there are many who throw around the term without considering it, but its origin and its deliberate usage in certain circles are in my opinion unquestionably attempts to paint with the same brush. If you just watch its spread from Ellen Goodman’s first usage, it is pretty clear. Someone who hangs around here did a pretty good job of chronicling this, and I hope he/she spots this and maybe reposts their original comment.
here ya go tom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM
Wait, that’s not Ellen.
@26 Tom Fuller
First, I would note that not all Holocaust deniers are “skinheads” (or vice versa). But Goodman’s Feb. 2007 call-to-smear, in the context of a “reframing” exercise, was quite clear:
“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,“
To which Tom Yulsman had (quite correctly, IMHO) responded:
“Excuse me, but being skeptical about the scientific basis for global warming is nowhere near on a par with Holocaust denial. That is an utterly offensive statement “” one that seems to comes up more and more in liberal discourse about climate change. If this is reframing the issue, count me out. I’ll take run-of-the-mill catastrophism, thank you very much.”
source links (and more) at:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/of-labels-libels-and-language-launderers/
“Alarmist” does carry a notion of exaggeration.
Hows about: “chicken-littles” LIke, all the chicken-littles would have us believe…. I mean, it communicates something similar to alarmists – raising unwarranted alarm – but has kind of a playful connotation. I think chicken-littles would be a reasonably inoffensive noun.
I thought about bed-wetters, but that communicates something a little different – prone to cowardly reflexive responses to irrational fears (and it may offend those who actually suffer some medical bed-wetting syndrome) – plus, references to bodily waste always have a nasty sort of connotation. I think bed-wetters is probably the wrong noun.
I gave acolyte serious thought. It wouldn’t apply to the stalwarts of climate science – only their followers, who are much more numerous. The kind who routinely appeal to skeptical science. It kind of implies: not able to think independantly, gullible, follower, herd creature. It has religous overtones which always offends somebody, though I think the irony is rich. Yes, I think acolyte perfectly characterizes many of the chicken littles, but it too easily offends.
Denier wouldn’t be terribly inappropriate. I mean, they are denying that a lot of what passes for “climate science” is unadulterated horse manure. But denier has already been taken, and there’s that nazi skinhead thing to worry about.
OK, I’m sticking with chicken-littles.
ps. Sticks and stones and all that…
I wrote somewhere that it might be a good idea to stop calling people names.. Anthony Watts has stated he will even stop using something as mild as ‘warmist’..
I do think equating Watts Up, en a par with Climate Depot is very unfair..
But to keep the pro AGW proponents here happy, I get into a fight with James Delingpole himself about the use of watermelons ( I detest it) as an insult here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html
And a fully paid up climate scientist joins (pg 3 comments),in to say she has stopped using ‘denier’ because of Andrew Montford’s and mine civil behaviour..
So no more name calling by anyone please as a gesture of goodwill.
Or maybe no-one is intrested becaue, it is not about the USA, Tea Party, rebublicans or democrats but in a far off part of the ‘denialsphere’ called the UK.
Tom Fuller @23
“If they take umbrage, maybe they will be driven even further away from agreeing on policy choices that could save the planet. So STFU. ”
The deniers are not going to agree on any policy choices that will slow or stop GHG emissions. They deny the existence of the facts which point to AGW because they OPPOSE those policy choices .
Eric,
Deniers are not going to agree on any policy choices that will slow or stop GHG emissions is wrong. Deniers can and already do support policies that reduce emissions or other mitigations. The top denier, Sen. Imhoff, supports carbon soot reduction, which the scientific consensus says should be addressed first. So who is standing in anybody’s way?
“If they take umbrage, maybe they will be driven even further away from agreeing on policy choices that could save the planet.”
It makes little difference to agreement on policy choices, but it makes a big difference to whether they will treat the debate as being about politics or science. Insults mean you’re operating politically, you’re banging the war drums for your tribe, and there is no intention to discuss the matter or negotiate. You are playing in the Morano/Inhofe arena, where everything both sides say is seen as propaganda. You’re at a disadvantage there. It means giving up on the bipartisan consideration of which are the best options, and instead relying on dirty politics to force your opinions through.
“The deniers are not going to agree on any policy choices that will slow or stop GHG emissions.”
If this really was a planetary emergency, the first thing they would do is to do what France did a few decades ago and go nuclear. Not just a token handful that you’ll talk about, I mean like building hundreds, and clearing away any bureaucracy that gets in the way of doing it immediately. It’s the only low-emission technology we have that is currently feasible, and the only option open now that would go very far towards a solution.
And there are a lot of people on the other side of the debate that would go for that. Oh, some would still complain about the economics, but it would show that the politicians were serious, and would probably pass with some grumbling.
Neither the politicians nor most of the campaigners have even seriously considered such an option, and the only reason that could be is that reducing emissions is not the actual aim. Judging by the policies advocated, the aims appear to be two-fold: to raise taxes and regulatory control of industry, and to restructure society along less industrial/capitalist/consumerist lines, by force of law if necessary. The developing world supports it because they’re being promised free money to be redistributed, and corrupt segments of industry support the protectionism such regulation allows. None of the policies seriously proposed or enacted will have any detectable effect on the climate.
“They deny the existence of the facts which point to AGW because they OPPOSE those policy choices”
No. They deny the existence of facts pointing to AGW because the ‘science’ reporting them is thoroughly bent and has been exaggerated for political effect. They care enough to argue about it because it is being used to force through a disasterous political agenda, one that has nothing to do with climate.
If you are serious about getting sceptics to take climate castrophe seriously, then the first thing to do is clean up the science. Even if you don’t think it needs to be that clean, it’s very obviously the biggest weapon the sceptics have. Why let them keep it if you don’t have to?
You can start by releasing all the data and code. You can set up multi-disciplinary teams of physicists, statisticians, and computer scientists to inject some rigour. You can set up formal auditing of the results, with sceptics on those teams, to replicate and verify/validate everything, with their working published. And you can explicitly drop anything that doesn’t pass on quality, so the final published case contains nothing known to be unsupported or incorrect.
The faster you do it, the sooner we can take action. The more you resist doing it, the more we will assume it is because you have something to hide and know it. In fact, you should have started on that the moment you realised the problem was serious. For people to play academic politics and similar games with planetary Armageddon is beyond irresponsible.
You won’t do any of that, of course. You’ll instead whine about how it’s all the fault of “deniers” for not trusting your word and arguing back, and you have mountains of evidence that is good enough, and you just need to frame the message in a slightly different way so as to persuade, and we need to rush all the societal changes through quickly before everybody wakes up to what’s going on.
I think that politically AGW has peaked, so now it’s just a matter of time until it all collapses, like all the other scares. Because I take it seriously enough to consider the possibility I might be wrong, I’ll still tell you what you need to do to fix it. It’s a win for me either way, because if you believe in yourselves enough to do it we’ll find out if it’s true, and if you don’t, you’ll prove my point for me. It hurts nothing to give it.
I’d advise you to stop using terms like “denier”, because it only helps the political actors who want to stop action on climate no matter what. But it’s not the most important issue – the science is.
For people to play academic politics and similar games with planetary Armageddon is beyond irresponsible.
And is the tell…
And is the climate gate lesson.
Watch the Gish gallop
Eric Adler Says:People who deny that the earth is currently getting warmer, who point to the last decade as proof that it is really getting colder, and who deny that human activity has increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, deserve the epithet “deniers” in my opinion. They clearly are denying the existence of real events. If they take umbrage so what?
Tom Fuller Says:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Eric, nobody in the climate debate deserves to be classed with skinheads who deny the Holocaust occurred. It’s a cheap and vicious insult.
If they take umbrage, maybe they will be driven even further away from agreeing on policy choices that could save the planet. So STFU.
Nullius: They deny the existence of facts pointing to AGW because the “˜science’ reporting them is thoroughly bent and has been exaggerated for political effect.
The ‘science’ being reported to them is through Fox News, WSJ, WUWT, and much of the mainstream press, so this statement is essentially correct, although ideologies that lead one to oppose policies (often stemming from fear of government, taxes, redistribution, etc., all on display in #33) leads them to those dubious sources in the first place.
Moving on, the term “warmist” (other variations include “warmista” and “CAGWist”) is interesting. I don’t think it’s in any standard English dictionary, but it’s in the Urban Dictionary, and not surprisingly, the definition is rather unflattering and presumptuous, with various religious connotations.
It reminds me of modern usage of the term “evolutionist”. Advocates of “intelligent design” use the word to imply it’s a religion. Ironic, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism#Modern_use
#36,
NewYorkJ, that’s exactly the sort of thing I mean. You know perfectly well what I meant, but by trying to turn it around to point at Fox News as a way to deflect attention from the data hiding and code fudging that certain scientists have got up to, you just reinforce my point. You won’t address the actual cause of the scepticism, which is the bad science, instead you’ll try to blame it all on Fox News.
And so long as you keep on trying to defend the indefensible, we’ll keep on gaining ground. So long as you keep firing your shots at the wrong targets, we’ll keep on advancing. Every time you use the term “denier” we’ll call Godwin on you, and every time you transparently avoid answering the point, you’ll make it for us. You can’t re-frame this problem away.
It’s supremely ironic because it’s all fixable, but you won’t fix it because you can’t admit to yourself that there’s a problem. There’s a word for that, you know…
Nullius: You know perfectly well what I meant, but by trying to turn it around
Certain people don’t like having things turned around on them, or have any scrutiny applied to them, do they?
With the rest of your rant,
deflect attention from the data hiding and code fudging that certain scientists have got up to
defend the indefensible
wrong targets
we’ll keep on gaining ground.
you can’t admit to yourself that there’s a problem
You sound more like a preacher advancing a cult, intent on advance your doctrine of truth, and shouting down any opposition or scrutiny. You want everyone you’re preaching about to admit the clear Truth they are all great sinners and repent, else the wrath of your cult will continue to advance on them.
On the contrary, though, bringing the arguments advanced by your tribe under close scrutiny is a good thing – good for science and good for the public.
But please keep in mind your previous preaching:
Nullius: Insults mean you’re operating politically, you’re banging the war drums for your tribe, and there is no intention to discuss the matter or negotiate.
which gets us back to the point of this thread.
NY Troll, just keep on keeping on. You are the best recruiting tool (what a great word for you) that Morano and Monckton could have envisaged. How much are they paying you?
Tom (39)
Two things.
1) Dial down the tone. Some people may consider you a troll, too, of a different sort. But I wouldn’t want them to address you as such.
2) What makes you think NYJ et al are recruiting tools for climate skeptics? This is a comment thread, of which only a small percentage of readers probably read, much less actually participate in. And those that do participate mostly have fixed views, which you are NYJ are unlikely to influence.
So how is an anonymous commenter a recruiting tool for his opposition?
Hi Keith,
Okay, I’ll dial down the tone. Your request could be extended to others, btw.
How many times have you read in the comments section here and in other venues of people who have reacted viscerally to the tone and the arguments advanced by those like NewYorkJ? I have read hundreds of them, and I’ll bet you have, too.
It’s obviously not him/her alone, but you and I both know that people starting their search for information on climate issues have said time and time again that the hostile tone, the ruthless moderation policies, the dismissive and insulting remarks common to NYJ and his/her buddies have predisposed many to adopting a hyper-skeptical stance.
I no longer really care how I’m perceived out here–any that think me a troll are welcome to do so. But reacting to the open hostility of people like NYJ does not in my mind fit that definition.
Since this thread is about phony victimhood and hypocrisy, let’s examine some of TF’s “open hostility”, which is rather broad and frequent:
TF: No, NewYorkJ, I am screaming the loudest about the use of “˜denier’ and I use troll for people like you. You don’t rise to the level of alarmist.
TF: Eric, nobody in the climate debate deserves to be classed with skinheads who deny the Holocaust occurred. It’s a cheap and vicious insult. If they take umbrage, maybe they will be driven even further away from agreeing on policy choices that could save the planet. So STFU.
TF: Rabbit
You are not on super secret moderation. We all know about it because you never quit whining about it. Just go back to your own cesspool and it’s problem solved.
TF: NY Troll, just keep on keeping on. You are the best recruiting tool (what a great word for you) that Morano and Monckton could have envisaged. How much are they paying you?
TF: Just leave it to Connelly to pollute the pool. He thinks the world should be run like Stoat, where he dictates who does and does not get a voice.
I thought Marlowe summed it up nicely:
“Did he offer any substance?”
Tom can you guess what I’m going to say next?
A very basic level of moderation would be to delete comments that offer up zero substance, improving signal/noise to at least a small degree. There’s obviously grey area on what qualifies as such (I contend that many on Fuller’s side offer substance-less posts), and leniency is always preferred, but the above type of comments above are pretty clear.