Bishop Hill On namecalling
Jan 21, 2015 Climate: Sceptics Readers will remember Amelia Sharman for her work on the EU's biofuels scandal and also for her paper on global warming sceptics. Her latest paper (£), in WIRES Climate Change and coauthored with Candice Howarth of Anglia Ruskin, is on the subject of namecalling, again with particular reference to the climate debate. It includes a survey on the literature on the subject, taking in all the silly papers on the subject by people like Rahmstorf and Lewandowsky (citing the Moon Hoax paper, apparently with a straight face!).
It also reviews various terms of art, concluding in passing that there are no appropriate terms for people who are not covered by the extremes of warmist and alarmist or sceptic and denier. The authors don't seem to have heard of "lukewarmers". They seem to uncritically accept arguments that "sceptic" is an unsuitable label for dissenters on climate change.
Encouragingly, however, their conclusion is that that namecalling by academics isn't helping.
It is critical that policy-makers continue to use the academic literature as an evidence base, therefore it is also vital that researchers are attentive to the ways in which their use of, and focus on labels in the climate debate may not be contributing constructively toward a more inclusive dialog about climate change.
I can't help think that this misses the point though. "Contrarian" and "denier" are used precisely to prevent inclusive dialogue on climate change. It is no coincidence that eco-activists academics and eco-activist politicians and media people are both enthusiastic users of the d-word and enthusiastic complainants - to newspapers and broadcasters and media regulators - whenever dissenting views are aired.
Reader Comments (85)
30 seconds of this and the only question you'll be asking is "Is this guy for real? Really?"
Yes, we need a better class of troll.
Mike Jackson,
"Is this guy for real? Really?"
No. It's a parody site.
Actually, MJ, I rather like the humour; you are metaphorically being led by the nose through a sweet and fragrant garden, to find that the end is not a gloriously luxurious room with a sumptuous feast awaiting but an abattoir. Sceptics might have noticed that the roses had no thorns while the lilies did, so might not have been quite so fooled; however…
A person who can do that – as well as the anagram joke in the title – deserves to be on my hate list
Mike,
I apologise if my reference to "[us] in the science world" made you feel patronised. We might be smarter than others, but it doesn't mean we're necessarily better. All things being equal, obviously, it means exactly that: smarter is inherently better. But muggles often have other great qualities. You could have plenty to offer the world for all I know, like, for example, good with animals. Are you good with animals? There you go. Good with animals is something to be proud of, right?
To other readers let me apologise for the syntactical solecism there. Yes, I left out a "the." At the risk of stating the obvious, I should have written "we in the the science world," or equivalently, "we in the world of the science."
In case denialists were planning to crow about this, I have bad news:
My failure to type a definite article does not overturn all of radiative physics. In fact it doesn't even undermine it much.
I didn't feel at all patronised. Arrogance is arrogance whatever its source or purpose. Water off a duck's back mainly.
I have met more than enough scientists who presumed that because they were scientists they were better than the rest of us: "God's gift ..." as they used to say.
Basically assholes, every one.
Time to start ignoring the troll, people.
Bradley
"urgently-needed lifestyle cuts"
I don't believe you and - having now read through all of your comments in this thread - I *really* don't like you, so no thanks. In fact you can F* Off. Is that clear | succinct | unambiguous enough for 'you in the science world'?
Mike,
It's regrettable that you've had such a bad experience with people in the the science world. In case it's any consolation, bear in mind that we're just talking about your subjective, anecdotal impression here—and you're not even qualified to draw statistical inferences from it, are you? Not scientifically, that's for sure. In other words, you may feel strongly on the subject of supposed scientific 'arrogance,' but your opinion really doesn't mean anything, does it?
Anyway, I hope you let these men of the science know in no uncertain terms that if they thought they were better than you just because they were smarter, then they were employing a fallible heuristic indeed!
Johanna, are you becoming a believalist - one who believes in the denial of scepticism?
Yea, Sir, I think you have nailed it.
But they have a long way to go home. Metaphorically speaking, Napoleon's retreat from Moscow was not pleasant.
People,
This is starting to get bizarre. You do know that Bradley Keyes just pretends to be a warmist, don't you? It's been flagged up several times in the comments. I'm beginning to question some people's comprehension skills.
His site is a parody site. This is from the "About" page:
"Do people actually take this site seriously?
Yes, but not to the extent we’d hoped.
We’ve analysed the comment threads by tone and it turns out only about 80% of our visitors seem to believe this is an honest-to-god, alarmist website."
James Evans, yup and for those who feel bad, it's the second time Bradley's got me. Doh! In our defence I've had the same conversations with genuine warmists. And nothing Bradley can come up with will out weird that show.
James Evans @ 6.38pm: I have just began to wonder whether Bradley is the author of the Green Party Manifesto for the coming general election, being the best piece of inspired insanity I have seen in 60 years , since the heyday of "The Goon Show". If so he is a great satirist in the tradition of Joseph Smith and L.Ron Hubbard. Gentlemen, he has truly rattled your cages with a few trite throwaways although he reveals what he is on his second post. I would suggest getting back to topic, but frankly, as this was about another fatuous sociological puff piece by arrogant fools devoid of any comprehension of the issues they address, Bradley has at least provided a little entertainment.
But Spike Milligan he ain't.
It wouldn’t be difficult to come up with polite, non-judgemental "terms of art" for all the major positions in the climate debate. For example, here’s my suggestion for a simple “Climate Concern Scale”:
Concern Level 0 (the “stasists”) – Nothing unusual is happening to the Earth’s climate so no action is required.
Concern Level 1 (the “naturalists”) – Global Warming is happening and will affect us, but it is largely or wholly due to natural causes so the only possible response is to adapt to it as best we can.
Concern Level 2 (the “adaptationists”) – Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening but the consequences are not likely to be dangerous so gradual adaptation is a sufficient response.
Concern Level 3 (the “mitigationists”) – AGW is happening and the consequences are likely to be dangerous so adaptation will not be sufficient and large-scale mitigation efforts are necessary.
Concern Level 4 (the “catastrophists”) – AGW is happening and the consequences are likely to be catastrophic so mitigation strategies must take priority over all other political, economic and social concerns.
Concern Level 5 (the “fatalists”) – It is already too late to prevent CAGW so all attempts at mitigation or adaptation will be unsuccessful.
Note that none of these definitions says anything about what form the adaptation or mitigation strategies should take. That is a separate debate about political and economic priorities and technological capabilities, so people who are in perfect agreement about what the climate is currently doing may disagree vehemently about how we should respond to the situation.
Parishioners,
As I informed you earlier, everybody in the climate conversation—realists AND delusionists—needs to stop trying to label each other out of the dialogue. (Really, you sound like teenagers.) Question-beg much?
I propose a purely descriptive, non-judgemental nomenclature for the two "sides":
Democrats and Republicans.
British readers should, of course, substitute LibDem (evidence-based) and Tory (anti-evidence) respectively.
Only a binary naming system can fully capture the black-and-white, Manichaean lack of nuance in the debate.
Questions?
"we in the science world"
Out of curiosity Bradley, what is your field? I have a feeling it's not one I have been involved with.
Bravo Bradley Keyes, a masterful performance - you got me!
Poe's Law soundly demonstrated:
Dr A,
I suspect you're right, we probably aren't scientific peers, otherwise I'm sure I'd recognize your name from some plenary session, petition or open letter. This is not [meant as] an indictment of you, so please don't be insulted—I'm sure you do good, solid work in your own field; and almost every field imaginable is now doing its bit, direct or indirect, for the common war effort on climate change. So you should never introduce yourself as 'just' an experimental physicist or 'just' an oncogeneticist! So you weren't cut out for a career in a front-line field, big deal—it's not necessarily the literal end of the world careerwise. Who's to say when, or even if, the problem you're working on might not suddenly turn out to be more relevant to humanity than you ever imagined? Remember, Arrhenius was 'just' a physical chemist and had no inkling that his research would literally help us save the planet one day.
For personal safety reasons I've been advised not to say much more about myself in forums catering to the climate conspiracist "side." It's not just attacks on my work and ideas that I worry about. Researchers in my field have discovered dead rats on their doorsteps as yellow SUVs with far-right ideological bumper stickers sped off shouting expletives. I'm obviously not suggesting the average commenter here is planning to do something like that, but you must agree there is something of a (shall we say?) paranoid element among the local denizenry*, so I can't take the slightest chance.
*I recommend reading Stephan Lewandowsky's disturbing papers on this phenomenon before they're all retracted.
and still they bite!....
"needs to stop trying to label each other out of the dialogue" Bradley.
And I disagree. I think sceptics and warmits have nothing left to discuss. We want things the other side can't or won't deliver. Just by questioning AGW in any way we are deniers because they need every bit of fudged science and spin to get the pathetic action they've got so far. You cannot question any bit of it without weaking them. To them it's an insult greater than any label we can come up with.
Any attempt at sensible cross divide talks has been used as proof that the other side is weakening and it's just not true. Neither side has budged. Al Gore has probably made his billion by now, the bloody hockey stick is still alive and well, Climategate is now old enough for primary school and whenever there is some dreadful untruth about climate spouted by someone in the news, the silence from 'reasonable' climate scientists is deafening. What could being polite achieve that basic integrity isn't doing now?
Are we going to politely pretend not to notice when their side makes a gaff or are we going to make the most of it? If Anthony Watts goes to a meeting with Richard Betts and both agree to 'tone it down'. Richard Betts doesn't make the promise for Al Gore or Obama or Romm or Monbiot or Brigstocke or ATTP or the RSA or the Met Office.... but in exchange for inhibiting one of our key players we get nothing in return. Are you absolutely sure that that's a step forward?
We really are at the point where the planet holds all the cards. Hurling verbal rocks at each other passes the time. It doesn't help but it doesn't hurt either. Both sides can hope the other runs out of rocks or gets a sore arm first.
diogenes, the issues are genuine, even if the delivery isn't. Everyone from ATTP onwards has debated if it's time for polite debate. What each persons seems to be thinking is 'would they other side agree with me if I pretended to be nice?'
No one's mentioned the word "inclusive"
This has long become a weasel word designed to mean precisely the opposite of what it implies. "Inclusion" means that identity groups must be included, it does not imply that different opinions are required. Thus the BBC strives for inclusivity by hiring across the rainbow spectrum, but of people holding identikit opinions.
This academic might be the exception but I wouldn't put money on it.
liked the phrase 'social justice' to mean
Ding-a-ling the fallacy of the False Dicotomy : frame the debate im such a way that it seems like there are 2 sides
1. You the cool guys
2. The losers
What kind of nutcase suggests there can only be 2 or 3 types of groups within a complex case like CAGW ?
yes @AndrewZ at least a “Climate Concern Scale”:
And How many other types of "warmists" are there ?
Well "pretend warmists" ..will be one group
- If there are Ridleys who withstood intimidation, then sure there are some who took the easy option of pretending to give in
- I realised that some famous people I know-of who went over to the Warmists, yet they are not at the forefront of calling for action.
When I suggested that it seems to me they were pressurised into it ..I get that knowing shrug
....................
Anyway Here is a social psychology hypothesis
: When you see Top warmist enthusiasts on SocMed (social media) behaving like they are in the playground
is that cos
1. That is not them but some raving activist who've been lent that Twitter account for the power of that name ?
or 2. That is how the real person behaves on SocMed ?
.. I have a hypothesis that on the internet peoples ages are not clear , so those adults end up in forums where have the participants are actual children, so what happens there is a lot of sneering and childishantics ..So that the real adults gets to thinking that's how you behave on the net ..and then that behaviour seeps into their everyday life ..Yes I am looking at you TV celeb scientist.
Here we have Brad, someone who can't admit that we are skeptics in the proper sense of the term. And once again here he is writing long winded bloviations to explain why we are not skeptics. So this is yet another person who sees themself in the mirror and is always looking at the biggest moron in the room. The cowardly ignorance of the climate obsessed is predicatable to the point of boredom.
Hunter are you playing along. Or have you not read the comments.
Brad is a sceptic. Lew and Cook not a fan of him
Oh for goodness sake you lot!! If you actually try reading what Brad writes in his comments, you will see that he's light-heartedly taking the piss out of all of us, alarmist and sceptic alike. Be very well assured though, he's no alarmist. I've long been a fan. He's one smart cookie with a razor sharp wit and the warmists hate him. As many of you will know, anyoldphysics has been outed today and it turns out he ran an earlier blog besides the two we knew about. Read this: https://totheleftofcentre.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/1906/ for one of the best takedowns you'll ever see. “Brad” is the same Bradley Keyes commenting above and “To the left of centre” is aTTP. Until I saw it referenced (by Brad) on Twitter earlier, I hadn't read it, but I wish I had.
Laurie Childs: yes, he who we once knew as aTTP was certainly floundering around, well out of his depth. No matter what straw-man he raised (“conspiracy theorist” being a one of his favourites), Bradley shot him down.
Barry,
as a climate narcissist I'd love to know if Lew and Cook have ever criticised me. As far as I was aware, I and my blog are both considered unmentionable by the leadership. But then I'm always the last to know these things—do you have a link?
Laurie, Radical, diogenes you old dog, TinyCO2,
thanks for your generous words!
Other readers,
thanks for all the time and thought you put into rebutting the points I wasn't really making. To those who feel duped into fighting a phantom menace—notably our US cousins—I can only offer the assurance that I almost always read, enjoy, agree with and learn from your angry ripostes, in case it's any consolation.
I'm not even American and I've fallen for one or two parodies in my time! Well, actually, one: Steve McIntyre's fake Graham Spanier letter. The problem often comes down to the nature of the Internet itself: it's a scanned, not a read, medium.
Anyway, if you can't laugh at yourself, then... (I don't remember the end of this aphorism, but you know what I mean. Does it even have an end?)
"Contrarian" isn't a really insulting term like denier. It is on the same plane as Consensus-ite. Its denotation is accurate, although its connotation is mildly slighting.
'Contrarian' as a label suffers 2 flaws:
1. Because it tells us nothing about a viewpoint beyond how many people hold it, its referentiality is subject to the vagaries of opinion polls. According to a diagram on page 447 of the Cook, Farmer 'Synthesis' textbook on climate change, climate scientists who don't believe in AGW did not become minoritarians until 1999! (And even then, this still wasn't true of the public as a whole—nor was it true when it comes to dangerous AGW, or CAGW.)
2. Many users of the word 'contrarian' will tell you that it has the connotation of opposing the 'mainstream' view for the sake of opposing the mainstream view. It is therefore an accusation of irrationality.
I quite like calling those people obsessed with CAGW as scientivists or believalists. I also love the way that believalists such as Tobis and Connelley sometimes come along and claim that no peer reviewed climate scientist has ever claimed catastrophic effects from climate change. It makes you almost feel sorry for the fuzzy-minded deers.
How about the "convinced" and the "unconvinced". Seems to me that they are both quite neutral terms ... with the added benefit that the "convinced" could be called the climate "cons" for short ;-)
Better, but convinced/denying what ?
- like if convinced GHG works in laboratory, but that windpower is flawed.
You need something nuanced not a dichotomy.
Look at atheist vs christian .. with the various grades of christian
But in Climate seems like its fundamentalists vs various grades of skeptics.
- similarly communists vs various grades of capitalists
(@Hil just been looking at your blog)
diogenes,
I only feel sorry for the believalistes (the female deers). When they finally experience their "Doe!" moment upon grasping the wrongness of their belief complex, they'll rejoin the sane population to much rejoicing; for there is more rejoicing in the (...yadda yadda... some Bible quote about farm animals).
There is now an article in the Conversation by Howarth and Sharman, based on this paper.