Bishop Hill A rare outbreak of civility
Sep 23, 2015 Climate: Sceptics ;)
The climate debate is not exactly renowned for civility and good manners, so it's interesting to see that the Associated Press is making an attempt to up its game on this front.
We have reviewed our entry on global warming as part of our efforts to continually update the Stylebook to reflect language usage and accuracy.
We are adding a brief description of those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces:
Our guidance is to use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science and to avoid the use of skeptics or deniers.
This will no doubt be a struggle for AP's science guy, Seth Borenstein, who has been at the forefronts of efforts to drag the debate down into the gutter, with contributions like this one:
@PCKnappenberger Deniers picked start date of Oct. 1, 1996; so first annual is 1997; Their cherry pick not mine. I just look at the data
— seth borenstein (@borenbears) October 1, 2014
So well done to the AP.
Reader Comments (73)
That's not very civil.
"Those who reject mainstream climate science" - most of us agree with it, we just don't agree with the alarmist interpretations of it. it's the alarmists who are increasingly rejecting the hard science.
"climate change doubters" - who's doubting it?
Again, a mislabelling of what we believe to demonise us.
TheBigYinJames, I agree.
But I can see the objection to calling us just "sceptics". It does imply that those who are scared of AGW are both gullible and not sceptical, e.g. not real scientists.
That's also partisan.
So a better name would be "Climate Change Impact Sceptics". That's true and descriptive.
And it doesn't distinguish between those who think the world warming isn't a big problem and those who think we've no reason to expect the world to warm.
Which is the broad grouping that our opponents need to make when speaking.
Unfortunately, "Climate Change Impact Sceptics" is only accurate. It is not brief.
Can anyone phrase the idea more simply?
I too don't think that's particularly civil or accurate.
I don't want to be lumped in with the fruitcakes (meant in the most civil of ways) that doubt that the climate changes or don't accept climate science. It's because I do accept (or perhaps more accurately "support") climate science that I regard those that claim the "mainstream" with a degree of quizzical curiosity (again with the utmost of civility).
But, for a number of readers at this site, the issue is not that we "don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces".
Instead, we wonder how, given the deep uncertainties that the IPCC itself describes about possible future damages, the other pressing needs of society, and the myriad controversies of prioritising policies that span different generations, some people can be so adamant that others who oppose certain "green" measures are making the world a much worse place.
So I, for one, wouldn't categorise myself as rejecting "mainstream climate science" but would still emphasise the uncertainties that surround investment choices for climate change mitigation. Do they also have a snappy term for this position? Or do they lump us all in together?
To my knowledge there aren't any climate change doubters (although it is possible with our dumbed-down education system). Again these people are distorting the meaning of the term "climate change" to imply that all climate change is man-made. The BBC does that in all its extensive propaganda. This new terminology is just more of the same propaganda.
BigYinJames, Yes, exactly. Of the few CAGW or significant AGW believers I have argued with (discussed?) they have all been non-technical people with an alarming imprecision of language. They seemed unable to grasp that it was possible to accept (natural) climate change, but not CAGW.
Sceptic is fine with me. The AP would do better if they updated their guidance to reflect the reality that the terminology "climate change" is really too ill defined to be any use for communication.
It would seem that David Evans is casting doubt on mainstream climate science at Jo's place
The IPCC states: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
I’m not defending the IPCC but that conjecture is the foundation on which the entire monstrous edifice rests and the mortar holding it together, so to speak, is this murky, muddy, sloppy use of language … rant over.
I am happy to be labelled a sceptic. I don't like the term denier, and I have my doubts about being a doubter. Though I suppose that Doubting Thomas was a pretty good sceptic.
A quick search of the climategate emails suggests that sceptic and skeptic are the preferred insult used by pro-AGW people (who claim to be scientists). There are far, far more uses of sceptic/skeptic than there are of the word denier.
So sceptic or skeptic is the word we use for ourselves and it is the word our opponents use for us. So what's the problem? Except that it reveals that the pro-AGW people are not scientists given they thought it was an insult. But I can live with that.
Pity. I am not a climate change doubter, nor do I necessarily reject mainstream climate science (mainly as there is not much science involved, so there is not much to reject). I am a sceptic, which is the position anyone claiming to be scientific should be in, and a position that I am rather proud to hold.
What else could we call those who deny that there could be errors in the many and various models (none of them correct); who deny that there has been a plateau in temperatures; who deny that there could be other causes for any observed changes; who deny that perhaps any changes are not going to be catastrophic?
As I've mentioned here before there is a generally held difference between "skeptic" and "sceptic" within the internet community which I believe has crossed over to mainstream usage. The spelling with the k means someone who is paid to spread disinformation, as opposed to someone holding a normal (I wish) amount of doubt until something is proven.
Lax language usage seems to be a major (if not THE major) part of the whole climate debate, Terms like 'change' and 'very likely' and 'significant' mean different things to different audiences.
on the civility front, this is a great opportunity to make use the the Pope's visit to the US.
As just experienced on FB two days ago, people will throw insults at you demanding that you follow the Pope wrt climate alarmism.
The discussion can be halted immediately, by asking the haters to follow the Pope on love and respect for fellow human beings. Notorious hypocrites, alarmists will be unable to continue.
I am sure good old Borenstein won't be able to reply about that either.
I don't doubt the science at all. What I doubt is the integrity and/or competence of the scientists.
Enjoy the Inter-glacial, I am sure it will be as warm or even warmer than the previous 4 over the last 500,000 years! Can't wait for the next scary story about a New Ice-Age as the globe cools over the next 35 years, thus proving they were right all along that CO2 causes both warming & cooling at one & the same time, because the puter model said so! Oh well, I've put some coffee on.
To be a 'doubter' tends to suggest that there is a hypothesis (in this case, that a minor increase in an atmospheric trace gas controls the climate. And will soon send us to Hell in a handcart) that is almost indisputably accurate.
In fact, as so often, it is the thermoggedonists who 'doubt' and avert their lying eyes when confronted by clear evidence that their 'consensus' hypothesis is unadulterated bollocks.
The best descriptor may be the one that the great Steve Mcintyre has taken:- 'auditor'. Especially when backed up by Steve's elegant, thorough and scientific falsifications of the currently fashionable bollocks.
But I'm content with 'Sceptic'.
Associated Press may possibly be attempting to be less rude (although I am sceptical that this is sincere and will last). But I'm not prepared to again pretend that all those who aren't unquestioning 'true believers' actually "don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces".
More bollocks, I'm afraid.
The full version of the AP stylers seems to agree with warmists that those who are, well, skeptical, of CAGW are not worthy of being called skeptics because they aren't sciency enough. From a fuller quotation over at WUWT:
"Our guidance is to use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science and to avoid the use of skeptics or deniers.
"Some background on the change: Scientists who consider themselves real skeptics – who debunk mysticism, ESP and other pseudoscience, such as those who are part of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry – complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase skeptic. They say they aren’t skeptics because “proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” That group prefers the phrase “climate change deniers” for those who reject accepted global warming data and theory. But those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science.
"To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers."
Still, half a loaf and all that. At least the AP stylers now agree that we're not wearing Stormfront T-shirts any more under our casual business attire.
Well we know the thimble and pea change from 'global warming ' to 'climate change' to give
more wriggle room for inconvenient temperature variables and we know the opportunity it
offered green activists to denigrate those said not to believe in 'climate change.'
Funny thing, for those adherents to the long flat shaft of the hockey stick, that, er , d *ny
historical see-saw climate variability, MWP, LIA, the advance and retreat of glaciers et Al,
are they saying 'climate change' is only a late 20th century a-la-mannian-phenomenon ?
RR, I think the difference between "skeptic" and "sceptic" is more about the rabid rudeness of those from the New World, where "skeptic" is the preferred spelling, compared to the more polite discourse in the Old World, where the correct spelling of "sceptic" is still used.
I keep coming up with a definition of a sceptic as one who is a habitual doubter of accepted truths. It indicates some sort of mental problem in being a doubter just to be doubtful and this could not be further from the truth. I feel that this is the intention of this label, one step up from d***er, but still not good enough.
How about Latin, thoughtful, inquiring > Scepticus, or a flock of us, Sceptici......sort of elevates it somewhat.
The BBC has been referring to "those who don't accept the science" for a while now, which appears to be civil, but is actually highly derogatory and misleading.
Hm. I do appreciate the APs consideration. In the climate debates 'denier' is mostly used in a pejorative sense as an insult, although Richard Lindzen finds it a more appropiate term for his own position than 'skeptic'. But 'climate change doubter' is a more ambiguous term than 'skeptic'. As a scientist I've never doubted climate change, and from my knowledge of history I don't doubt a human influence on climate. So I'm certainly not a 'climate change doubter', and would object to being described as such, although I do have serious reservations about the current IPCC paradigm.
Sceptic is fine by me because I AM sceptical of the allegedly 'settled' science and of the claimed catastrophic consequences, whereas denier is deliberately pejorative and is intended as an insult.
One of many ways in which climate 'science' is special is found in the manner in which it rejects that cornerstone of science critical review. In stead preferring to take a stance usually seen in religion, that of unquestionable faith where unbelievers can never be right, only at best misguided.
But isn't it always the case that the Mainstream is where third-raters paddle in the company of the other bozos?
The really top people inhabit the tributaries because that is from where truth flows.........
Yours truly, Tributaryman......
no Kim the problem is deeper and worse than just climate science. In many scientific fields people are completely unfamiliar if not hostile to the quote of Newton and the pebbles. They actually believe they KNOW how things TRULY ARE and their Truth be unassailable in saecula saeculorum.
Why, just yesterday night I had to remind a prominent climate NASA scientist that his request to discuss opinions not facts is in itself an opinion, as one man's fact is another man's illusion. Just google the lunar controversy or the burgess shale fossils to find out how the same piece of evidence has been interpreted in completely opposite 'facts'.
(Dang! Why didn’t I think of saying that? It is so smart!)
(…oh…
... that could be why…)
for example (cannot find the original quote, is in one my books at home) the presence of crater chains on the moon was seen as evidence that they were volcanic not impact-caused, because who would believe impacts could occur in a chain?
Then of course now the same identical crater chains are seen as evidence of impacts not volcanoes, because comets can split into a chain of asteroids.
the chains in themselves have not changed a bit. what has changes is that we got a bit better pebbles to play with than the scientists before the Apollo missions had.
I don't need a title. I am a normal person who recognises BS when I read it. The fact that most of the advocates of CAGW tend to write BS is the problem.
Dean_from_Ohio (10:37 AM): would (or even should) a true scientist debunk mysticism, ESP, etc.? While they might debunk many who claim mysticism, ESP, etc., they could also hold with the idea that there might be huge areas of reality that we have not yet been able to measure or identify empirically (“dark matter”, anyone?). Should someone come up with definitive proof of mysticism or ESP, any scientist who has debunked the entire idea is going to look pretty silly.
Can't help thinking this is a trap. Quasi acceptable words designed to get sceptics to agree to and, in so doing, unwittingly accept that they are doubters of everyday events and rejecters of science.
After nearly a decade of being unconsciously associated with the stigmatic term holocaust deniers, a major MSM outlet sniffs which way the wind is blowing and decides to bend over backwards via some tortious reasoning to go back to plain civility.
Welcome though such a development is, no matter how overdue, I see it as no reason for us to get tangled up in a jungle of PC vocabulary re-rigging. It smacks too much of some grovelling at-last-some-recognition.
The difficult kind.
The whole AP thing is a rather more subtle insult. We're not real skeptics ...
I'll remain a skeptic, which they're denying we are, of all dodgy science, rather than the truly dreadful term "climate change doubters", which looks like Chairman Watts' latest attempt to rule the skeptic blogosphere.
Pointman
I'll take it as a genuine sign of an attempt at improvement, but from an admittedly low base.
It still says more about the people and the press using the term than it does about those being described. It reflects a lazy ignorance about what one may be skeptical about or about what is being denied. Not everyone is the same, but it's usually not that difficult to find out, rather than just label them with perjoratives.
Like many commenters above, I accept much of the science, but not the exaggerations and foolish headline-grabbing claims by the hangers-on who are milking the system. Like many commenters here, I also have a much better than ordinary scientific education. I do remain highly skeptical that the planet can be modelled well enough to make meaningfully useful predictions of future climate states based on either actual, or expected, changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. They can claim it all they like, but a scientist is skeptical, and the major claims do not pass what would be considered low standards in most science disciplines.
What I deny is that the IPCC, their enviro-political acolytes, or the MSM have made wholly truthful, accurate, or competent attempts to either understand this or explain it to politicians and the general public.
The International Porkpie Consumption Company has noticed a total failure of sales to rise. They tried producing bigger Porkpies, different recipes for their Porkpies, disguising their Porkpies as something else, and even promoting their Porkpies as the solution for the Worlds problems. But despite extensive marketing, Porkpie sales have failed to rise.
A series of conventions on Porkpies have attracted much media attention, with TV presenters devouring every possible Porkpie on offer, but whilst there have been occasional blips in sales, out and out Porkpie consumption, has remained flat. The Flat Porkpie has not sold well either.
With the support of World Leaders, forced feeding of Porkpies to people who are sick of Porkpies, has been instigated, and rather than a jump in sales by enthusiastic consumers, the reverse has been noticed, and many people who had previously tolerated the occasional Porkpie, have now started to voice their concern over the media hype about Porkpies and their ability to fix anything in the world, apart from enriching the pockets of Porkpie producers.
Exercises in name calling, rebranding or reframing are now to be tried again.
I agree that "climate change doubter" is not strictly accurate, but at least if avoids the nasty (and deliberate, in my view) connotation associated with the word "denier".
However, I think a slight but significant improvement might be to use the term "Climate Change™ doubter", since after all, what we doubt is the legitimacy of the commercial interests driven by the "Climate Science Enterprise".
(In case my formatting doesn't survive, there's meant to be a trademark symbol in my term.)
those that reject science...
is just as uncivil and wrong as 'denier'
when it is convenient for them they will want civility
is like when maoists and communists university agitators of the 70s 80s early 90s become
establishment figures. Which is what happened.
I think we are all being a bit defensive. The question needs to be reworded, with a slightly different slant, in the best traditions of Lewandowsky, to get the required response.
Why is it that despite all the evidence, 97% of climate scientists still publicly defend Mann's Holy Hockey Stick, but have not been asked to defend it in court?
Obviously a loaded question, with entrappment assumptions included. Pure Lewandowsky Climate Science really.
The civilised world is too polite, in its dealings with uncivilised scientists, seeking world domination, by grinding human progress to dust.
Perhaps we could ask 97% of climate scientists whether they would prefer to be called liars, cheats, deranged idiots, greedy, self important, or simply God. Playing God with human life is certainly what they like to do.
Frankly I'd be happier with global warming optimists and pessimists since that is what it really comes down to. The science itself says nothing except that natural variation is complicated and hence easier to ignore. Anyone who still claims that anything is unprecedented has either made a basic statistical error, has just made it up - or is just repeating what some other plonker wrote.
In fact since all the fingerprints of global warming are missing in the observations then any other field of science less infected with zeitgeist, angst and blatant funding bias would have admitted by now that the hypothesis was falsified.
The full Stylebook entry:
"global warming The terms global warming and climate change can be used interchangeably. Climate change is more accurate scientifically to describe the various effects of greenhouse gases on the world because it includes extreme weather, storms and changes in rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and sea level. But global warming as a term is more common and understandable to the public. "
"Though some public officials and laymen and only a few climate scientists disagree, the world’s scientific organizations say that the world’s climate is changing because of the buildup of heat-trapping gases, especially carbon dioxide, from the burning of coal, oil and gas. This is supported by more than 90 percent of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. "
"In a joint publication in 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of the United Kingdom stated: “Human activities – especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution – have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by about 40 percent, with more than half the increase occurring since 1970. Since 1900, the global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). This has been accompanied by warming of the ocean, a rise in sea level, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and many other associated climate effects. Much of this warming has occurred in the last four decades.” "
"To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers. "
By 'global warming' I mean manmade global warming of course. It's difficult to deny that we have likely experienced 0.6K over the last century, none of which was in the last 18 years and much of which is very obviously natural. You'd think it would be even more difficult to extrapolate that to 3K+ in the coming century but....
Please can somebody clarify what is the "Center for Skeptical Inquiry"? According to Andrew's link to "The Definitive Source", they are the AP's chosen reference for "skepticism", but from a quick google I get ambiguous results. Thanks for any clarifications.
//
The Definitive Source
About This Blog
The Associated Press has been breaking news since 1846. In that time, AP has endeavored to always be accurate, trustworthy and responsive. As news is transmitted in more ways than ever before and in more formats than ever, we remain committed to the highest standards of integrity in all areas of business at AP: from newsgathering to corporate behavior. This blog aims to provide further understanding of AP and transparency in our operations and mission.
https://blog.ap.org/
//
JamesG, the problem with optimism and pessimism as terms, is they are used to enforce 'good' and 'bad' as concepts. Global Warming idiots like to be seen as good and godly saviours of the planet, and it is this selfrighteous fairy story that is sold to gullible impressionable children of all ages. Politicians love to have their self fabricated egos and halos polished by adoring fans.
Climate science could be rebadged as "The Dark Side" "Dark Age Science" or "The Science of the New Dark Age" just to offer realistic contrast with enlightened thinking, about how science works for mankinds betterment, rather than enrichment of Mann's kind.
I am not sceptical of the science. I am sceptical that the science is what the Climateers claim it is.
I am sceptical of anyone who tells me that "the science is settled" (even if they never use that term precisely).
I am sceptical of anyone who refuses to disavow publicly those who do use that term because, though it may be inaccurate, it furthers "the cause".
I am sceptical of the probity of those who continue to claim or at the very least strongly imply that certain catastrophic events are guaranteed to happen unless the world believes what they say and acts accordingly, even in the face of the strongest evidence that these events are not happening and are not likely to happen.
I distrust anyone who would close down public debate by threatening those who disagree with them, for whatever reason, with prosecution, imprisonment, and even execution. And that applies equally to those who want to see the current bunch of charlatans hanging from lampposts.
BUT ... I will side with JamesG (It's only Scottish politics that divides us, James!) that I would infinitely prefer to be called a climate optimist and to have the mainstream media treat the debate even-handedly and stop falling for the claptrap about Creationism, Flat-Earthers, and other fringe beliefs that are totally irrelevant to any objective study of climate.
(I would also like a few of the gutless "scientists" who refuse to stick their heads above the parapet and condemn what they know to be bullshit to take a long hard look in the mirror. As long as you refuse to condemn it you condone it, which makes you as culpable as those you shield. Your cowardice makes you unfit to call yourselves scientists and the giants of the past must be spinning in the graves. I live in hope!)
It's all about narrative not about true scientific method and proper scepticsm. When you check the full AP stylebook article you see it's all twisted politics. These media people in fantasy lah-lah desperately seeking out CONFIRMATION BIAS to SIMPLISTICALLY confirm their GreenReligion... instead of doing the painstaking detailed logic analysis that is necessary to understand the REAL world.
..nice emphatic powerful statement..except when the report then contradicts itself as it's about lab experiments of tanks which have mega levels of acid that the experimenters hypothesise could happen in a high CO2 future world "at the end of the 21st century".- The BBC is widely infected. Here's an example from Radio 4 Inside Science on Aug 25th
By Googling (coral "Heriot Watt" "Proceedings of the Royal Society B") I find the report is only mentioned 4 times
- In the interview of course their is no proper challenging of this well alarmist scientist Murray Roberts.
He even states "The depths at which coral can exist is constantly seeking" "polar regions are particularly vulnerable"
He ends "By the end of 21st century most parts of the globe's oceans will be corrosive to coral"
- At min 21:00 they have usual green fantasy magic solutions: Solar powered electrodes in vats of lithium carbonate will suck CO2 out of atmosphere and turn it into carbon nano-fibres.
doubt the science? when it is based on failed models and refuses to accept reality , then I think it is actually a obligation to 'doubt the science' to ensure that I am following scientific process .
Just becomes they call it 'science' does not change the reality that it is a dog turd no matter how many 'models' they use.
not banned yet, all that is missing from the definition concerning sceptics, is that people who point out massive inconsistencies and discrepancies with the claims of climate science and reality, must be attacked for any reason imaginable, but under no circumstances should they be engaged with, in open debate.
Climate scientists have a rational fear of Divine Wind, or kamikaze missions as they are better known.
@not banned yet, Yes in American terms the "Center for Skeptical Inquiry" is the voice of the traditional skeptics movement. It is basically Michael Shermer and his mates ..Founded in 1976 it's the oldest American skeptic org I know of. Although James Randi has been in action longer JREF was founded much later.
- Unfortunately although they have done so much to promote good septicemic and scientific method, when it comes to Global warming they have become truly corrupted and have swallowed the KoolAid to become True-Believer zombies. They routinely engage in techniques and fallacies which they condemn in other fields.
- The main one being throwing around the term "denier" instead of engaging in proper debate. This is quite clearly the fallacy of poisoning the wells ..where you try to dismiss an entire group of debaters by smearing them.
- I see in blogs their lot are spinning the AP stylebook the other way focusing on deniers will not be called skeptics.
StewGreen, that sums up the worst failing of the "ocean acidification" alarmism. Living organisms are (in most parts of the cell), more acidic inside than outside. The puny pH consequences of incremental CO2 may not be zero, but are a fart in the wind of much bigger effects. The partial pressure of CO2 is far higher inside both organisms that (net) produce CO2, and those that (net) consume CO2.
You can't drown many fish by adding a small amount of extra water to the ocean.
This is known to practising chemists, biologists, biochemists, and many other real scientists. Even by many who voluntarily take the name "climate scientist" upon themselves. But the word "acid" is too good an alarmist phrase to pass up for many in the MSM.