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)
The key point is about the difference between "climate change" and "global warming" and "anthropogenic global warming". As we all know those changes in terminology are the clever little trap to conflate different concepts and therefore label people who disagree with you as being crazy or irrational. By broadening the definition another objective was also achieved, which was to allow any natural climate or weather event to be linked to the issue ("cooling" is "consistent with" climate change).
As a trained, professional Geoscientist I am certainly not a climate change denier or doubter. Such a position would be absurd, I am fully aware of ice ages, Milankovich cycles etc. I fully accept climate changes.
As a reasonable person I cannot deny that global warming took place in the 20th Century. I might contest the reliability of the estimates of the magnitude of that warming, but I don't deny that warming took place.
Having widely read on the topic, I don't deny that there is a reasonable hypothesis which says that emissions of CO2 from man-made sources may cause warming of the atmosphere - so-called anthropogenic global warming or AGW. Among others I have read work by Singer and Lindzen who are atmospheric physicists of considerable standing and experience and they convince me that in theory CO2 may warm the atmosphere. However, that does not mean that I accept that a theoretical physical effect may actually have a significant impact on the real atmosphere, particularly because the climate is a complex non-linear chaotic system and as such other factors may mean the theoretical contribution from AGW is close to zero in practise.
What I am really sceptical of is that climate model projections (predictions) have any merit. The models are unproven, have already failed a number of important tests over time, such as failing to predict the temperature plateau. The models are clearly deficient in many important factors and, of course, climate is chaotic. How do you model that?
So I do deny that climate model projections (or predictions) have any validity at all. And that's pretty much it.
Actually there are very many "climate change doubters" or outright "deniers". The only problem is they inhabit the alarmist side. Is it not a tenet of the CAGW hypothesis that world climate previous to circa 1950 was largely unchanging, inherently stable and only marginally chaotic? If this was not so then they would have absolutely no foundation on which to build their argument. Hence the need to deny that the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm period, the other quasi 1,000 year Warm Periods and so on as well as the Little Ice Age.
"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. "
Well, I don't qualify as a doubter by the yardstick of "disput[ing] the world is warming from man-made forces." But the problem with the AP's definition is its identification of that minimal part ("the world is warming from man-made forces") with the far more general "climate science". One can accept that there is man-made warming while being skeptical of (a) the model projections of climate sensitivity, (b) the indiscriminate use of improbable scenarios such as RCP8.5, (c) extrapolations over decades and centuries of human population growth, energy use, and technology, and (d) the adoption of speculative models as if they were evidence-based rather than mere guesswork. Many papers in "mainstream climate science" journals routinely build on the foregoing as if they were as solid a foundation as physical principles such as conservation of mass or the ideal gas law. As an example, see the recent article by Hope & Schaefer on the future damages from permafrost.
It seems to be difficult for the AP (and for politicians and the general public as well) to distinguish between the camel's nose, and the large camel of utter tripe trying to claim the protection of science's tent.
There is a real world but so many people/orgs are determined you'll hear their dirty PR rather than proper debate.
..So that's no debate & no challenging from now on... and censoring the pastPaul Homewood has just highlighed some deviousness at RTCC
...Way to go true-believer darkforces.
They've been trying to reclaim ownership of 'sceptic' for a while now because they realised the opposite was 'gullible'. On alternate days they remember that as about 50% often vote on the sceptic side the use of 'denier' is insulting those they will probably have to persuade. They might also have realised that their tiny olive branch might pull a few fangs as it's hard to be tough with people who are polite to you.
While I am slightly pleased they've made this move, I'm reminded of the attitude of the BBC to calling ISIS 'daesh' or even 'terrorists'. Their arguments were that firstly the labels were insulting, second name calling was taking a side, thirdly the names weren't what ISIS called themselves. It's curious that a murderous, insane group are awareded more respect than a bunch of harmless, tax paying citizens. So thanks AP, but you don't get to choose what I am
I wish to present myself as an alternative villain in this story (alternative to AGW advocates)
If you do not doubt science you are a fool.
If you believe everything you are told by those with the highest qualifications; you are a fool.
The most recent science should be doubted more than long established science but neither should be totally trusted.
The names you are called by those who disagree with you should be ignored but their arguments should not.
The word introduced by stewgreen is the most important one of all: LOGIC).
One fact is worth a million theories.
Dung 2:54
Dung logic trumps Climate Science crap.
Radical Rodent: "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."
I agree that science will have a hard time debunking such phenomena. Scientists used to respect the boundary between physics and metaphysics, but with the so-called death of God, they are trying to spread their little jar of Scientism over way too much bread. Metaphysics is alive and well, despite the monopolistic practices of the devotees of Scientism.
Many times I call my wife" out of the blue" on the phone just to find that she's getting ready to call me at that very second, or vice versa. She's faster than I, so usually it's the other way around. Coincidence? Perhaps, but my intuition says no. I haven't bothered to calculate it, but the number of occurrences is way out in the probability distribution tail somewhere. Just because I haven't rejected the null hypothesis of coincidence at a 0.05 or 0.01 level of significance doesn't mean that I don't think something's there, or that there isn't something there.
What I can reject to that level of significance is the hypothesis that the mass of CAGW model predictions are the same as reality. That doesn't require even a day trip to metaphysics.
Cheers,
Dean
Dung,
"If you do not doubt science you are a fool. If you believe everything you are told by those with the highest qualifications; you are a fool."
Yes indeed. Reminds of the words of that famous science doubter, Richard Feynman.
And you beat me to it, putting GC's comment about the "International Porkpie Consumption Company" into the BH Hall of Fame.
I suppose we should welcome the demise of the d-word. Hopefully in future less time will be spent discussing it.
stewgreen - thanks for that.
If that is the organisation that the AP choose to reference as the guardians of the sceptic standard, I'd be interested to know how and why they arrived at that choice. Their position on "climate change" seems to be articulated by Donald Prothero in his piece of early 2012:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/
They look to be UK bound next summer, so perhaps they could arrange to have a pub evening with some of the BH crew - maybe with some AP journalists along too?
http://www.skeptic.com/geology_tours/2016/Great-Britain-Science-and-Skepticism/
They might be open to alternative views as I see they carried a piece by Pat Frank:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-belief/
Here in Norway we use the term Klimarealist or Climate Realist, which has a double meaning in Norwegian as a realist is someone who has further education in maths or the sciences.
Nobody who has done any basic research can be sceptical to, doubt or deny the fact that the climate has changed and will continue to do so.
So far no doubt has been cast. He's simply explained the standard equations.
TimC --
I would be delighted to be called a realist in this context, not least because the most alarming claims are fantasies.
Let's see: the opposite of "gullible" would be shrewd, or astute.
The opposite of "activist" would be dissenter.
The opposite of "alarmist" would be pragmatist.
Ron C developing your opposites theme ....
Rapid rise in global temperatures = nothing much has happened
Rapid rise in sea level = nothing much has happened
Rapid rise in wind turbine efficiency = nothing much has happened
Rapid rise in climate refugees = nothing much has happened
Rapid disappearance of Arctic ice = nothing much has happened
Rapid revolution in Green thinking = politicians are starting to realise that Green crap is revolting. It is only the stubborn understains holding the pants of EU and US policy together
Dung has already covered beautifully the point I felt most strongly. I have been happy to describe myself as a doubter all along. I've never even been particularly troubled by "denier"; has it really merited all the heat?
On to a secondary point. Not banned yet included this excerpt from the full Stylebook entry:
If the above is the "accepted" meaning of global warming/climate change then you can call me a very high order doubter indeed. Climate change is all down to greenhouse gases? Really?
I'm an Uber-Denier.
If anyone can scientifically define "climate" for me and how it has "changed" we can start talking from there.
Andrew
Bad Andrew, the political climate is always changing, and climate scientists like to play with politics.
Climate scientists think that by changing the climate of 50, 500 or a 1, 000 years ago, they can change the politics of tomorrow.
On this basis, it is not possible to tell whether climate scientists are more deluded than politicians, but they all say whatever is necessary to improve their paypackets, knowing that if they are too honest, or say the wrong thing, they lose their jobs.
I have a view that was prompted by a comment by my wife regards a typical climate change item on the BBC.
Her view was in the negative and she said, " Darn it, I always promised myself I wouldn't become cynical like my parents as I grew older", my response, and in part a self realization, "You're not being cynical that response is driven more by wisdom through life experience".
My suggestion therefore would be that those skeptical of the alarmist position are simply applying earned wisdom, we should, as a "collective" whatever our age, be considered "the wise" and worthy of the respect accorded by some societies to the elders of their societies.
AP is doing a doubleplus good job of making certain that it is a well established historical truth that we ahve always been at war with Eurasia.
AP is simply redefining a word. Not even a big word. Just because skeptics are diong things as defined by a dictionary, AP knows better. And "everyone" knows sticks and stones can break bones, but words will never hurt you.
In a restaurant there are two sorts of tables
1) for the AP, Guardian, BBCEco-warriors, Climate alarmist NGO's, people who shout denier etc. to sit
2) for the GROWN UPS
In a really high class restaurant the type 1) tables would have chairs as follows:
Equipped with wheels for easy removal.
Having a built in tray with non spill drinking utensil.
Equipped with built in restraint straps, nappies and spittoon.
Equipped with a Perspex shield to prevent food accidentally leaving.
Posted to Redfearn's article and deleted by the moderators!
The real deniers are evidently once again deleting the comments they disagree with.
AP has advised against using the term 'denier' in regard to climate change stories because it no longer reflects either the reality of the state of climate science, nor does it reflect the sense of the bulk of the reading public.
The implication of the expression is that there is no rational informed good faith scepticism about the view that catastrophic global warming is imminent due to human CO2 emissions.
When we describe people as being 'in denial' the implication is that there is some truth so obvious and so well known that their refusal to believe it is either venal or of purely psychological interest. If for instance someone tries to argue that Napoleon never existed, or that Continental Drift never happened, or that Newtonian Physics is the complete explanation of the world we live in.
The reason why AP has changed its style guide is that one can perfectly rationally doubt that the evidence for catastrophic global warming coming shortly is convincing. And it is clear if you look at the Pew studies that most people in the democratic West by a long margin are simply not buying it.
What you cannot reasonably doubt is the physics of infra-red absorption by CO2. So you cannot reasonably doubt that rises in CO2 ppm have a forcing effect. But you can perfectly well accept this and still reasonably conclude from other considerations that the effect of a doubling of CO2 ppm will be anywhere from nothing to a degree or so.
The reason will be that you are sceptical about the size and sign of feedbacks, particularly clouds and water vapour. You will regard the science of the effect of the forcing from CO2 as not settled.
You will do this without 'denying climate science'. On the contrary, you will be coming to conclusions which are well in the spirit of climate science. Climate Science, like medical science, is not a body of doctrine which it is possible to deny. It is a constantly evolving set of hypotheses, theories, arguments, conclusions.
I am aware that attempts are made from time to time to argue that 9x% of climate scientists believe some propositions. The problem is that when you look at what these are, you discover that they are so wishy washy that no-one would deny them.
I will give an example which will immediately show how dishonest this is. It is like doing a survey of scientists and discovering that 97% of them believe that heredity is a factor in intelligence, and then using this discovery to claim 97% support for some particular racist political policy.
It is at the moment perfectly rational to be sceptical that there is any catastrophic global warming in the offing from a doubling of CO2. It is also perfectly rational to doubt that the erection of subsidised wind farms and solar farms is a sensible or even humane public policy.
AP has simply recognised a changing climate of opinion. To characterise opposition to the current extreme warmist agenda in both science and public policy as 'denialism' is not accurate and does not go down well.
Actually, it alienates the very people the alarmists need to convince. You do not persuade moderate sceptics of some radical theory that you are right by continually abusing them, their rationality and their motivation.
But one sees from the article that Mr Redfearn is determined to continue with it. He should ask himself why. The answer will come from the science of individual psychology, and not from the science of the climate.