James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Over at A Few Things Illconsidered, the commenters are debating what to call those folks who just can't bring themselves to accept the science of climate change. You know, the science that says we have to stop spewing the products of the combustion of fossil fuels into the air if we want to keep the planet's ecology close to something we'd consider habitable.
Denialists? Skeptics? Scoffers? I'd like to weigh in with a defense of the term that I now use regularly in this space: "Pseudoskeptics."
The reason is simple. Pseudo means false. And false skepticism is what we're talking about. It captures the essence of the attitudes exhibited by those who refuse to accept the science of climate change. Such people consider themselves skeptics, in that they aren't convinced by the evidence. But of course, a true skeptic is willing to be convinced by the evidence. For whatever reason -- ideology, stupidity, stubbornness -- such ilk are not only unwilling to accept solid science, but are unwilling to subject their own positions to skeptical or critical analysis. No matter what evidence you supply, it just won't meet their standards, usually because they consider the entire climatology community corrupt.
They are false skeptics. Hence: Pseudoskeptics.
I first came across the term at Orac's blog, Respectful Insolence, but it seems the term can be traced back a ways to one Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist who defined pseudoskepticism as:
"a variety of pseudoscience: the behavior of highly biased 'sneering scoffers' who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics."Now, I recognize that those I call pseudoskeptics will charge that those of us who do accept the climate science are the true pseudoskeptics, but that's the nature of the beast. I'm not expecting to change any minds through the use of labels, just use the most precise terms for the purpose of the discussion.
Environment
Comments
I suggested pseudoskeptic on Deltoid back in April, in the same thread Frank Bi proposed the term "Inactivist". I've used the words slightly differently -- a pseudoskeptic would be someone like Antony Watts, who can have his "analysis" completely turned inside out and gutted and still say that his conclusions are unchanged, while an inactivist would be someone like Monckton, who delivers the primary message of "no matter what, we should do nothing".
There is substantial overlap, of course. I tend to use "inactivist" more, because:
1) Pseudoskepticism has its roots in hardcore woo such as psychometry, so it's seen as unnecessarily provocative, and
2) Inactivist evokes images of "activist", a term that has become associated with radicalism, something the inactivists absolutely despise.
It's still a good term.
Posted by: Brian D | November 20, 2008 2:15 PM
Sounds like a good term to me...
Posted by: Christie | November 20, 2008 2:42 PM
James, I would be interested in your thoughts on the new finding by Cornell researchers that fully calls into question the modelled estimates of the predicted emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov08/SoilBlackCarbon.kr.html p.s. In one post you dictate to someone they should "stick to the science" then in your next post you blog about name calling. It seems you're all over the map. OCD/ADHD possibly?
Posted by: Chris | November 20, 2008 4:32 PM
James Hrynyshyn recently wrote - "Lance, I'd really appreciate it if you would stick to the science, if you can." wow.
Posted by: Friends of Lance | November 20, 2008 4:34 PM
James Hrynyshyn recently wrote - "Lance, I'd really appreciate it if you would stick to the science, if you can." wow.- Friends of Lance
I'm Lance and I approve of this message.
Posted by: Lance | November 20, 2008 5:13 PM
Chris: I've already corresponded with the lead author of that study and will have something to say soon. It's quite interesting.
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn | November 20, 2008 5:14 PM
That's the term I prefer, although I use "denialist" probably more often.
Given that their product is psuedo-doubt, psuedo-skeptics makes sense.
http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Product.cfm
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | November 20, 2008 6:33 PM
how about lollipops.
Posted by: paulm | November 20, 2008 11:18 PM
I was interested to find your blog. 20 years ago I had a book published on different economic concepts to point the way to a sustainable world economy. Someone who liked the book recently contacted me to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog. She set up the blog, and the book is now complete on the blog in a series of postings. There is now also an additional piece on global waring. Here is the link:
http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com
With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce
Posted by: Charles Pierce | November 21, 2008 9:31 AM
how 'bout douchebag.
Posted by: Douchie | November 21, 2008 1:45 PM
I don't know what to call them but based on survey after survey, you certainly can't argue against calling them "The Majority".
Posted by: County Mounty | November 21, 2008 4:02 PM
Scoffer works for me. Another less abusive and more accurate term for many is physicist, since the cosmic ray side of the aisle is rife with papers by physicists.
Posted by: G Goodknight | November 22, 2008 1:23 AM
how about we call them scientists? since that's what they are.
Posted by: CaptainGore | November 23, 2008 5:57 PM
Someone who liked the book recently contacted me to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog.
Posted by: zayıflama çayı | November 27, 2008 11:42 AM