I have no doubt AP got this wrong: climate science contrarians are deniers.

The Associated Press has changed the AP Stylebook, tossing out a commonly used set of terms in favor of an entirely inappropriate word, for describing those who incorrectly and without foundation claim that climate change science is a hoax, or wrong, or misguided, or otherwise bogus.

The term "skeptic" has a long history, but has come to refer to those who regard claims, usually about nature, health, or anything where science may inform, with studied incredulity. The skeptic wants evidence, and they are organized. The Skeptics Society has a magazine, and the magazine has a podcast. The Center for Inquiry has multiple skeptical programs. The Amazing Meeting gathers skeptics from around the world in a Las Vegas hotel where everybody gets all skeptical. Science based medicine is a practice as well as a blog (and is linked to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast). Skepchick: chicks that are skeptical. There are about fifty skeptical podcasts, with Science for the People best representing the skepticism-science link.

Then there are some other people who are called skeptics, and this pertains to global warming. The science is clear. Anthropogenic pollution is causing global warming and other changes in the climate. There is no legitimate contrary scientific position, though there is plenty of work within the science as yet undone. People who deny the scientific reality of global warming are wrong, and are probably motivated by a number of different forces. And they like to call themselves skeptics.

It has been convenient for deniers of global warming to be called "skeptics" because it makes denial of science sound like something it isn't, like it is a good thing. Every single good scientist is a skeptic. So being called a "global warming skeptic" gives some cover. Actual scientists generally prefer to call deniers deniers, though there are a few other terms in the mix (including the widely used "contrarian").

(If this does not all make sense, have a look at the MOOC known as Making Sense of Climate Science Denial.)

But actual skeptics didn't like the use of the term "skeptic" applied to science deniers. There is a small, historically interesting irony here, which I'll mention then move beyond. It wasn't that long ago that three of the most famous "skeptics" (none of whom are scientists), magician James "The Amazing" Randi, and the two magicians known as Penn and Teller, espoused views of global warming that would put them squarely in the denier camp. So, among the leaders of the skeptic movement (movement is probably an OK word to use there) three were both skeptic and skeptic, in the two senses of the word. Perhaps because of this, a number of other skeptics, just regular people who participate in Internet discussions and so on, also denied the global warming science, so this incorrect perspective was part of the skeptic movement. Eventually, after a conversation or two with some actual scientists, Randi changed his mind, to his credit, and did so publicly. I'm not so sure about Penn and Teller.

Recently, the Committee for Skepticsl (CSI) called upon Associated Press (AP), and the world in general, to stop using the word "skeptic" to describe climate change science deniers. They wanted the word back, to not have it sullied by association. That was a reasonable thing to ask for, and the request was supported by many scientist who are not necessarily active in the skeptic movement. There was a letter, a petition, all that.

And AP went along with it. Just a couple of days ago, AP changed their style guide to specify that the word "skeptic" should not be used to refer to climate change science contrarians. That was good.

But the AP went further. They also said that the term "denier" should not be used, and in supporting text, indicated that this was in part because of the association of the word "denier" with "holocaust denier." AP's new guideline specifies, instead, that the term "doubter" instead of "skeptic" or "denier."

This is wrong. This places contrarians who actively attempt to damage and derail the conversation about one of the most important existential issues of the day in a relatively good, and undeserved, light.

Climate change deniers are not "doubting" climate change, or any particular aspect of climate change science. A single denier might be seen on one day claiming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not increase global surface temperatures (it does). In another conversation a day later, the same individual can be seen arguing that yes, it does do that, but not much. Next day, OK, it does do that but it will stop doing it and the temperature will go down. Or the warming is good. Or the warming is real, and will have effects, but we can fix that. Or we can't really fix it, but since the Chinese are not on board with changing things, what we do does not matter. And so on and so on.

And, no, that is not the rapid evolution of thinking of a denier. The same denier will go right back to the "CO2 does not cause warming" argument the moment they find a sufficiently uninformed audience.

This is not doubting. It is not being skeptical. It is denying, and it is denying pretty much the same way that Holocaust deniers are denying, in an irrational, politically motivated, goal-post moving, dishonest, and damaging way.

Denial expert John Cook, who was the lead developer of the above mentioned MOOC, pointed out to me that the term "denial" is already part of the academic and scientific conversation. "There is a great deal of research by psychologists, political scientists and other social scientists into the many aspects of science denial. Understanding the why and how of denial - why people reject science and how the scientific evidence gets distorted by misinformation - is essential to formulating an effective response. It would be ironic in the extreme if our response to science denial involved denying the social science research into denial. "

Climate blogger Sou notes,

"Climate change doubters" is a poor euphemism. It doesn't mean the same as a climate science denier. I sometimes refer to "those who reject mainstream climate science", however it's clunky and doesn't lend itself to repeated usage. Why use five words when there's a perfectly good single word that describes those people "deniers"? Or if there's no other context that makes it clear who you're talking about: "climate science deniers".

Joe Romm at Think Progress talked to climate scientist Michael Mann about this.

“As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. Those who are in denial of basic science, be it evolution or human-caused climate change, are in fact science deniers,” as leading climatologist Michael Mann emailed me. “To call them anything else, be it ‘skeptic’ or ‘doubter,’ is to grant an undeserved air of legitimacy to something that is simply not legitimate.”

Romm also notes, "Here’s another reason “doubter” makes no sense. The Senate’s leading climate science denier/denialist/disinformer James Inhofe (R-OK) still maintains “global warming is a hoax.” Is he expressing “doubt”? Is he expressing what Oxford Dictionaries calls “a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.” No. He is denying the science."

Climate scientist and communicator Things Break picked up on the "avoid Hitler reference" theme with this tweet:

Screen Shot 2015-09-23 at 10.47.44 AM

The @AP will no longer call mustaches "mustaches" b/c Hitler had a mustache, & some might get offended by the term.

In retrospect (and I truly mean that, 20-20 hindsight and all, because I had a chance to suggest this before but did not think of it) the CSI should have given equal weight to the two arguments that a) skeptic is the wrong word and b) denier is the right word. And, for good measure, they should have thrown in c) some of the other words that are out there should not be used, such as "doubter," while some other words might be OK in certain contexts, like "contrarian." Perhaps the appeal to AP should have been written, or at least gone over, by lawyers who think of these kinds of things in advance! As it turned out, the organized skeptics may have been a bit too concerned about their brand and a bit under concerned about the big picture. Good lesson: If you want to effect change, be more clear about what you want the change to be to.

I'm not all that big on biblical references, but one comes to mind. When Peter denied Christ, Jesus got really pissed, and it was a big deal. But when Thomas doubted, not so much.

Categories

More like this

By "they" I mean AP. But, really, CSI kinda messed this up too. Put this one on your list of examples of effective activism that backfired. AP is throwing out the correct term, 'denier' in favor of a bogus term, to describe climate science deniers. CSI wanted them to stop using 'skeptic'. But the…
There is no doubt that Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein is a top notch science reporter. However, he is a professional journalist, and for this reason I expect him to be part of, and to be guided by, the culture of journalism. The culture of journalism involves a critical feature that makes…
Here we go again. Every so often, one of the--shall we say?--less popular members of our crew of science bloggers, someone who, despite being an academic whose area of expertise is ostensibly science communication, has stepped in it again. I'm referring, of course to Matt Nisbet. Only this time, it…
I mean, you might be, but I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.... I have an email from a blogeague (that's a colleague in the blogosphere) asking for clarification on the use of the word Skeptic in relation to climate change. This is a person very much involved in ocean conservation…

When Peter denied Christ, Jesus got really pissed, and it was a big deal. But when Thomas doubted, not so much.

What does this illustrate? Jesus was okay that Thomas was skeptical, but what did he teach him to do? Gather evidence to find out what the reality is. With the desired outcome that his skepticism would be resolved into a conviction.

Jesus was telling Thomas to act like a scientist & apply the Scientific Method. He did not tell Thomas to "just take it on faith". It wasn't just acceptable, it was encouraged. Be either hot or cold, but not lukewarm. We're told not to remain skeptics on issues, but to seek answers and accept (valid) evidence.

Further, in this passage as well as elsewhere, Jesus affirms that our unbiased observations are valid, and that we're to be "hands on" to acquire corporeal evidence to learn. Take measurements. "Taste and see." In other words, Jesus doesn't just support being scientific, he directs us to be so, and affirms its validity for discriminating between what's true and what's not true.

Conversely, the attitude of refusing and denying reality was harshly rebuked, as in the case of Peter -- someone who had knowledge of reality, but denied it out of self-interest: a desire to merely protect himself from what he perceived as a possible threat to his life & lifestyle.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

I think Francis is doing a great job all by himself !

(Thanks for the compliment, though.)

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

Damn right. Skeptics accept evidence; deniers reject evidence. The correct word to use is "deniers." It is like calling the tobacco industry propagandists "doubters" when they insist smoking tobacco is harmless--- it makes zero sense: they are deniers who deny: they are not skeptics who doubt.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

But don't stop short: If Thomas had continued to "doubt" after having stuck his hand in the wound and gotten sufficient evidence as to what the reality was, I don't think he would have gotten another pass: He would have put himself at risk of being labeled a denier in that case. Which would not have gone well for him...

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

But don’t stop short: If Thomas had continued to “doubt” after having stuck his hand in the wound and gotten sufficient evidence as to what the reality was, I don’t think he would have gotten another pass: He would have put himself at risk of being labeled a denier in that case. Which would not have gone well for him…

If I understand the mythology correctly, everyone in the room should have denied Jesus was living again. Dead people stay dead. The best explanation would have been that Jesus had not died: denial that he had died would have been appropriate and correct.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Brainstorms (not verified)

Greg,

I respect promoters of sustainability who are willing to personally adopt a sustainable lifestyle. None of them whom I have met has given up fossil fuel usage, but they aren't leaving humongous carbon footprints flying all around the globe to important meetings. They use tractors to tend small farms, burn white-gas lanterns for light, some run gas generators for same, or to do arc-welding to self-repair their equipment. Others use oxyacetylene torches for this purpose. They cut their own firewood, using chainsaws that burn gasoline, and whose parts were manufactured in factories that use fossil fuel.

They grow almost all the food they eat, and hunt and fish.

Here is my question to you.

Miinnesota is a harsh place to live sustainably, but it is not impossible. First Nation peoples did it for centuries. They were hunters and fishers. Have you tried living a year doing this?

Foraging for vegetables and fruits is time-consuming relative to garnering nutritional value. It can be done, but growing crops is more efficient. Also raising some livestock for protein and fertilizer for plants is productive.

If you raise livestock, you have to protect them from predators. Two or three dogs is recommended. Backed up by a shotgun loaded with buckshot is recommended. Using a slingshot like David, works, but you have to practice long hours. A bow-and-arrow or crossbow is also effective, but it requires practice.

I've grown the following crops: carrots, corn, potatoes, lettuce, kale, spinach, green beans, peas (English and snow), onions, garlic, cherries, apples, pears, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, Plus lots of herbs and the flavoring root horseradish.

You can grow these in Minnesota. You can raise rabbits, chickens, ducks, geese, sheep and cows.

But, it's hard work. Before you become a credible anti-capitalist, de-industrialization, de-growth voice, you need to show that you have successfully given up the electricity grid, both at home and where you work. If you travel to class, show that you believe in de-growth by riding a horse or driving a horse-driven wagon--the Amish still do this.

I am not confident that David Suzuki and Al Gore, who own beautiful, big homes safely above the 10-meter-sealevel rise mark, but close enough to enjoy the view, are investing money in sustainable farms for their children. Nor do I have confidence they are telling their children, "Yes we ride in jets all over the world, but you will have to live in a world in which you won't travel more than 20 miles in your lifetime."

Does Naomi Klein live on a sustainable farm in Canada?

greg, you need to try it. For your size of family, in Minnesota, I'm guesstimating that you'll need at least 1 acre for crops, 20 acres for livestock, 10 acres of woodland for winter heating. You will need to use some fossil fuels, directly and indirectly (e.g. industrial production of tools and machinery).

By Mark Schooley MD (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

In other words, Thomas was a true skeptic until he did the necessary research and gathered & analyzed the evidence needed to come to a conclusion. This evidence-gathering was not exhaustive, nor was it based on "what seemed like a rational conclusion", nor was it debated in the public square with others who lacked expertise on the subject (but still had a strong opinion)...

He was allowed to gather enough (sufficient) evidence to resolve his skepticism to a yes or no answer. Being a skeptic was acceptable, but remaining one after being presented with evidence to resolve the question was not.

Skeptics accept evidence, then get off the fence and declare for 'hot' or 'cold'; they do not maintain the high ground by refusing to be convinced and proudly insisting on remaining a skeptic.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

Mark, this may be genuine advice, but it really seems like you're suggesting one can't accept or acknowledge the conclusions of science on global warming without first trying to live like one is in Avatar. This is a line I've heard circling the Denial-sphere for a while now. It is also just doesn't follow, logically - and socially, it's a recipe for paralysis if I've ever heard one. Which is probably why it's so popular with a particular crowd - as paralysis is the primary goal.

By Dan Aldridge (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

It's also a fallacious argument (against doing anything other than maintaining the status quo) because of the presupposition that the only alternative to using fossil fuels is to live like 18th Century Native Americans.

It should be obvious that this is bunk. As are his conclusions, his challenges, and his implications that "it can't be done" realistically or practically, hence "nothing should be done".

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

Great article, Greg, and thanks for the mention of our MOOC. But I couldn't resist posting a nitpick of Brainstorms' comment - actually, what Jesus said to Thomas in response to his doubting was "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" - he chastises Thomas for withholding belief until he got visual proof and commends those who believed on faith :-)

By John Cook (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

That's one interpretation, but I read the same passage as, "Good for you that you have the ability to conduct a test and find out directly that I am alive, but consider those who can't do that, and must rely instead on being told the Good News rather than seeing directly." Not being chastised, just drawing attention to the fact that it's not necessary to have direct evidence -- which would not be practical, obviously.

The same goes for determining if AGW is true or not: Not everyone can "go out into the field and do direct measurement", nor go back in time to take direct temperature readings.

We must be those who "have not seen", but instead heard the testimony from those who have (and by the same token, testimony from indirect data proxies) to believe that AGW and its consequences are real. (Couldn't resist either.)

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

That’s one interpretation, but I read the same passage as, “Good for you that you have the ability to conduct a test and find out directly that I am alive, but consider those who can’t do that, and must rely instead on being told the Good News rather than seeing directly.” Not being chastised, just drawing attention to the fact that it’s not necessary to have direct evidence — which would not be practical, obviously.

A much smarter Thomas, named Thomas Paine, had the better idea: it is wrong for people to believe "revelation" given to others. If the gods want people to think the gods exist, it is the job of the gods to reveal themselves to everyone, not just a few.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Brainstorms (not verified)

But, he still let Thomas poke his fingers through his wounds. When I learned that in Catholic School, in about second grade, suddenly it was really cool to be a Catholic!

But, he still let Thomas poke his fingers through his wounds. When I learned that in Catholic School, in about second grade, suddenly it was really cool to be a Catholic!

Eating god flesh has ALWAYS been cool.

#14
See Yale/GMU Six Americas, which includes a we well-defined "Dismissive" category, which varies in the intensity of denial. A tiny fraction of those are active deniers (or denialists) involved in convincing others, and of those, a smallhandful rise to the level fo the 4 key scientists in Merchants of Doubt, book or movie.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 23 Sep 2015 #permalink

First off, this smacks so strongly of Walker's disallowing the use of the term "climate change" by anyone in his administration that my mind immediately poses the question- where does the AP and its members make their money and who controls that money? I actually have no idea what the answer to that question is but I don't ever remember paying anything for the information contained in the AP style guide and I don't think it's exactly a best seller.

Corruption considerations aside, sometimes well established norm-defining bodies destroy their own credibility and just never recover.

There is a general movement within society (but outside of the AP) to recognize language and the use of language as an very rapidly evolving and dynamic system whose "norms" vary widely and sometimes very specifically over geographical and cultural boundaries. "Improper" use today is the norm tomorrow just because everyone DOES use, spell, say and mean it "that" way. Language and what is "acceptable" is essentially a bottom-driven affair, a freaking popularity contest, despite generations of grammarians holding the fort.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/20/is-the-ap-stylebook-ar…

We're talking about an organization which goes into a crisis over the difference between preheating your oven and heating it:and still gets it all wron

http://www.copyediting.com/prepare-heat-your-ovens-if-you-follow-ap-sty…

http://www.waywordradio.org/preheating/

I know I will go on using the term denier in all my writings and let's see if anyone attempts to refuse me anything on account of it . I am quite sure I represent the (vast) majority opinion in my neck of the woods and I am also quite sure that my neck of the woods is not different from any environment populated by academics and scientists.

As I said, sometimes these organizations are slowly devolving into irrelevancy and then they do something, like this say, and it only serves to quicken the deflation of their credibility and influence.

Nice going there AP.

By Terry Blake (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

Denial is denial great or small, just like lying is lying great or small. The fact of The Big Lie doesn't mean people don't lie about tons of other things, or that we now have to invent a new word for the act of lying.

Indeed, the sensitivity around the holocaust should be respected, which indicates to my mind that we shouldn't let disingenuous people use it as an excuse to warp the language in order to subvert science and effective decision making.

REALLY tired if the press and their knee jerk, false balanced stenography.

'Denialism' well defined right here at ScienceBlogs:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/
An oldie but a goodie!

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

Denial is denial great or small, just like lying is lying great or small. The fact of The Big Lie doesn’t mean people don’t lie about tons of other things, or that we now have to invent a new word for the act of lying.

Well, unfortunately it is far more complex than people lying and knowing they are lying. Denialism, including the denial of the evidence showing human-caused climate change has happened and is happening (and that it has been, is, and will continue to be disastrous), includes the ability to believe one's own lies while at the same time knowing they are lies. Many people really can, and do, believe what they know is false. Pliny the Younger mentioned the ability among some Roman senators, at which he marveled in wonder and amazement.

The scary part is that this behavior is normal among humans. I fear I do the same thing (believe what I know is false) and don't know I'm doing it.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Obstreperous A… (not verified)

Yeah, I intended that to be an analogy about language. As for what goes on in denialits' heads, I imagine there's a broad spectrum of faulty wiring. The Hoofnagle definition is useful in that regard since it focuses on well established and easily identifiable tactics, not the underlying disfunctions. It identifies the '-ism' in 'denialism'.

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

Desertphile,

You are admitting to naifs here that you aren't living sustainably, right?

Santa Fe, New Mexico? Not home to a Walmart because responsible citizens rejected it. Just kidding, eh DP. Santa Fe has TWO Walrmarts, twice as many stores per capita as most places.

THREE McDonald's PLUS THREE burger King's. Don't be a denier. Admit it.

You don't have a big enough water allotment there to grow the food you need. You're living on an inheritance, pension, SS.

There are two Whole Foods Markets. O wow, o wow, o wow.

Advisement: Move to Volcano, HI. Plenty of water to grow most of your own fruits and veggies on 1 acre. 5 acres will keep a breeding herd of goats and a family of pigs. You can barter with other local people, and fishermen on the coast for seafood. Maybe get an occasional hide from a rancher on the other side of the island to sew your own mods, or learn to weave thatch sandals. Right now you're living in corporatized exurboobia.

By Mark Schooley MD (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

Desertphile,

You are admitting to naifs here that you aren’t living sustainably, right?

Santa Fe, New Mexico? Not home to a Walmart because responsible citizens rejected it. Just kidding, eh DP. Santa Fe has TWO Walrmarts, twice as many stores per capita as most places.

THREE McDonald’s PLUS THREE burger King’s. Don’t be a denier. Admit it.

You don’t have a big enough water allotment there to grow the food you need. You’re living on an inheritance, pension, SS.

There are two Whole Foods Markets. O wow, o wow, o wow.

Advisement: Move to Volcano, HI. Plenty of water to grow most of your own fruits and veggies on 1 acre. 5 acres will keep a breeding herd of goats and a family of pigs. You can barter with other local people, and fishermen on the coast for seafood. Maybe get an occasional hide from a rancher on the other side of the island to sew your own mods, or learn to weave thatch sandals. Right now you’re living in corporatized exurboobia.

....

and

....

Holy shit, I'm actually speechless with awe at.. at.. at whatever the above language, if it is a language, says or is trying to say, let alone why.

Not that it is anyone's business, but I live in the canyon lands of Northern New Mexico, far from any road, in a canyon where PV cell panels provide electricity, and satellite dish provides limited Internet. I grow and sun-dry pinto beans, green chilies, Old People's apples, grapes, apricots, asparagus, raspberries, yellow and silver corn, potatoes, four kinds of tomatoes, pears, and squash blossoms. I also grow three different types of summer squash, two types of melons, one winter squash, cucumbers, basil, oregano, several teas, green onions, kale, red leaf lettuces, and carrots. There are also horses, chickens, elk, deer, bears, beaver, brown trout, cottontail rabbits, cows, calves, bulls, cats, and dogs. There are eight fresh water springs on the property, and one river. I gather pinyon pine seeds when the trees reproduce, and elk antlers to trade for buffalo meat with the Jicarilla Apaches (for the dogs, in winter). My middle name is "sustainable." I even make my own wine.

I have sailed to Hilo, Hawaii, a few times; as huge as the island is, the very small human population is already stressing the sustainable agriculture: more people, growing more food, would require more land be "cleared" of trees and rocks.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Mark Schooley MD (not verified)

Gee, why is it easy to believe Desertphile and impossible to believe the "Dr"?

Probably because the first of the two has a history of intelligent posts, the second does not.

Even if Desertphile is a wine person instead of a Scotch person (unless it was just an oversite). :)

Gee, why is it easy to believe Desertphile and impossible to believe the “Dr”? Probably because the first of the two has a history of intelligent posts, the second does not. Even if Desertphile is a wine person instead of a Scotch person (unless it was just an oversite). :)

Otch, thank you. I would "do" scotch, but I told the state governor my re-fluxing still is used to purify water for lead acid batteries....

I have made YouTube videos showing where I live, and how, and there are a few that show wine making. We have a grape press here, but the vines are not producing enough: I get juice from concentrate, and sun dry the grapes instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db7Hrsr6Ip0

I forgot to add that I make my own shoes, and grow winter rye. Damn.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by dean (not verified)

Desertphile, that was one of the more satisfying smackdowns of a blogosphere blowhard that I've read yet.

Made my day. :^)

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

Desertphile, that was one of the more satisfying smackdowns of a blogosphere blowhard that I’ve read yet.Made my day. :^)

Aww, thank you. I'm blushing....

It freaks me out to see some people state or imply that because one agrees humans are causing climate change, one must go live in a cave. They imply that a person DOES NOT REALLY think humans are the cause if that person doesn't stop using gasoline. Or does not live "sustain ably." Al Gore has a house near a beach, therefore sea levels are not rising. Oy vey.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Brainstorms (not verified)

...and smelt the iron ore to cast your own farm implements, no doubt!

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

"…and smelt the iron ore to cast your own farm implements, no doubt!"

John Deere did that for me. There is an oak wagon at the ranch that is 110 years old; maybe JD's tractor will last as long.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Brainstorms (not verified)

Said blowhard is just a more sophisticated class of denier.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 24 Sep 2015 #permalink

"We have a grape press here, but the vines are not producing enough: I get juice from concentrate, and sun dry the grapes instead."

My father, born in 1908, told the story that when he worked at Motor Wheel during Prohibition, grocery stores in Lansing sold hand wrapped packages of pressed grapes, sugar, and a few other things. They came with warning that outline the steps you shouldn't do at home lest you make wine.

He and my grandfather also told stories of driving to Detroit to deliver milk to stores on weekends. They said shores of the Detroit river would have people out for picnics and relaxation, watching speedboats from the Canadian side running hooch race our government speedboats. "Everyone knew the real smuggling was coming in on the big ships, but it was fun to see the speedboats. Free boat races."

"My father, born in 1908, told the story that when he worked at Motor Wheel during Prohibition, grocery stores in Lansing sold hand wrapped packages of pressed grapes, sugar, and a few other things. They came with warning that outline the steps you shouldn’t do at home lest you make wine."

Golly, that would have been a disaster.... having the grapes do all yeastie like that. Wouldn't want that to happen.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 25 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by dean (not verified)

The term really should be climate truther. Each of them has their very own conspiracy and they are all wrong and all different and every one contradicts every other one. They really are the 911 truthers of science.

Just out of curiosity - If someone believes in the direct effects of doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm (estimated to be about 1.2C), but doubts the estimated indirect feedback effects (estimated to be anywhere from 0.3C - 3.3C - to get the IPCC range of 1.5C to 4.5C), is that person a denier?

I ask only because it looks like we are on track for the 1.2C, with little or any feedback amplification (the indirect warming) supported by the direct observations.

Just out of curiosity – If someone believes in the direct effects of doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm (estimated to be about 1.2C), but doubts the estimated indirect feedback effects (estimated to be anywhere from 0.3C – 3.3C – to get the IPCC range of 1.5C to 4.5C), is that person a denier?

No.

I ask only because it looks like we are on track for the 1.2C, with little or any feedback amplification (the indirect warming) supported by the direct observations.

Yes, if a person ignores most of the physics involved, that person will believe it's only going to be about 1.5c +/- 0.4c

Why in the world would someone do that?

By Desertphile (not verified) on 25 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by RickA (not verified)

RickA: that would that ignore the known cooling effect of aerosols and the fact that we have not yet reached equilibrium (comparing TCR with ECS, tsk, tsk, tsk).

Too obvious JAQ'ing, Rick. Try again.

Marco #35:

ECS is a myth - we can never achieve it.

We cannot hold all the variables constant long enough to ever get there.

Desertphile #36:

The physics is what gives us 1.2C for a doubling of co2 from 280 to 560 ppm.

The rest is based on stuff we really don't know enough about yet - just guesses really.

Direct observations are not showing we will hit 2 - 4.5C per doubling - but are showing more like 1.8C or less.

"The physics is what gives us 1.2C for a doubling of co2 from 280 to 560 ppm."

Yes, I know: ignoring most of the physics involved will yield a global average increase of about 1.5c +/- 0.4c

By Desertphile (not verified) on 25 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by RickA (not verified)

Greg, good post: I was blocked from commenting at poynter and Paul Colford has refused to answer me but here is my POV: An Open Letter to Paul Colford, Guiding Light at the AP's Ministry of Guidance, on ''climate denialists"

UPDATE: AP reporter: ''I won’t follow new rule banning terms ''climate denialist'' or climate denier'' '' [Rebellion in the corps!]
Dear Paul,

I sent this note to Kristen Hare at Poynter Org and to other journos and editors around the world, AP people, too: This FAUX AGW denialist brouhaha news story has gotten a lot of ink worldwide but nobody has asked what the heck the AP term "guidance" actually means!

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/374470/ap-memo-instead-of-climate…

This climate GUIDANCE thing from the AP was not an iron RULE set down in concrete by the AP, nor even a REGULATION that AP reporters must follow or lose their jobs.

No it's just a "guidance."

In other words, a considered and much-debated and much-discussed in the editorial offices of the AP "suggestion" for what the AP considers to be better and more accurate and more fair reporting on these contentious issues.

But no media outlet anywhere has emphasized that this is mere GUIDANCE/suggestion and not a hard and fast rule. The GUARDIAN Graham Redfearn got it wrong from his LEFTWING POV and Anthony Watts at WWUT on the RIGHTWING got it wrong too.

So the leftwing is crying foul at what they see as an AP RULE that has been set down by AP editors and the rightwing is rejoicing at what they see as an AP RULE that they are happy to finally see in print.

BUT it is not a rule.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/22/ap-updates-stylebook-with-gu…

It is a mere suggestion, and reporters at AP and other outlets are FREE to follow however they wish to write the news. Yes or no?

I am asking you, dear Paul Colford, to clarify and offer some guidance on exactly what the AP term "guidance" actually means in plain English.

Your response?

UPDATE! AP journo: ''I won’t follow new rule banning terms ''climate denialist'' or ''climate denier'' [Rebellion!] http://northwardho.blogspot.tw/2015/09/an-open-letter-to-paul-colford-g…

UPDATE: VICTORY! AP has corrected its error, and created a new guidance recognizing that it is perfectly fine to call ''climate denialists'' and ''climate deniers'' by what they really are, which is climate denialists and climate deniers.

There appears to be open dissension at the Associated Press (AP) over the media entity’s new ''mis-guided'' "guidance", announced last week, not to refer to rightwing climate ostriches (RCO) with their heads in the sand over AGW as climate denialists or climate deniers, no matter what the very excellen climate science reporter Seth Borenstein said in his guidance.

Here is AP’s new policy:

Forget the earlier "guidance."
In response, a New York-based AP reporter , who writes about climate issues for the media company, just told a fellow journo by email, on the record:

The AP style guidance will have no effect on how I write about about climte deniers and climate denialists.
This response means one of two things. Either there is open revolt at the AP over the new policy, or AP management decided to throw irate climate activists a bone by claiming that while the AGW policy will remain, it won’t really be implemented (which is BS). Either way, the policy is still on the books, and this controversy will continue to grow. But if this is truly sign of dissension in the ranks at AP, that’s good news, not just for climate activists, but for journalism overall.

see
ONION ALERT! AP journo: ''I won’t follow new rule banning terms ''climate denialist'' or ''climate denier'' - http://northwardho.blogspot.tw/2015/09/ap-journo-i-wont-follow-new-rule… #clifi

By Dan Bloom (not verified) on 25 Sep 2015 #permalink

Greg re yr intro above: ''The Associated Press has changed the AP Stylebook, tossing out a commonly used set of terms in favor of an entirely inappropriate word, for describing those who incorrectly and without foundation claim that climate change science is a hoax, or wrong, or misguided, or otherwise bogus."

My gentle softspoken rewrite: The Associated Press has changed its AP Stylebook with what it calls "guidance" to its reporting and editing staff, not a hard and fast rule, but just a ''suggestion,'' telling staffers not to use a previous set of commonly used terms in favor of an entirely inappropriate word, for describing those who incorrectly and without foundation claim that climate change science is a hoax, or wrong, or misguided, or otherwise bogus. AP staffers are of course free NOT to follow the new guidance. However, if they want to keep their jobs...."

SMILE

Better?

By Dan Bloom (not verified) on 25 Sep 2015 #permalink

Greg, good post: I was blocked from commenting at poynter and Paul Colford has refused to answer me but here is my POV: An Open Letter to Paul Colford, Guiding Light at the AP’s Ministry of Guidance, on ”climate denialists”

UPDATE: AP reporter: ”I won’t follow new rule banning terms ”climate denialist” or climate denier” ” [Rebellion in the corps!]

Dear Paul,

I sent this note to Kristen Hare at Poynter Org and to other journos and editors around the world, AP people, too: This FAUX AGW denialist brouhaha news story has gotten a lot of ink worldwide but nobody has asked what the heck the AP term “guidance” actually means!

This climate GUIDANCE thing from the AP was not an iron RULE set down in concrete by the AP, nor even a REGULATION that AP reporters must follow or lose their jobs.

No it’s just a “guidance.”

In other words, a considered and much-debated and much-discussed in the editorial offices of the AP “suggestion” for what the AP considers to be better and more accurate and more fair reporting on these contentious issues.

But no media outlet anywhere has emphasized that this is mere GUIDANCE/suggestion and not a hard and fast rule. The GUARDIAN Graham Redfearn got it wrong from his LEFTWING POV and Anthony Watts at WWUT on the RIGHTWING got it wrong too.

So the leftwing is crying foul at what they see as an AP RULE that has been set down by AP editors and the rightwing is rejoicing at what they see as an AP RULE that they are happy to finally see in print.

BUT it is not a rule.

It is a mere suggestion, and reporters at AP and other outlets are FREE to follow however they wish to write the news. Yes or no?

I am asking you, dear Paul Colford, to clarify and offer some guidance on exactly what the AP term “guidance” actually means in plain English.

Your response?

UPDATE! AP journo: ”I won’t follow new rule banning terms ”climate denialist” or ”climate denier” [Rebellion!]

UPDATE: VICTORY! AP has corrected its error, and created a new guidance recognizing that it is perfectly fine to call ”climate denialists” and ”climate deniers” by what they really are, which is climate denialists and climate deniers.

There appears to be open dissension at the Associated Press (AP) over the media entity’s new ”mis-guided” “guidance”, announced last week, not to refer to rightwing climate ostriches (RCO) with their heads in the sand over AGW as climate denialists or climate deniers, no matter what the very excellen climate science reporter Seth Borenstein said in his guidance.

Here is AP’s new policy:

Forget the earlier “guidance.”
In response, a New York-based AP reporter , who writes about climate issues for the media company, just told a fellow journo by email, on the record:

The AP style guidance will have no effect on how I write about about climte deniers and climate denialists.
This response means one of two things. Either there is open revolt at the AP over the new policy, or AP management decided to throw irate climate activists a bone by claiming that while the AGW policy will remain, it won’t really be implemented (which is BS). Either way, the policy is still on the books, and this controversy will continue to grow. But if this is truly sign of dissension in the ranks at AP, that’s good news, not just for climate activists, but for journalism overall.

By Dan Bloom (not verified) on 25 Sep 2015 #permalink

"ECS is a myth – we can never achieve it."

Then why did you refer to the no-feedback ECS and suggested the current T-rise did not allow for much feedback?

"Direct observations are not showing we will hit 2 – 4.5C per doubling – but are showing more like 1.8C or less."

Gee, you already added another 0.6 degrees to your earlier statement that "we are on track for the 1.2C, with little or any feedback amplification (the indirect warming) supported by the direct observations."

Please be consistent when JAQ'ing. You make it a little bit too obvious you are trolling.

Marco #43:

1.2 C is observationally based. It takes the .8C from 1880 to present, and linearly projects it to obtain 1.2C. It is not ECS or TCR.

The 1.8 is the latest Lewis and Crok ECS. The Lewis and Crok TCR is about 1.3C.

So the observations are tracking pretty close to TCR (1.2 vs 1.3) - and if we can hold everything constant for 1000 years (impossible), we could actually see if ECS was 1.8C.

RickA, your original claim strongly suggested that the no-feedback ECS (or TCR, does not matter for your claim) was 1.2. You have now changed it into an observational value that, however, does not fit with your claim either, since 280-400 has given +0.8 (or 0.9, depends on the data set), and then 400-560 will give another +0.6 (at least). I assume your "linear" projection involves the known logarithmic dependence, rather than truly linear. Otherwise we're talking about at least another 1 degree.

No surprise that you decided to select Lewis & Crok, and ignore the other observational estimates that are all higher.

RickA, your original claim strongly suggested that the no-feedback ECS (or TCR, does not matter for your claim) was 1.2. You have now changed it into an observational value that, however, does not fit with your claim either, since 280-400 has given +0.8 (or 0.9, depends on the data set), and then 400-560 will give another +0.6 (at least). I assume your “linear” projection involves the known logarithmic dependence, rather than truly linear. Otherwise we’re talking about at least another 1 degree. No surprise that you decided to select Lewis & Crok, and ignore the other observational estimates that are all higher.

His crime is worse than that; he wants us to believe that leaving out all of the observed feedback mechanisms is some how legitimate. That is the behavior of a politician. We already see more warming that human-released CO2 accounts for; we already see lower albido caused by human activities; we already see humans are cooling the planet about 60% as much as we are warming it. In fact, without human-caused cooling, Earth's current global temperature increase would already be very close to "RickA's" imaginary maximum. Instead of the current 1.6 watts per square meter caused by humans, we would be causing about 2.6 w/m^2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#/med…

By Desertphile (not verified) on 26 Sep 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Marco (not verified)

@35. Marco : "Too obvious JAQ’ing, Rick. Try again."

Personally I'd rather he didn't.

I'd rather he went home and rethought his life.

Especially his Climate Reality Denialism here.

(& FWIW I'm living proof that's possible - many, many years ago I was a"skeptic" (fooled by Plimer) myself - to my eternal shame.)

@38. RickA : "he rest is based on stuff we really don’t know enough about yet – just guesses really."

Now that's just outright wrong. Science is a lot more than guesswork and the reason and evidence are just overwhelming. There;s about a metric F tonne of real observed science and years of research by experts who know their sh .. stuff.

Go look at NASA' s page on it here :

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Go read this book :

http://www.amazon.com/Poles-Apart-Beyond-Shouting-Climate/dp/1869790456

Go look at some of the hundreds of thousands of papers summed up by the numerous IPCC reports if you can or their entertaining popular summaries like this one if not or as well :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&index=64&list=PL029130BFDC7…

Seriously.

Please.

If you are reading this and have a microgramme of integrity do that and then come back and talk.

@ 23 & 26. Desertphile : You, sir, are awesome. Huge respect from me.

I just don't have a car*, have rooftop solar panels and try to plant local natives and generally do my best for our environment and natural spaceship in a lot of much smaller ways.

You, OTOH, well see first sentence here.

* Never had a license, never had money or really that much desire to drive. Lucky with family & friends can get lifts and usually cycle or walk everywhere possible.

@33. elspi : Truther, Birther, Conspiracy Theorist, plain ole cranks and ideological liars. A lot of overlap here and often (not *always* but often) plenty of these terms apply to these same Climate Deniers.

I'm happy to use 'Deniers' as most accurate and applicable. 'Contrarian' if I'm being very polite. A lot of other names that aren't so printable when not.

("Trump voters" may apply too but am guessing / hoping that'll be a very short lived reference!)