One of the bones of contention in political discussions of climate change is how to refer to those who reject climate science. Three terms offer themselves: Skeptics, Contrarians, and Deniers, but which to use?
‘Contrarian‘ is easily rejected as it seems to be a term used mostly within the investment community for a specific investment behaviour, and hence to broaden the definition just confuses things.
‘Denier’ is deeply resented as it is claimed that it is meant to suggest ‘Holocaust Denier’, although that is not true. ‘Denier’ simply means ‘Denier’, hence the necessity of a qualifier such as “Holocaust” or “Climate Change”.
Differentiating between ‘Denier’, “a person who denies” and ‘Skeptic’ “a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual” hinges on their behaviour. Do they simply deny the science of climate change? or do they seriously question it? citing specifics and arguing logically that there is a rational basis for doubt. The only way to know is to check. In the interim I will use the term NCCP (No Climate Change Proponents) as a neutral term.
A survey of the standard NCCP websites, of which these are a good sample:
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://newsbusters.org/
http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=global-warming
http://www.icecap.us/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/new_scientist_sea_ice_increase.html
http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
gives us a host of arguments that range from facile to fraudulent. They rely on distortions, misrepresentations, straw man arguments, cherry picking data, and in some cases, blatent lies.
In almost no case is there actual acknowledgement of the real climate science, much less questioning of it based on fair and accurate presentation of the science. Pretty much everything on these sites is easily debunked and has been repeatedly (see “Debunking Denier Nonsense” links on right sidebar), as the site authors are well aware.
Indeed only a couple of sites even approach legitimate skepticism in the sense that they attempt to deal with the reality of the science as it is. Both http://climatesci.org/ and http://www.climateaudit.org will advance arguments that require rather a more sophisticated and educated response, which they do get from sites like http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics and http://www.realclimate.org.
If we survey the average NCCPers such as I have been doing at the news sharing site Digg.com or youtube.com we find the situation is even worse. Simply search for articles or videos dealing with “global warming” or “climate change” and have a look at the comments.
The NCCPers overwhelmingly offer no specifics, argument or rationality, instead seeming satisfied that declarative statements denying climate change or any scientific basis should suffice. In some cases they merely parrot the aforementioned debunked arguments and often refuse to even look at the actual science.
What is particularly ironic is that they accuse those who offer evidence and facts of “having a religion” while their own evidence-free beliefs are ‘science’. They claim to be skeptical of the mountains of evidence while embracing the most absurd conspiracy theories without any evidence whatsoever . They reject the plethora of climate models out of hand as “just models”, yet wildly embrace any new model that claims to cast doubt on the specifics of climate science. The flagrant contradictions and hypocrisy is breath taking.
In a matter of only a few weeks over this past summer we saw the appearance of three particularly outrageous hoaxes: “Global Warming Has Officially Ended” , “NASA Backtracks on 1998 Warmest Year“, and Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate .”
Frauds so transparent that a lobotomized squirrel would feel an inkling of suspicion about their validity and feel some inclination to fact check. In all three cases fact checking was easily done, and in the case of NASA and APS required no more than a visit to the appropriate home page, easily found with a search engine.
And how did the NCCPers respond? They fell all over themselves blogging and digging and spreading the hoaxes. They damn near peed their pants in excitement to post the fraud de jour “coffin nail for global warming”. In fact, it seems that if a story sports any claim of climate denial they will believe it no matter how absurd or idiotic. Their politically motivated credulity and gullibility seem bottomless.
And we should call them skeptics? That would completely debase the word. I reserve ‘skeptic’ for those who acknowledge the scientific evidence, but thoughtfully maintain doubt based on some small evidence or logic that, though meagre, is nonetheless reality based. They are honourable people who push science forward through their constant, reasoned questioning and thoughtful critiques of the dominant paradigm.
The hysteric paranoids who rant, distort, and lie, who have no evidence or rational logic for their position but persist in denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence, who dismiss the mountain of evidence for climate change while embracing the most pathetic conspiracy theories and lame hoaxes based on no evidence whatsoever, can be called only one thing: Deniers.
Through their behaviour they have earned it, they deserve it, let us not deny them that.
And for those who resent the term ‘Denier’ and would prefer to be called ‘Skeptics’ – it’s very simple … start behaving like a skeptic.
Just discovered you through a trackback from Frank Bi; I’ll be sure to look around.
I felt I should point out that another great example of the misdemeanors of the deniers would be the ‘benthic bacteria’ hoax many uncritically accepted. (Look up what Rush Limbaugh had to say on the subject. It’s pretty par for the course.)
Good link. Yet another proof of Poe’s Law
“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing. ” Nathan Poe
For another smile check this discussion of conservapedia’s struggle with the same problem
Actually, that’s more of an example than a proof. (I’m intimately familiar with Poe’s Law; climate change isn’t the only science-based argument I follow/participate in. Although that Conservapaedia article is new to me and a riot to read through!) Sadly, with the clock ticking down, it’s harder to justify truly amusing climate parodies as it is to parody, say, creationism. Especially because the arguments are rather technical — the distinction between “sound science” (the intention, not what the term’s used for) and “sounds like science” gets rather blurred to the lay person.
By the way, I’d like to submit three other links to your sidebar on explaining denialist tactics. The first is denialism blog — while not focused on climate, they have perhaps the clearest explanation of crank/denialist behaviour I’ve seen. The second is the spectacular video The American Denial of Global Warming, by Naomi Oreskes. You should recognize her name; this video explains the history of the scientific consensus and does a case study on the tactics of the George C. Marshall Institute — a must see, really. The third, and final, is The Denial Machine, which covers a who’s who of the denial industry along with its roots in tobacco denial and a showcase of its actions in Canada. (It’s not quite as academic as the others, but still…).
Hope that helps somewhat.
Brian
Sorry, I could not resist slipping that into a reference to Poe’s Law as a perhaps too obscure joke; I know about Popper and the problem of Induction etc. I also have and still do engage the Creationists since evolutionary biology was my field.
I visit Denialism pretty much daily, but it is often off topic for my focus (as you say). The other two I am saving for future posts before inserting into the roll, but all good references and I thank you.
[…] past summer we saw yet another hot story reverberate around the Denialosphere [1]. Supposedly the ships logs of Lord Nelson and Captain Cook cast doubt upon the truth of […]
[…] Yeah sure, it’s appropriate to use in certain debates and while I know you have your reasons for using it, it’s overkill. It’s the same as if I used the words, “fascist,” and, […]
—-
This is such a refreshing site!!!! i will visit often and send the link to all my friends …thank you so much!
As you talked about unfounded opinions and lack of scientific proof, I could have sworn you were referring to the global cooling deniers or skeptics. CO2 is still increasing, temperature is dropping. Temperature leads CO2 to start with, so it’s impossible that CO2 causes global temperature rise. That’s simple logic for anyone who’s familiar with chart recorders. Most of Antarctica is gaining ice, ITT towers there are almost under ice and will have to be replaced by new power towers. The whole global warming scam is ridiculous and only Gore’s groupies believe that globaloney.
—-
[…] AGW denier cultists make it obvious with your every post just where you stand on this spectrum. Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers? September 15, 2008 by greenfyre One of the bones of contention in political discussions of […]
[…] that we dont understand at the moment. Sorry but you are not a 'skeptic', you are a denier. There is a difference. This study is not saying that cosmic rays, rather than CFCs, caused the appearance of the ozone […]
[…] 1979 to 2009 from PMOD). BTW, I don't call 'skeptics' 'deniers', I call 'deniers' 'deniers'. Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers? *** __________________ "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest […]
[…] LOLOLOLOL…..you are a braindead denier, not an actual skeptic, you poor clueless retard. Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers? Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers Climate Change Deniers: More Fraud Artists than […]
[…] of 'scepticism', and the importance of transparency The Guardian Friday 3 August 2012 ******** Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers? Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers Climate Change Deniers: More Fraud Artists than […]
[…] […]