I am reminded with some frequency that the term “Denier” is offensive. I am aware of that. Why does no one raise the question of whether the term is accurate? Shouldn’t that be the real question?
This question keeps coming up and in returning to it I will not simply be rehashing the same old arguments. Rather I hope to demonstrate that there are solid political reasons to use the term Denier when it is accurate and appropriate.
It’s not that simple
Leaving “skeptics” and “deniers”
The politics of naming
It’s an ugly word
It’s not that simple
One reason the question whether the term is accurate or not is not asked is because it is assumed that the term is used to describe all who hold a different view, ie doubting anthropogenic climate change and/or evolution. In my case I am quite explicit that the term is used only for some, and it based on their actions, not their conclusions. So why the assumption? and who does that assumption benefit?
Another reason seems to be the belief that the word Denier is used carelessly as a rhetorical ad hominem attack in an attempt to discredit the opposition by associating them with Holocaust Denial. This is certainly part of the argument Royce Christian gives in his “An open letter to Mike Kaulbars.”
One blogger outraged at the perceived ad hominem refers to those who use the word Denier as “Vocabulary Fascists.” Deliberately ironic? Actually I use the word Denier thoughtfully, deliberately, and as I will discuss, not as an ad hominem.
A third reason reason for the objection is the apparent belief that those who doubt are a uniform, 
homogenous group that can be or are described with a single term, or that the various terms to describe doubt are synonyms and interchangeable. Neither assumption is true.
There is no taxonomy of doubt, no science where each term (taxon) within the group (clade) is unique and defined such that the full range of doubt is encompassed and the terms exclusive of one another (although fellow nerds will find “A Thesis Experiment in Cultural Lexicography” an interesting curiousity). If there were it would make the whole question much easier.
Here are the terms that I think might describe the range of doubt we encounter:
- Naive
- Doubters
- Agnostics
- Contrarians
- Skeptics
- Deniers
The Naïve doubt, but for the most part they don’t know and don’t care. They might also be called ‘uninformed’ except that they do have an opinion. Their doubt is really a convenient rationalization for not thinking about it, and really they’d rather discuss something else.
Doubters (used by Joseph Romm to differentiate them from Deniers) actually do doubt, but do not hold particularly strong views about it. Their information is largely from the mainstream media (sadly) and their doubt is vaguely based on the perception of scientific controversy, from that concluding that there is a lack of scientific certainty.
These first two groups make up the bulk of the population and for the most part do not concern us here. The Naïve will go along with the majority whatever that is, and the Doubters are open to education.
The Agnostic has an ideological commitment to asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge and does not doubt one hypothesis in favour of another, but rather claims to exist in a state of universal doubt. This group is small and does not particularly concern us.
When I last discussed this issue I noted that “‘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.” And I will stand by that.
Leaving “skeptics” and “deniers”
Skeptics are 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.
Skepticism is a disciplined intellectual activity based on facts. Just what it means in the modern sense is explored intelligently at places like the Skeptics Society and here. No doubt there are many more, but those give you a sense.
By contrast those who distort and lie (see “Debunking Nonsense” at right, and every post on this blog), who demonstrate no understanding of the science, who have no evidence or rational logic for their position but persist in denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence, can only be called Deniers.
Mark Hoofnagle describes “What is Denialism” on his Denialism blog quite thoroughly; I cannot recommend his blog highly enough for the analysis of denalism.
So, far from being synonyms the terms describe two radically different groups. This point is made repeatedly throughout the discussions of the issue. For eg here, and here, and here, and here, and here (you get the idea).
Johnny Rook even goes so far as to break down the Deniers into:
1) Plutocrats
2) Shills
3) Literate conservative/libertarian ideologues
4) The right-wing booboisie
while A Siegel explores “The Five stages: Denial to Determination” sensu Kubler-Ross, but let’s leave those for another time.
The politics of naming
James Hrynyshyn argues for the term Pseudoskeptics, but it defines them by what they are not rather than what they are. It fails to capture their essential defining characteristic of irrational denial, and hence I would argue is inaccurate.
From Chi Xi Stigma to Rumplestilskin it is a fundamental human truth that to defeat ‘the monster’ it is necessary to call it by it’s true name. We do not solve problems that we have misdiagnosed, and the problem we are dealing with here is denial, not skepticism.
Part of every political struggle has been to get actions and behaviours recognised for what they are. “Silence 
is consent” is axiomatic, and one form of silence is the passive acceptance and use of euphemisms that hide the ugly reality. Denying service to people of colour or homosexuals is not a question of the service provider’s rights, but of racism and homophobia.
Certainly my own father was always offended when we called him a sexist. He had many good qualities, but he really was a sexist. Failing to identify his behaviour for what it was only perpetuated the myth that his behaviour was somehow acceptable when it most certainly was not.
It is the Deniers who benefit by the confusion of skeptic vs Denier, so it is small wonder that most of them reject the term or try to synonymize them. The confusion hides the reality of their behaviour and gives them undeserved authority. I for one do not wish to grace the irrational thugishness of Deniers with the cloak of legitimacy and respectability that the term “skeptic” would confer. Also it would be a great insult to the skeptics.
No doubt is happens that some science proponents do intend a Holocaust reference when using the term Denier, but I have never seen it. Rather time and again it is the Deniers who invoke it in an attempt to appear the victim. They dodge the question of their actions by trying to turn the discussion to terminology, framing themselves as guileless seekers of truth unjustly cast as irrational anti-semites. Here again the ploy is to gain the respectability of skeptics while behaving as Deniers.
It’s an Ugly word
“Denier” is an ugly and crude word to describe an ugly and crude behaviour.
This blog use the term “Denier” regularly. For the most part this blog does not discuss the the Naïve, Doubters, Agnostics, Contrarians, or Skeptics. When I do I will use the appropriate term. If I say “Denier” it is because I am referring to those engaged in denial and it’s behavours.
Some argue that the term Denier should not be used as it puts the other person on the defensive. True enough, and good reason to never use the term carelessly or inaccurately.
But it should always be used when describing denial.
—-
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 46 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Greenfyre's 
Mike, are you sure “agnostic” is the ideal term to describe that third group? There’s two reasons I’d object to it, and I have a proposed replacement.
1) It has religious connotations. Although the term’s Greek roots aren’t religious, the term itself is understood in English to refer to a position on the existence of gods, or more specifically the Biblical God if the term’s used in North America or Europe. Even your own dictionary link has your intended definition as a secondary one. There are already enough ideologues out there who think AGW is some religion; using ‘agnostic’ would only add fuel to that fire.
2) In said (common) religious context, it usually refers to someone who asserts that they themselves don’t know, not that a conclusion is unknowable. Although the term does encompass this latter group, that’s hardly its principal usage in philosophical debates.
The term you appear to be trying to use would be “Sophist”. Note that the tactics used by this group are very reminiscent of the original Sophists and often to similar ends.
(I’m only so vocal on the term because I know a few who fall into that category. Most of them are actually supportive of action on climate, believe it or not — simply because they follow proper risk-management techniques. These people can be reached; I’ve been working with Greg Craven (aka wonderingmind42) for a year now and I’ve seen that approach reach these people (and several Naive/Doubters!) firsthand.)
—-
No kidding… this is deliciously ironic.
As you already know, I tend to prefer the word “inactivist” — it gives the crazy people less of an excuse to scream persecution. The only real argument against this term I’ve come across is “So what actions have you done personally against climate change, eh?” (of course, any answer you give will just be ignored)
—-
Greenfyre
Nice to see the irony has broken through…
Somehow your reasoning reminds me of those who argue they are right in using the term “Negro”. Perhaps I am wrong.[1]
Anyway…should I wonder what classification I have earned from you so far? A “denier”? A “skeptic”? [2] Please do note that your categorization does put “skepticism” in a bad light, [3] if only as the previous stage to “denialism”. [4] Are you sure this is your thinking on the Skeptics Society?
Speaking of which, I am sure you will be delighted to read this article the Skeptics Society published not too long ago… [5]
—-
[1] Nope … I argue that it is correct to use the term racism to describe racism, that euphemisms perpetuate unacceptable behaviour.
[2] Honestly, I get the impression that you are sincerely trying to be a skeptic, but you are far too trusting of Denier sources. Examine them critically and you will find they are horseshit.
In fact, you are more than bright enough to have already noted that of at least some of the Denier stories, stories carried by the same sources as material you have carried on your site.
So, better to ask yourself the question; given that you do not apply your doubt evenly and fairly, and given that you tend to uncritically trust sources that you know have not been trustworthy in the past … which are you?
[3] I call skeptics honourable and valuable; is an endorsement from me such a kiss of death? have I become W Bush?
[4] Hardly. The only progression is in the order in which I deal with the terms. If anything skeptics are most similar to climate realists in demanding a fact based, rational understanding of the world.
[5] Frank needed to do his research more thoroughly:
Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations
unreliability of climate models?
The 16 Climate Models
Misleading argument 5: ’Global warming computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable’
# “Climate models don’t work. They don’t even ‘predict’ the past.”
The scientific models aren’t very good at projecting the future
“Models ‘key to climate forecasts'”
Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy of Climate Models
You enjoy this one Skeptics Society debunks climate “skeptics” and other tales …
Poppycock. Skepticism is never a “previous stage” to denialism. Deniers simply accept any screed, any climate conspiracy theory, that disputes global warming — without skepticism, without question.
—-
Skeptic: Suspicious of any new claim. Respects burden of proof and rules of logic. Weights sources by credibility based on expertise, track record, and (percieved) likelyhood of spin. Requires evidence above all else.
Denier: Cherry-picks, moves the goalposts, claims conspiracies, engages in logical fallacies, falls prey to confirmation bias, cries persecution, and ignores self-consistency in favor of ideology.
Any individual can share traits from these lists. Confirmation bias is arguably not truly Denier (since everyone can fall victim to it), but I included it there because they make no effort to avoid it.
(For instance, in the Littlemore v. Monckton radio debate, the host agreed with Monckton that climate sensitivity was impossibly low (i.e. GHGs aren’t warming us). After the debate, he told Littlemore that agriculture gave off more GHG than transportation (a true fact, although he distorted it by lumping all of agriculture as “cows”), and therefore it wasn’t cars’ fault (i.e. it IS GHGs, but not those from cars). He heard multiple pieces of evidence that supported his preconcieved “it’s not cars” ideology, and instantly supported all of them even though they were mutually contradictory. This is not the behaviour of a skeptic, but rather of a Denier.)
You have a rather peculiar system of replying to comments but it is effective.
Regarding the Oregon petition, I did publish a “Prayer to God: on the Climate Debate…” blog (the prayer was, please protect me from my friends. I can defend myself from my enemies…).
I actually consider myself in an easier position that your average AGW-convinced ( if not -believer): I do not think there is a common, skeptical front to bring forward or to defend. People are skeptical of AGW for all sorts of reasons, after all (and you’re doing yourself a disservice by concentrating your efforts on dismissing those reasons, by sticking pretty labels to individuals. But then, you are free to do as you please).
I am perfectly aware there’s all kinds of nutters on “my side” and that’s the price of holding a non-consensus position. And I do wonder sometimes at what kind of blogs like to link to my site 🙂
My point, as the title of my climate blog suggests (“The Unberable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE”) is that a lot of AGW assertions are based on thin air (that is, they are naked). Just as you are concerned with people that you think deliberately deny the evidence, I deal mostly with those that concoct it up.
I do wish climate change had less of a political profile, especially in the USA, where it’s akin to abortion and creationism at the moment. We could then all discuss about climate (and weather) in a reasonable manner, and I don’t think that’s possible right now. But then I do wish many other things too.
So you try to distance yourself from the “nutters”… right after you vigorously defend them. You call them “nutters” even as you bemoan the use of “pretty labels”. You can’t have it both ways, you know.
frankbi
I said “there’s all kinds of nutter”: I did not say “all climate skeptics are nutters”.
Hopefully you don’t believe that all AGW-believers are wise, thoughtful, informed, reasoning people with no second motives?
Quote from Nov 18 Skeptics Society’s Michael Shermer’s op-ed on the LA Times:
“[…] all of us are subject to the pull of believing that the evidence supports our most cherished beliefs […] It is for this reason that we need to look for disconfirmatory evidence, to listen to the arguments of those with whom we disagree, to ask for constructive criticism of our beliefs, and to remember Oliver Cromwell’s words to the Church of Scotland in 1650: ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.‘”
To listen to disconfirmatory evidence, “pretty labels” won’t help. One is more free to use them for one’s own “side” (especially when it is as variegated and diverse as the “AGW skeptical” one)
Where did this silly rule come from? If someone’s an AGW denier, then “denier” is an accurate term to describe him, no matter who uses this term. If he’s not a denier, then “denier” is an inaccurate term, no matter who uses it. You can’t get off claiming that a word is an accurate descriptor only if you use it.
If Monckton is a denier — and he is — then what should anyone not be allowed to call him a denier? Scientific debate is advanced by facts, not by euphemisms.
Calling people offensive names is fun, but it will not go very far in settling whether anthropogenic global warming is actually happening out in the real world as opposed to inside the minds of people who believe it is happening.
I identify a certain group of people as “reality deniers” as they refuse to acknowledge or consider evidence that contradicts their established beliefs. Instead, they go to great lengths to avoid considering the evidence, often by attacking the messenger or accusing them of lies, distortion, working for some nefarious cause, gross stupidity, or even being in denial—anything in fact to avoid having to come face to face with inconvenient facts. [1] I estimate that about 95% of people fall into this category on one issue or another, so it obviously has some survival value to the species.
Monkton, however, I would not put into this category, his denial of AGW is based on sound science [2] and a good nose for sniffing out bovine excrement. Not that he isn’t a bit whacky. Some of us remember his idea of testing everybody annually for HIV infection and placing all carriers in isolation for life, as was once done with lepers. This suggestion was outrageous, but it wasn’t based on the denial of any facts, only of a lack of respect for contemporary concepts of human rights and a certain naivity about how society might react.
As for those of you who believe or are certain that significant anthropogenic global warming is happening, you are all deniers. You deny that humans are not making a significant contribution to any global warming that might be going on at the moment. [3] This is a more serious form of denial than the head under the pillow or even the head in the sand variety. This is the music has stopped and everyone else has left the ballroom and I’m still dancing variety.
—-
CO2 did NOT cause the end of the last ice age.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php
In fact, CO2 has historically LAGGED temperature.
Click to access indermuehle00grl.pdf
I know “realclimate” has argued that there’s a positive feedback from CO2,
but no mathematical model is provided.
Of course we all understand positive feedback and how it works. But to demonstrate that this is the reason for the CO2 lag itself requires more work than saying that postive feedback exists. Of COURSE positive feedback exists, that’s where we get plutonium bombs.
Given the lack of a full mathematical explanation for the lag, thinking people are are not universally convinced that CO2 pushes temperature and it’s not temperature
that’s the controlling factor.
– A. McIntire
—-
Alan D — One of the real frailities of how deniers/insincere skeptics argue is that they continually stove-pipe and cherry pick. Let us question: should we be concerned about CO2 emissions? If we were to accept, for argument’s sake, that CO2 does not have a role in increasing temperatures, does that mean that we can simply wash our hands of Global Warming and say that human-related emissions of CO2 is nothing to worry about? Well, that stove-piping would ignore acidification of the oceans and the concerning impacts that mounting CO2 levels have on the quality of agriculture production. Even without any warming influence, stopping the growth of and even reversing the emissions of CO2 would be imperative just to minimize acidification. But, it isn’t just Acidification, it is also the warming impacts that you will continue to assert have no relationship to CO2 levels.
…….
Greenfrye … much appreciated this post / effort that went into it. You might want to take a look at another post of mine: “Sourcing Skepticism …” (http://getenergysmartnow.com/2007/09/13/sourcing-skepticism-what-factors-drive-questioning-of-global-warming/).
—-
I read your link. It was unconvincing. As I said before, the article stated the CO2 magnified the warming, but gave no mathematical model. To be convincing, you’ve got to give a mathematical relationship, showing
Temperature = f (solar flux, CO2, H2O etc), and show how with a dT1 increase caused by solar flux, there will be a d2 CO2 increase, driving temperatures up to T2. Then you’ve got to plug in an equal solar flux decrease and show how even with higher CO2 levels, the function will drop back down to the original level. You can’t do it. Looking at the above vague relationship, a more sensible guess would be that temperature drives CO2, and and CO2 driven temperature changes are minor compared to natural climate variations.
*************
I think the greenhouse effect per se is minor- warmer surfaces
have everything to do with the adiabetic(environmental) lapse rate.
The temperature for Earth
is about 255K; the 288K surface temperature is supposedly caused by
the greenhouse effect raising the temperature 33 degrees.
Using the 255K radiated to space as the average air temperature, and
plugging this
into the equation
H= kT/Mg
where k = 1.38* 10^-23 J/K = boltzmann constant,
T= degrees Kelvin,
M= mean molecular mass of dry air = 28.964 * 1.66* 10^-27 kg
g= gravitational constant= 9.807 m/sec per sec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height
and you get a scale height of about 7.5 kilometers
The environmental temperature lapse rate for earth, with its water
vapor, is about 6.5 K per kilometer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
The atmospheric pressure drops off at a rate
proportional to e^-z until it reaches a height of around 12 km, when
it holds fairly steady .
Let a z of 1 equal the scale height. Then the AVERAGE temperature of
the
atmosphere will be K times the integral of *ze^-z from zero to
infinity minus K times the integral from z=3D12km/7.5km , which works
out to K(1-0.2) times the temperature at level zero, which is the
ground temperature.
K= 7.5 * 6.5= minus about 49K. Multiply this by 0.8
and you get the average temperature of the atmosphere is about
(289-39.2)= 250 K. Allowing for the inexactitude of my calculatons
(the tropopause must be somewhat LESS than 12.5 kilometers), this is
close to the theoretical 255 K.
The end result is, for earth you can IGNORE any theoretical
greenhouse effect. The average temperature of the atmosphere is about
250 K, and that’s why you get the 250 K radiation to space. The
ground temp is natuarally higher than this average because of the
atmospheric lapse rate of about 6.5K per kilometer, but this is
counterbalanced by the atmosphere above
(288-250)/6.5 =5.8 kilometers, which is radiating at a temperature
BELOW the 250 K average. [1]
********
Try a google search on the art of persuasion. You will discover that using attack terms like “Denier fable” and
“deniers/insincere skeptics” are GUARANTEED not to be persuasive.
Try and make reasoned attacks against the IDEAS, not the people proposing them. [2]
Additionally, you should acknowledge the opposition. By failing to acknowledge opposing points of view, your opponents, who ARE aware of those points of view, will conclude that either you are ignorant of those views, or you are unable to offer a coherent argument and are ignoring those views in hopes that they will go away. [3]
– A. McIntire
—-
Pardon my fumbly typing: the 3D was extraneous and should be ignored. The equation should have read:
z=12km/7.5km , which works
out to K(1-0.2) times the temperature at level zero, which is the
ground temperature.
Speaking personally, I think your use of the term ‘denier’ detracts from what is, in general, a superb website and resource (compliments, well done and thanks!). I also find the quality of discussion surrounding use of the term below par.
I explain why I oppose using the term ‘Climate Change Denier’ in an article I wrote recently – see
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/04/no-need-for-sophistry-in-climate-change-debate/
Very unwise, IMO, to muddy the waters on climate change by associating this controversy with the historical debate over World War Two – unless you wish to suggest that strong arm tactics should and will be used against your opponents in the climate change debate.
That really would be counter-productive overkill, given that we are winning the climate change debate (slowly, yes, but still winning…)
If you insist on continung to refer to the so-called ‘Holocast Denial’ issue, I suggest you may need to do some reading. Have you ever looked at this topic in detail? What revisionist sources have you studied, in order that you have seriously considered both sides of that debate? If the answer is none, then once again your use of the comparison is weakening your main case which is about climate change. You can’t claim to be writing scientifically if you’re ignorant of relevant source material.
My personal view, FWIW, is that climate change advocacy shouldn’t really depend on short-term climate data.
My response to a sceptic/doubter is usually to say I hope to heaven he/she is right. I very much hope it isn’t getting hotter fast and I hope it won’t. But there’s no doubt the composition of the atmosphere is changing, fast. No-one disputes that. Futhermore, just as the gathering scientific consensus MAY have significantly over-estimated the future threat resulting from atmpospheric change, it follows it may also have significantly UNDER-estimated. Why run an uncontrolled experiment on an entire planet that may have potentially catastrophic affects? Most people wouldn’t consider doing such a thing on their houseblock – let alone a city or a country. What kind of maniac risks screwing a planet that happens to be the only habitable one we know?
Maybe it’s just me, but I find sceptics usually go quiet at that point and stop quibbling over silly details such as the latest cold weather report.
—-
Joseph Romm suggested the term climate change delayers, since the unifying theme is a desire to delay action on climate change. For instance, there are deniers who say all changes are caused by the sun, while others say warming is caused by greenhouse gasses but is beneficial. In general, there is no agreement. The point of commonality is a desire not to see climate mitigation policies, especially carbon pricing.
I like that Milan
The term ‘climate gamblers’ also springs to mind.
People who’d wager the planet for a theory.
Call them Deniers, that’s what they are.
And who gives a damn if it pisses them off. They can deal with it like they deal with everything else that’s true that they deny.
I despise the Deniers, by the way. I see them as threats to the survival of mankind and life on earth, and that’s how everyone should view them. They are dangerously ignorant. They are the people blocking the entrances to the burning building. They don’t deserve our politeness and consideration. We need to shove them out of the way.
Forcefully.
—-
Alan D. McIntire wrote… “I read your link. It was unconvincing.”
Have you read James Hansen? I recommend his articles.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
I don’t pretend to understand all his science because I’m not a scientist, but he does all the things you ask and without using wikipedia.
Cuz he’s a real scientist, not a pretend one.
[…] […]
Denialism, or being “in denial” is a psychological state where the sufferer ignores a vast majority of hard evidence and instead gives credence to marginal, ambiguous evidence or ideas or concepts that support whatever they want to believe.
People are often said to be in denial about their alcoholism or drug addiction – I don’t think any of them winge about being compared to Holocaust deniers?
What an objective observer would regard as overwhelmingly convincing can be ignored by a denialist because they do not see to grasp the concept that clear evidence and science can firmly exclude certain ideas and explanations from being reality. If the scientific evidence excludes their favoured ideas from being close to reality they simply metaphorically wave their hands and ignore it and look around for some source which says what they want to hear.
As the term denier or denialism is really an abbreviation for being in denial of reality, Holocaust denial, addiction denial and climate science denial should be seen as three different manifestations of an underlying psychological defence mechanism against uncomfortable ideas which some take to extremes.
[…] denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence, can only be called Deniers. – (source) LOL. Denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence is pretty much all you've […]