I don't have a problem using the word "denier" to describe those who deny the science physics. But Eli Rabett has hit on the best response to their whinging that they're being compared to Holocaust deniers (when they aren't; the word "denier" had a perfectly appropriate definition before the Holocaust ever happened).
You can read his blog post, but it's worth producing the string of tweets, which make his argument clearly and succinctly:
oh. OK. So it's OK to use word 'denier' and smear link them to Holocaust as long as your specific enclave is not labeled the same.— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) May 24, 2019
Why are you stealing the sacrifice of those who died in the Holocaust?— eli rabett (@EthonRaptor) May 24, 2019
oh. OK. So it's OK to use word 'denier' and smear link them to Holocaust as long as your specific enclave is not labeled the same.— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) May 24, 2019
Game, set and match.You use the sacrifice of others to deflect criticism of your duplicity— eli rabett (@EthonRaptor) May 24, 2019
Eli summarizes:
So here are Eli's suggestions the next time some anti-Vaxxer, climate change denier or whatever starts bleating about being accused of denying the Holocaust and how mean you are for pointing it out
- Why are you stealing the sacrifice of those who died in the Holocaust?
- You use the sacrifice of others to deflect criticism of your duplicity
- Another bunch who wants to steal the suffering of the Holocaust victims for themselves.
24 comments:
I felt this way when Science of Doom had his "Denier" discussion. He was upset that people were cheapening the Holocaust by using the word denier, but as far as I could see, he was the only one linking science denial to the Holocaust.
I'm not a fan of the word though because it presupposes intent where most of the time it is probably just ignorance.
David, the trouble with Boslough's argument is that the phrases "climate denier" and "climate change denier" do not have the meaning for which they're used. The "deniers" are not denying that there's a climate, nor are they denying that the climate changes. These phrases are inappropriate, whether or not the word "denier" was chosen to remind one of Holocaust deniers.
In fact, there seems to be no clear meaning to the phrase "climate change denier." Some use it to mean a person who disbelieves anthropogenic global warming. Some use to mean a person who merely questions whether climate change will be catastrophic. Some use it to just mean a person they disagree with.
How about physics denier then if climate denier is too confusing?
How obtusely and subtly DinC plays the victim by falsely claiming "whether or not the word … was chosen to remind one …", completely ignoring Eli's and David's points that the word has been defined, a standard part of language and in use since at least the 15th century.
So DinC denies it all, again aptly proving he's a denier of the first degree.
Not sure if that was meant to be ironic... What does he deny?
@10:48 - I think the facts show that we don't know why the phrase "climate denier" came to be used. As you say, the word "denier" was a standard part of the language. However, the phrase "climate denier" was not a standard part of the language. Some person or group of people made a decision to use the phrase "climate denier" in a derogatory way. I don't know who made this decision or what motivated them. So, I cannot rule out the possibility that they might have chosen to use that phrase because it resembled the phrase "Holocaust denier."
Cheers
DiC wrote:
"the trouble with Boslough's argument is that the phrases "climate denier" and "climate change denier" do not have the meaning for which they're used"
This is a trivial thing. Everyone knows that "climate denier" means "climate change denier."
"In fact, there seems to be no clear meaning to the phrase "climate change denier." Some use it to mean a person who disbelieves anthropogenic global warming. Some use to mean a person who merely questions whether climate change will be catastrophic. Some use it to just mean a person they disagree with."
I think most people don't label someone who is a genuine skeptic, who knows the science. Or those who don't think it will be "catastrophic," whatever that means. But I think it's a legitimate term for those who DON'T know the science or who often get important parts of it wrong or who are impervious to evidence and hold the same views irregardless of the data and evidence once it's shown to them.
"However, the phrase "climate denier" was not a standard part of the language."
Oh come on. Language is invented all the time. There are evolution deniers, Holocaust deniers, ozone hole deniers, acid rain deniers, climate deniers, spherical Earth deniers, vaccine deniers, and more.
What's the evidence those who first used the term "climate denier" meant it as derogatory? And so what if they did? It most commonly means those who don't understand the science but dismiss it anyway, or who do know (most of) the science but deny what it implies. Why should such people be respected?
"So, I cannot rule out the possibility that they might have chosen to use that phrase because it resembled the phrase "Holocaust denier.""
But you have no evidence of that.
"Climate denier" *does* resemble the term "Holocaust denier" in that both are denying something. It clearly doesn't mean they're denying both.
BTW, have you ever read any Holocaust denial literature, like that of David Irving? It predates climate denial, but they sound a lot alike -- being picayune about every little thing, refusal to accept evidence, dismissing experts, implying that one little mistake somewhere supports their larger position, being impervious to evidence, etc. Their sentences often sing the same tune.
David -- As you say, I cannot prove that "climate denier" was chosen to resemble "Holocaust denier". That's why I wrote "whether or not." I was politely defending myself against @10:48's accusation that my use of "whether or not" was "obtuse", "subtle" and "false". I think it was completely accurate.
Part of the evidence offered by @10:48 was that, "the word denier has been defined, a standard part of language and in use since at least the 15th century." The reason I mentioned that "climate denier" is brand new was to refute this aspect of his/her argument.
Cheers
Cheers
I do think the phrase "climate denier" or "climate change denier" was meant to be derogatory from the beginning. My reasons are
1. I have never heard the phrase used other than derogatorily
2. Both terms are inaccurate. Nobody denies that there is a climate or that the climate changes.
3. Climate change pessimists as well as climate optimists sometimes don't understand the science or make false statements. E.g.
-- One group has claimed that climate change causes earthquakes.
-- In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
-- In 2000, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicted that within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.’"
However, the pejorative "climate denier" is only applied to climate optimists, never to climate pessimists.
Cheers
David, so what's wrong with the word "denier" being derogatory?
I'd prefer to use "skeptic," but few deniers act like a real skeptic.
DiC wrote:
"Part of the evidence offered by @10:48 was that, "the word denier has been defined, a standard part of language and in use since at least the 15th century." The reason I mentioned that "climate denier" is brand new was to refute this aspect of his/her argument."
It doesn't refute him. "Climate denier" is a denier, with the leading word indicating what's being denied. As I wrote earlier, there are lots of deniers about many things. It's necessary to differentiate between them.
David -- we seem to be miscommunicating. In the phrase "climate denier", the leading word is supposed to indicate what's being denied, but it doesn't do that. Nobody denies that there's a climate. Similarly, as regards "Climate change denier", nobody denies that the climate changes." Part of the power of that epithet is the vagueness of just what is being denied.
However, as spin, I must concede that the phrase "climate denier" was successful. It enabled skeptics of various aspects of climate theory to be portrayed as illegitimate and shut out of the debate. It has been applied to people, even experts, who question or disagree with any aspects of conventional climate theory. E.g., Mann called Judith Curry a "denier" in written testimony he gave to Congress.
Cheers
"Nobody denies that there's a climate."
Oh please, it's just a shorthand and everyone knows what it means. Like the "greenhouse effect" of climate doesn't happen under a big glass roof in the sky. Like "magnetic field" isn't actually a plot of land with bar magnets laying in it. Etc etc.
"E.g., Mann called Judith Curry a "denier" in written testimony he gave to Congress."
I wouldn't call Curry a climate denier. Take it up with Mann. (He's been called far worse.)
Hi hope she is in denial and not just so confused as to be impressed with Salby's "modern CO2 rise caused by ENSO" talk. She called it potentially revolutionary.
Either way, not an informed source.
Layzej -- I know nothing about Salby's work or Curry's view of Salby. But, her biography shows that she is one of the world's top experts on climate. It is unwise to decide that someone is "not an informed source" based solely on one statement.
Salby is a climate denier extraordinaire who, after doing very good work on the ozone hole, thinks the CO2 rise is natural. He resigned from one faculty position under controversy and was fired from another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murry_Salby
https://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm
After some googling, I found Dr. Curry's mention of Salby's work. Perhaps this is what Layzej was referring to.
This is a very well crafted and clearly presented talk. However, Salby talks exceedingly slow (but this may have contributed to the ease of understanding the talk). He makes a number of very interesting points. He closes with some skeptic-pleasing comments on CO2 emissions policies. He clearly has a different perspective on the carbon budget than does the IPCC.
The talk is well worth listening to.
She fails to condemn his work, but she doesn't endorse it as being correct.
Cheers
Link for above is https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/
David, that's a good example of why many people no longer trust Curry's judgment. And how she gets invited to testify for Republicans.
After some googling, I found Dr. Curry's mention of Salby's work
No need to Google. I linked to it in my comment.
"I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow... If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."
She fails to condemn his work, but she doesn't endorse it as being correct.
On a side note, I just finished reading Wilhelm Reich's work on Orgone. Wow. If Reich's work holds up, this could revolutionize health sciences.
Post a Comment