The hypothetical Nazi association of the word “denier” or “denialist” came up during the discussion of the most recent Monckton-swastika incident Similar discussions are taking place at collide-a-scape and Watts up With That. Clearly, it is time for me to elevate my view on this to a top level post:
First: I fall in the camp of thinking the word denier generally does not allude to Nazis, Jews or the holocaust. Yes, I am aware the term “holocaust denier” exists, but that doesn’t mean “no adjective denier” implies “holocaust”. Equally: “provider” doesn’t imply “abortion”, “sympathizer” doesn’t imply “communist” and “coalition” doesn’t suggest the words “rainbow” or “Christian”.
Moreover, even if a few people who use the word denier may wish to evoke the holocaust, I am not going to take umbrage on the part of the Jewish people. My lack of umbrage not due to any lack of sympathy for Jews. I estimate I spent 50% of my weekends during high school at the home of my best friend who was Jewish (at the time.) In consequence, I sometimes attended Jewish religion classes with her. I think Jews have a right to decide for themselves whether the term “denier” is offensive to them; I also think they are perfectly willing and able to express offense in our current political climate.
Second: I think the term denier is derogatory and is intended to inflame. To me, the term bring to mind phrases like “Denial Is Not A River In Egypt”, or “He’s in denial” both of which suggest a state of denial that is not based on realty. This implied accusation of being unhinged from reality that is derogatory.
Third: I generally prefer people to avoid the term in arguments in comments; the reason is that it’s become a fighting word. Often, when used it amounts to arguing-by-name calling. Those who resort to it will probably never understand why that is unproductive, but it is so. Presumably, if a a person, their claim or its supporting argument are unhinged from reality, the counter argument can show the disconnect. If the counter argument is “you’re just a denier”, maybe the person presenting the counter argument ought to consider bonding up on some fundamentals.
Finally, fourth: I think the label denier is often applied without regard to anyone’s actual beliefs about warming. For example, Eli seems to have written a poem about my denialism. As it happens, I believe the 21st century is much more likely to warm than cool. In fact, I would be pretty stunned if the 21st century does not warm. But evidently, ‘denialism’ involves believing the law should be followed on FOI requests. (FWIW: I’ve also been labeled a “warmer” with no “luke” anywhere in sight by people who disagree with Eli. Go figure. )
Now having posted my opinions on the terms denier and denial, I thought I’d report the results of my word association research which I collected following Amac’s suggestion:
Re: Owen (Jun 27 06:05),
We can enlist Google auto-complete to help answer the question of what “denial†is associated with.
When I start with “Holocaustâ€, the first suggestion is “museumâ€.
Then: facts, survivors, pictures, timeline, movies, quotes, poems.
At #9 is “denialâ€. The list ends with “concentration camps.â€
So it’s there, but doesn’t lead the pack (my pack).
I also tried “evolutionâ€, “climateâ€, “denyâ€, “denialâ€. Nothing relevant. #7 for “denier†is “deniers of the holocaustâ€. Right after “de niro†(sic).
Here are screenshots I get when I enter “denial” and “denier”
 |
 |
I’m not seeing any holocaust or Nazi allusions. Of course your mileage may vary. Does it?
The people complaining about it alluding to the holocaust almost always have the most conspiratorial take on the climate debate. I use it to distinguish between those who object to the mainstream view but maintain a solid grounding in science aka the luke warmers and those with the more fragrant theories that tend to have very limited support in the peer reviewed literature, the deniers.
AIDS deniers have gained a certain cache, so much so its the unofficial title of a position on the link between HIV and AIDS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism
In a discussion on a related topic in November at C-a-s, I quoted fellow commenter Dean, who’d said, “I wouldn’t use ‘denier’ with somebody who I was trying to have a constructive dialog with.â€
Building on Dean’s remark, the use of contemptuous expressions such as “Denierâ€
showssuggests that the speaker has assumed a position of moral superiority. Is dialog what he or she is actually seeking? Even in cases where constructive engagement is being sought, it is an unlikely outcome.I don’t buy this. There are thousands of words that could have been used and could be used. Skeptic has been around and serves the purpose faily well. Using “denier” has a very specific purpose. The term “holocaust denier” already existed and already had very negative conotations for almost everyone. So calling climate skeptics “deniers” was a way to take the negative feelings associated with calling someone a holocaust denier and smearing the climate skeptic with it.
dorlomin: “The people complaining about it alluding to the holocaust almost always have the most conspiratorial take on the climate debate.”
This is another clear example of dorlomin playing his usual sophistry games. The skeptics don’t talk about conspiracies. Only the warmers use this term to denigrate skeptics. The implication being that if someone believes in conspiracies then they must be crazy. So dorlomin is anxious to label everything a skeptic’s conspiracy theory as a way of calling them crazy. But the use of a name like “denier” takes no conspiracy. Warmers see the term used, like the idea, and run with it. No conspiracy required. So the dorlomin’s framing of the skeptic’s objection as being a skeptic’s idea that there is a conspiracy is just so much bull.
dorlomin–
Before I clicked the link I anticipated discovering there were people who didn’t believe AIDS existed. (I did know there were people who deny it’s caused by HIV.)
On the use of the term: I agree some people use the word deniers the way you suggest. For better or worse, others use it differently. The term ‘denier’ gets applied even to people who agree with radiative physics, believe the temperatures are much more likely to rise during the 21st century than not etc. So, at this point, no one can be sure what anyone means when they use the term. (Lukewarmer is going in the same direction, but because people who predict the 21st century is more likely to cool than not are calling themselves lukewarmers. )
Amac
Very wise words.
Clearly, if someone wants to discuss whether a fact is a fact or someone’s interpretation of fact is correct, it’s best not to begin by using a term that suggests they are ‘in denial’.
On it’s own the AGW believers use of the term ‘Denier’ isn’t in its full context. Once you add in the leader of the AGW tribe’s use of the phrase ‘Death Trains’ the reference becomes unmistakable. It is an attempt to associate those who disagree with the IPCC’s assessment of how Earth’s climate system operates with an historical group, the Nazis.
It is contemptible behaviour and amounts to yet another self administered foot shooting for the AGW’ites, because most ordinary folk who aren’t active participants in the climate debate see it as contemptible behaviour too.
“Denier” is likely supposed to carry emotional baggage — that is why it was chosen. But this is not new surprise in the political world. Everyone on both sides would like to impose their favored semantics on a debate.
The key is being clear on exactly what is being denied. Whenever I give lectures on climate, I always begin with something like this:
“To the extent that I am a denier, I don’t deny the world has warmed over the last 150 years. I don’t even deny that man may be helping to contribute to that warming. What I deny is the catastrophe. And so, in this presentation you will see that, yes, there has been some warming over the past century or so; and yes, manmade greenhouse gasses may have contributed somewhat to this warming. But man-made greenhouse gas warming is likely to remain at trivial levels, less than one degree Celsius over the next century.”
tilo
Sure. We just disagree about the likely purpose. I think the purpose is to suggest someone is unhinged from reality.
Both ‘sides’ suggest conspiracies. Here’s Andrew Bolt: Herald Sun Climategate: Warmist conspiracy exposed?
I agree that dorlomin uses ‘denier’ to suggest theories s/he disagrees with are crazy, but substitutes the word “fragrant”.
I don’t think dorlomin is suggesting that skeptics claim use of the word “deniers” is evidence of a conspiracy. I think all s/he is suggesting is that those who object to its use tend to accuse warmers of conspiracy. I’m not convinced by that claim either, but it’s a different claim than the one you seem to read into what s/he writes.
Rog
Are people using the term “death trains” constantly? Hansen used it; his usage was contemptible. But really, has the phrase “death trains” to describe coal trains caught on? I haven’t been seeing a whole lot of that.
Denier carries emotional baggage because people let it. Richard Lindzen owns the title of denier in a similar manner as described by Coyote.
Getting the vapors so easily over language is unseemly. I try to remember that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I believe the term “denier” was used shortly after a widely publicized UK libel trial. A historian was accused of denigrating an author’s (?) holocaust book/memoir. Thus at that time an easy memory connection was made with “holocaust denier”. As time goes by, the connection fades and the term “denier” slowly reverts to its untainted definition. I mean untainted by connection to The Holocaust. I am a denier I guess but I accept some human contribution to climate change.
Lucia, even if ‘Death Trains’ didn’t catch on, the reference is still unmistakable. I have another objection to ‘Denier’. It implies there is something of substance which is being denied. We don’t deny the AGW hypothesis exists. We don’t deny the climate changes. We know the IPCC admits there is a “low level of scientific understanding” of potentially important climate factors.
It is the AGW’ites who are in denial of uncertainty, and the implication that the IPCC’s 95% certainty that the majority of warming since 1945 is due to human emission of co2 is not scientifically supportable.
The term ‘Climate denier’ is nonsensical.
The term ‘Uncertainty denier’ is demonstrable. Not that I’d use it.
lucia: “Sure. We just disagree about the likely purpose. I think the purpose is to suggest someone is unhinged from reality.”
Using it to carry the baggage of “holocaust denier” also has that meaning. It’s two for the price of one, since holocaust deniers are thought to be unhinged from reality.
lucia: “I think all s/he is suggesting is that those who object to its use tend to accuse warmers of conspiracy.”
I don’t see very much evidence of skeptics accusing warmers of conspiracy. I think that most skeptics simply think that there is commonality of purpose among warmers. By linking this imaginary group of skeptics to skeptics opinion about the use of the term denier, dorlomin is trying to call them crazy.
Not to go too far off the path with this, I do believe that there is some coordination of effort between warmers on a small scale. For example, when Briffa says: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.” It reflects that commonality of purpose, and, to a degree, a coordination of effort with a small group. But it doesn’t rise to the level of a conspiracy.
When skeptics claim that there is bias in the scientific publishing field, the warmers also trot out the words “conspiracy theory”. Incidentally, McIntyre has just posted a piece that makes a nearly iron clad case for publishing bias. But again, skeptics are not claiming that there is a conspiracy in the publishing business. And claiming that there is bias in the publishing business is not at all the same thing as claiming that there is a conspiracy in the publishing business. A commonality of believe and purpose is all that is needed. But dorlomin desperately wants to paint skeptics as a bunch of conspiracy theorists because that is part of his sophistry.
Well, when the term was coined it was quite consciously and deliberately linked to Holocaust denial, see Ellen Goodman and others.
I believe there are legitimate uses of the term denial. I think that before the hijacking of the term by those wishing to make the Holocaust connection that it could have been used in a climate context. But no longer.
After skeptics and lukewarmers began protesting its use, the term actually accelerated in appearance, often accompanied by ‘nudge wink’ sly protestations of innocence.
Just like everything else the consensus media team has touched, they overplayed their hand and corrupted a term.
There are two ways of looking at the use of a descriptor:
What does it mean to the user? I argue that they want to maintain an association to Holocaust denial to deligitimize their opponents. I do not think all users are anti-Semites–just jerks.
What does it mean to those to whom the descriptor is applied? I can only speak for myself. I’ve been called a denier or denialist or other variant frequently. I get angry when it happens.
So I think the term should vanish from public discourse. Lucia, you have a kinder heart and a more forgiving soul than I do. And I salute you for it. But I still get angry when it happens.
Tilo-
I just don’t think it’s used to carry the baggage of “holocaust denier”.
I agree that Dorlomin has not made a case that those who see a link between use of “denier” also tend to adopt conspiracy theories about warming. I’m just saying that’s what I think Dorlomin was suggesting.
Tom Fuller: “I do not think all users are anti-Semites–just jerks.
Good! That’s an important point to get out there, Tom. And I agree.
Denier De*ni”er, n.
One who denies; as, a denier of a fact, or of the faith, or
of Christ.
[1913 Webster]
Before I was interested in global warming discussion, even before I knew there was a valid debate on AGW, I began to hear the word “denier” applied to the critics of IPCC theory. All my usual sceptic alarms begun to ring.
Denier? Why would any reasonable person use such a term? And scientists, no less. Why not use critic, sceptic, disputant, doubter, whatever?
Of course my first thought was on Holocaust. My second was on stupidity. In every discussion both parts are refusing something and stating something. So denier alone doesn’t have any meaning, could be “denier” of any aspect of the problem, on any of the sides. Moreover, they are not deniers according to Webster (1913), because you can only know if you are talking about facts, or about an illusion, after the debate and not before. If you ever can.
Now that I am sceptic (critic) on IPCCs statements, I am very happy when IPCC supporters are stupid enough to use the term “denier”. It’s a pretty informative symptom
By confusing Penn State and UPenn. In addition to just plain making up random stuff, quite uncharacteristically I must say.
Notice the paradox: even though you were engaging in OT ramblings, you somehow managed to illustrate the topic at hand perfectly 🙂
Tom–
I’ve been called a denier. It doesn’t make me angry. I just think the person using the word has limited vocabulary and mental faculties.
Like I said, you’re a better person. Maybe I should take up knitting…
toto: “By confusing Penn State and UPenn.”
Pretty much irrelevant to the bias case made by McIntyre. But that’s par for your comments.
This is an interesting subject for me since I love lexicography. The problem here is “denier” was specifically used to allude to the Holocaust. People protested, and in response, the word got used more, again with that specific allusion in mind. Then the word got used more with that allusion known, but not really made a focus. Then the word got used more with the allusion completely dropped.
Now then, all three usages of the word still exist. The last one seems to be the most popular (at least, to me), but that doesn’t mean the other usages have vanished. Even worse, the usages do not have a consistent popularity amongst all groups. In a situation like this, it is immensely difficult to assign a single meaning to the word.
Plenty of people use “denier” without intending to make an allusion to the Holocaust. On the other hand, one doesn’t have to intend something to cause it. People with different experiences have a legitimate case for different interpretations of words, and to people who “were around” when the word first caught on, it’s seeing the allusion is justified.
In the end, it comes down to an age-old question. Do we assign meaning to words by what the speaker intends or by what the listener hears?
The term “denier” has been used in multiple issues where there is some confusion between an ideological or partisan stance and claims of fact. I thinkthe Denialism blogs 5 categories are good way of looking at denialism taxonomically:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
‘5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.’
Monckton is a denier – he uses the same tactics and same approach to questions of fact as AIDS denialists and Holocaust denialists. Roy Spencer isn’t a denialist (although I wouldn’t call him a skeptic either as his alternative theory requires a degree of credulusness rather than skepticism). Anthony Watts might be annoying but he isn’t a denialist either – as his recent paper proved.
McKittrick & McIntyre fit better the notion of skeptics in so far as their primary contribution has been to critically examine positive claims. I’d suggest “lukewarmers” also tend to fit the description of “skeptic” well also – but because the term has been poorly applied largely eschew it as a self-description.
Personally I like the term “warming doubters” as a general, non-pejorative, catch-all term. Watts, Monckton, Spencer, Tim Ball, McIntyre etc doubt, for various and different reasons, that warming is occuring or will continue to occur either at all or to the extent that is widely claimed. “Skeptic” is almost wholly useless as a term in the discussion. “Denier” is a legitimate term for a subset of the doubters – Monckton, Ball and other cranks with a significant profile. Somebody like Ian Pilmer is a marginal case – his book ‘Heaven & Earth’ tends towards the crank end of the spectrum.
Nyq only. You may continue to use the term. You are not however the arbiter of its legitimacy.
You’re being naive here. The allusion to the Holocaust doesn’t need to be in the mind of every user of the term ‘denier’ for it to have originated there. Where else has the term ‘xxx denier’ been used in popular media? I’ll be very impressed if anyone can come up with another common usage. There are no abortion deniers, tax deniers, alternative medicine deniers, nuclear power deniers… etc. You’ll now find ‘evolution denier’ – due to the popularity of climate change denier. Before the rise of the term ‘climate denier,’ where other than Holocaust references was such a term ever used?
Nyq
There are people I consider animal rights extremists, but I don’t know what this category of “denialists” even begins to mean.
It seems to me we see cherry picking, impossible expectations and conspiracy theory at blogs that label those with whom they disagree “denialists”. Certainly, we also find general fallacies of logic at blogs that accuse others of being “denialist”. I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to find a fake expert or two.
Given how widespread these things are on every side of every debate, I would suggest everyone can find some evidence of “denialism” on both sides of ever possible topic debated by people.
MarkB–
Two hours ago, I might not have been able to rattle off a list and provide proof. Oddly enough, Barry Woods sent me a scan of an article from New Scientists, which mentioned:
climate denial
evolution denial
holocaust denial
aids denial
vaccine denial
tobacco denial
I’ll upload the image and show it.
Maybe “naysayer” is a less objectionable word.
Well got a bit cross when my Prime minister – started using Flat earther, anti-science climate denier – at Copenhage, and double denier later on.. pluss google Ed Miliband – Former UK Energy and Climate Change Minister, now leader of the labour party – and denier.
Actually, I’m A Lukewamer – anyway, for agreeing with Judith Curry that Tord Turnbull recent essay refelected a luke warm position 😉
The intention, whatever the linkage, anti-scient, flat-earther, etc,etc. is to label those as beneath listening too, because they are bad or stupid
I agree with this.
bad, stupid, or can’t type – 😉
I’ve recently coined a new term for those who try to spread fear and alarm about climate change.
Climate botherers
You know who you are. 🙂
Barry Woods: “The intention, whatever the linkage, anti-scient, flat-earther, etc,etc. is to label those as beneath listening too, because they are bad or stupid”
When a person uses such a term it is likely their intention to make others think the “deniers” are bad and stupid. But the primary intention of the person using the term is to control the debate so that only one side of the debate will be heard by the public.
By the way, there is a concept I’ve discussed at times which is relevant to topic. I call it insult by proxy. Basically, it is where a person or group insults another person or group by using an intermediary, often one who doesn’t realize his or her role. You might have seen it in school. A group of kids convinces another kid to say or do something which they know will offend a third party. Often times, they convince the intermediary his actions will be seen positively, and only after does he realize he was duped.
In a case like that, people set out to insult someone, and a person was insulted. The fact a proxy was used doesn’t mitigate the insult. In the same way, if I convinced people a particular racial slur wasn’t offensive, and they then used it neutrally, they would still be insulting the race I set out to offend. Members of that race would be justified in being upset with those who used the racial slur, even though the users had no intention to offend.
As far as I know, nobody denies the allusion to the Holocaust was (and sometimes still is) intentional. It was designed to insult a group of people. At what point is it no longer justified for those people to be insulted by what was designed to be an insult?
I don’t think it’s fair to adopt a single, simple position for this issue. To me, this is reminiscent of the n-word, albeit less complex.
Lucia: “I’m not seeing any holocaust or Nazi allusions. Of course your mileage may vary. Does it?”
The third suggestion on the list I get is “Holocaust denial”.
Lucia: “There are people I consider animal rights extremists, but I don’t know what this category of “denialists†even begins to mean. ”
I don’t have a specific example to mind but you do find some strange claims from anti-vivissectionist groups. Because conceding that SOME animal experiments save lives etc makes for a weaker argument you will find some people making claims that all animal experimentation is useless.
“Inconvenient” has become a loaded word due to a certain movie but it is useful in this context. Some facts (or apparent facts) are inconvenient to a given set of beliefs. In such cases it is easier to assume that the facts are incorrect than to accomodate them with a strongly held belief. That in istelf isn’t denial as you will find it all over. The stronger the factual base and the more consistent the avoidance of those facts the more the person’s position becomes denial.
“It seems to me we see cherry picking, impossible expectations and conspiracy theory at blogs that label those with whom they disagree “denialistsâ€.”
Sure and you certainly have the beginnings of a denialist movement within that. It doesn’t rise to that level because it is unsystematic and inconsistent. However we can imagine a plauisble future in which we discover climate sensitivity really is as low as Lindzen claims and that AGW is hence not actually much of a problem at all and VOILA! around the various confused and conspiratorial arguments would coalesce a denialist movement that would continue to assert a coming AGW catastrophe long after any credible expert had given up on it.
For example note that I didn’t call Spencer a denialist even though I could cite some cases of cherry picking and certainly claims that sound like conspiracy theories. However niether of those things dominate his work and there is far more to what he is saying than that. Monckton on the other hand centres his work around nonesense.
With a denialist you can never assume a common ground of fact. You will find yourself have to claim that the basic principles of whatever discipline you are looking at largely work and that in general experts in a field are actually informed about what they study (although not neccesarily CORRECT). With a denialist you can never assume that consistent epistemological principles will apply. An AGW denialist can confidently claim both that there is no such thing as global temperature and that it has been decreasing and that thermodynamics proves that AGW is impossible and the thermodynamics is wrong.
In any field you will find cranks. I suppose we could coin the term “Godel-denialist” for the various cranks who write to maths professor “disproving” Godel’s theorems. However as they don’t amount to a movement and have zero influence on policy nobody bothers. AIDS denialist on the other hand do impact on policy. Monckton is actually called on by the GOP to give evidnce to inquiries! Jenny McCarthy et al do seem to manage to persuade people not to vaccinate their children etc.
And there is the problem – try and engage in debate with a denialist AS IF it is an discussion of fact in good faith and you will lose. To say somebody is a denialist is a shorthand for saying “this person will never discuss the issue in good faith – their argument even when factual will be dishonest”.
Hi Lucia
Thanks for posting the New Scientist image.. A whole special report, about ‘The Age of Denial’. I’ll scan the whole article if you like, as It looks to me to be a totally contrived piece purely around climate science ‘denial’.
In a similar way to the BBC Horizon Program – Science Under Attack, presented by Sir Paul Nurse..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/
Again the program was mainly about climate sicence, with pretty obvious intent to link ‘climate sceptics’ to Aids’ denial, and activist that are anti GM. Again, like New scientist, contrived for climate science, with Sir Paul Nusres standing shoulder to shoulder with Phil Jones defending ‘Hide the Decline’ that program directly led to Judith Curry’s series of Hide the Decline articles (that upset Gavn and Michael so much)
Denier or denial is a well known human trait (generally negative) human experience, ie credit card debt, eating cream buns won’t put on weight, all the way through the range to the extreme end holocaust denial, or 911 denial conspiracy theories (laws against in Germnay)
Scepticism is generally a positive human trait, ie will the product actually do what the add say, should I trust that salesman/politician, to am fooling myself with my science experiment and beyond to an extreme. So recent need to reclaim genuine scepticism, by the likes of John Cook, etc, only to re-frame how awful deniers are, not ‘genuine sceptics’.
thus, a climate change denier, is derogatory, vs sceptic, which ever way you look at it… or whatever linkage used.
However there, the use of Climate denier is often at the extreme end, hence the offence.
see, scan from New Scientist (Age of Denial Special Report…)
Climate Change Denial (top of the list ) linked with Aids Denial, 911 denial, Holocaust denial, Tobacco Denial, Vaccine denial, etc,etc
All designed to ‘close down debate’ – as who would talk to a denier that is as evil/stupid/illogical/antiscience as as those guys…
Though Holocaust is one of the nastier linkages, the intent of those using it is always the same (it is also maninly a political tool – only politicised scientist would use it and continue to use it, when they are aware that it caused offence…)
George Monbiot has a Deniars Hall of Shame.. (2 in fact – Guardian – what were this national newspaper thinking? – and the Campaign Against Climate Change)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10
In the Guardian 2006, George Monbiot:
“Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/21/comment.georgemonbiot
(actually just google George Monbiot – denier or denial)
Brendan O’Neill (Telegraph and Spiked online) had an excellent article about Denial and the linkages, including Holocaust to climate change, with references at the bottom, the whole article is well worth a read, again back in 2006, well researched and more eloquent than I am.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
extract from Brendan at Spiked:
“We are all against what happened during the first Holocaust, so we will be against the ‘next Holocaust’, too, right? And if not – if you do not take seriously the coming ‘global warming Holocaust’ – then you are clearly wicked, the equivalent of the David Irvings of this world, someone who should possibly even be locked up or certainly tried at a future date. At least laws against Holocaust denial (which, as a supporter of free speech, I am opposed to) chastise individuals for lying about a known and proven event; by contrast, the turning of climate change denial into a taboo raps people on the knuckles for questioning events, or alleged events, that have not even occurred yet. It is pre-emptive censorship. They are reprimanded not for lying, but for doubting, for questioning. If this approach was taken across the board, then spiked – motto: Question Everything – would be in for a rough ride.”
Some Good News:
Mark Lynas is also the advisory Board of the Campaign Against Climate Change.. and when I recently called him up on this at Climate Etc – An Openin Mind) he agreed it WAS SHAMEFUL. and would think again..
(I’ll dig up the link to this comment )
Whole articles in New Scientist, television programs making links, etc the tactics of tobacco industry, MSM newspapers with Halls of Shame…
I wonder what the public think?
A number of pro-AGW-Consensus advocate/bloggers routinely misspell sceptic as septic. Whoops, sorry if you’re so thin-skinned that that offends you.
I am willing to label people who refuse to accept the validity of the Radiative Transfer Equation (RTE) as deniers, e.g. adherents of Slaying the Sky Dragon thinking. But I think there’s no prospect of a constructive dialog — all I can do is offer a link to Science of Doom (which is almost certainly futile, along the lines of the billboard that reads, “If you lived here, you’d be home by now”).
I deny that some or much of paleoclimatology as currently practiced represents adequate science, and thus I deny that its findings offer meaningful context for thinking about climate sensitivity. That’s because I am a proponent of the Scientific Method.
I’ve arrived at this position through a logical process. It’s one that’s subject to change, on the strength of new facts or strong arguments. So does this make me a Climate Change Denier/Denialist? No, it doesn’t.
In my experience, few of the people who use these button-pushing terms have the interest (or the temperament) to sort through such subtleties.
Nyq–
Wow. I think you may need to be awarded a prize for demonstrating precisely why people who label others denialists are lazy, deluded, and insulting!
Can they? Does such a being even exist?
While I’ve read some more AGW activist types insisting such people exist, I’ve never seen any evidence that any person who believes all these things simultaneously exists. I think this being exists only in the collective fevered imaginations of people who exchange comments at certain types of blogs.
Of course, it’s easier to make up fake beings and label of them than to actually engage arguments. But creating a mythological world in which leprechauns exist does not make leprechauns real.
I’ve also previously seen this excuse advanced as a reason to never engage in any discussions.
When I hear person A say person B is a denialists, it gives me the impression that person A will never discuss an issue in good faith. It tells me person A is likely subject to logical fallacies. It tells me they like to argue by denigrating. It tells me almost nothing about person B.
Re: lucia (Jun 27 15:09),
I’m with Nyq Only on this one!
I have had such exchanges on blogs on these sorts of subjects. Including this blog (though I can’t find the thread I have in mind). Alas, some people are very good at believing two irreconcilable ideas at once. It is a bit hard to hold a productive discussion in such circumstances.
Eli uses rejectionist. Wouldn’t want to hurt any fee fees, and there are some excellent academic analyses, of why rejectionist is righteous
Lucia,
Fundamentally, the problem with the now mainstream use of denier is that it has quintessenially not just religious overtones, but negative political and legal ones as well. Denying the Holocaust in civilized company is a] socially and politically highly questionable [as it should be]. b] In a number of countries of continental Europe, denying the Holocaust is in fact a criminal offense. Those who deliberately linked the “denier as in the Holocaust” to “denier as in questioning IPCC/ENGO AGW/ACC dogma” were doing was to make climate skeptics subject to the same negative image.
There is plenty of evidence that this precisely what was intended. Mombiot’s writings in the Guardian come to mind, and as I pointed out on a different thread here, Jim Hansen could not have been more straightforward in linking the Holocaust and climate skepticism when he published his “Trains of Death” diatribe. Pretending otherwise would in fact be another interesting form of sophistery and denial.
Have you tried to enter “holocaust”….?
Eli
However excellent the work by this Albert Hirschman might be, your post doesn’t really give the impression it was actually excellent.
Eugenics was considered scientific and it’s advocates claimed it’s purpose was to improve the genetic composition of the human population. I would argue that
* owing to wildly imperfect knowledge of genetics, human failings likely to result in mistaken notions about which human traits needed to be corrected or eliminated, purposive action to improve the human condition through eugenics was in the past and still is likely to aggravate conditions it was meant to correct.
* implementation of such actions would have endangered our societies previous accomplishments which included holding individual civil liberties to a high level and
* to the extent that purposive action might not aggravate the conditions it was meant to correct, eugenics was futile in so far as it is difficult to keep men and women from going out and breeding the way the prefer to breed anyway.
So, I reject eugenics. Some things ought to be rejected.
Presumably, if you tell us Hirshman’s analysis was excellent, he did something more than just post those three bullet points.
Out of curiosity, what do you about taking purposive action and reducing government spending (with the goal of improving the economy)? Or the opposite: purposive action to raise taxes (also to improve the economy)? How about taking purposive action and introducing prayer in school (to improve respect for authority)? How about forbidding it (also to improve respect for authority)?
How about taking purposive action and requiring every person to own and carry a hand gun at all times (with the goal of reducing violent crime.)? How about the opposite purposive action and forbidding gun ownership? (also proposed with the goal of reducing violent crime.)
Yes. I am violating my rule against rhetorical questions. But I think it’s likely that you would argue against at least some purposive actions, suggesting at least some actions would aggravate the condition they are imposed to improve or might be futile or might endanger something our society has previously achieved.
Nyq: “To say somebody is a denialist is a shorthand for saying “this person will never discuss the issue in good faith – their argument even when factual will be dishonestâ€.”
Try discussing the use of upside down Tiljander data by Mann with a warmer at some point. You will have a perfect example of warmers refusing to discuss a factual argument in good faith. In this case, even the climate scientist involved will refuse to discuss the facts in good faith.
I’m afraid that in your case, “agrees with me” and “discuss in good faith” are equivalent.
That denying the Holocaust “a] socially and politically highly questionable [as it should be]. b] In a number of countries of continental Europe, denying the Holocaust is in fact a criminal offense”. However it does not automatically follow that the word “denier” implies “Holocaust”. If you want to claim the linkage, you need to actually make a case for the linkage.
Oh? If you want to demonstrate this, maybe you can quote, link and explain why you think this discussion makes your point about the connection between the words. Same with Monbiot.
see Brendan ‘Neill article and my take on it below:
Personally, I think the holocaust linkage appeal to many activists, as 6 million people plus, died in Nazi Germany,
Yet, they imagine the future climate change holocaust is going to be worse than that.. so climate denial is WORSE than a holocaust denier, ie more deaths…..
(the Hansen ‘death trains being an example, ie death trains to the camps, vs the next coal death trains and resulting climate holocaust)
lucia
Google trends of denier
Note that 5 of the 6 peaks identified are for Holocaust denier, while one is HIV denier. NONE refer toclimate denier.
Thus the original and primary newsworthy association of “denier” is still with Holocaust.
This defamatory use of “denier” is now applied to “climate”.
warming
All labeled references are to global warming:
Trends for climate are tending steadily downward.
Thus I am not surprised for a call to panic stations to degenerate into polemical accusations of “denier” rather than address the substance of the climate science evidence.
I hold that it is an ad hominem attack, a breach of science and a breach of logic to call someone a “climate denier” and that it should be avoided.
Eli–
Hmmm
I like this reaction:
http://www.samefacts.com/2007/08/uncategorized/the-rhetoric-of-reaction/
Eli: “Wouldn’t want to hurt any fee fees, and there are some excellent academic analyses, of why rejectionist is righteous”
Yes, Eli, someone has given you some nice pigeon holes that appeal to your prejudices, so you are anxious to use them. Be my guest.
David–
Everyone agrees the term “holocaust denier” exists and is used. It pre-existed climate denier. Holocaust denial started in the 60s (I think.) So, yes, the term holocaust denier predates climate denier. But… so?
The disagreement is whether this means “X denier” automatically implies a link to the holocaust. I don’t see how showing that “denier” is used in news stories involving the holocaust means that the word is no longer used otherwise. Is the word “deny” suddenly abjured because it was used to mean “deny” when people wanted to describe those who denied the historical existence of the holocaust? I don’t see this.
I’m confused on your second and third links. All I see in the second link is a link to a google trends search on warming. You find articles on warming — none of which mention denier. Yes. If you google “warming” you find links to articles on warming.
I entered “climate denial” at google trends and found:
Why ExxonMobil must be taken to task over climate denial funding
guardian.co.uk – Jul 1 2009
The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it’s working
guardian.co.uk – Dec 7 2009
Climate Denial Industry Blowing Hot Air On Himalayan Glaciers
Huffington Post – Jan 20 2010
Greenpeace Unmasks Koch Industries’ Funding of Climate Denial Industry
Huffington Post – Mar 30 2010
Monckton’s climate denial is a gift to those who take the science seriously
The Guardian – Jun 8 2010
So, the term is used. We knew this. But I don’t see how this is evidence of a connection or non-connection between connects “climate denial” to “holocaust denial”.
When I type denier g into the google search box, I get
1)denier gsm (referring to fabric and hosiery)
2)denier guide (referring to yarn)
3)denier god
4)denier global warming
So excluding the textile references, denying global warming is right up there with denying god. Not surpising in some circles I guess.
Anyway, I discovered that while following up on Tom Fuller’s comment about Ellen Goodman.
Search: denier goodman on google and sit back for a good read.
btw, toto, since you seem to be keen to make a big deal of the Penn State/U. Penn confusion, you do realize that the paper in question had authors from both schools?
connection – George monbiot above – The Guardian
connection – Johann Hari – The Independent
“given that the genocide unfolding in Darfur has been exacerbated by the stresses of climate change, given that Bangladesh may disappear beneath the rising seas in the next century, they are nudging close to having the moral credibility of Holocaust deniers. They are denying the reality of a force that – unless we change the way we live pretty fast – will kill millions.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-shame-of-the-climatechange-deniers-508762.html
“
‘Denier’ doesn’t worry me too much but ‘denialist’ makes me want to puke.
If you read the comments of the,Guardain of that Hansen article…
The commentors get the analogy, not said, but quite obvious..
death trains AND Death factories…
The first comment that picks up on it (no 19) suggests :
Abrecht macht frei?
13 pages of comments later, the Guardian regulars seem to get the analogy pretty clearly (and that is in the very pro AGW, MSM newspaper)
I think Nyq Only has it right: “And there is the problem – try and engage in debate with a denialist AS IF it is an discussion of fact in good faith and you will lose. To say somebody is a denialist is a shorthand for saying “this person will never discuss the issue in good faith – their argument even when factual will be dishonestâ€.
————————————-
I tried to talk to an acquaintance about vaccinations – medical science be damned – it was a government conspiracy in her mind. No rational presentation of data would ever change that mind. That’s denial – tell it like it is.
Barry–
Link? I’m not trying to be obnoxious here, but your previous comment links to ” http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-shame-of-the-climatechange-deniers-508762.html ” which is not the Guardian, not about Hansen and has no comments”.
In http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10 , at the guardian, I see a monbiot discussion that says nothing to link the word “denier” to “holocaust”. He does quote Inhoffe making a Nazi allusion, but he gets to do that. It’s not the same as the word “denier” connoting “holocaust”.
In http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…..rgemonbiot Monbiot does say:
So, he is saying both share the feature of stupidity. He dropped a Nazi allusion. He shouldn’t have– it was stupid and demonstrates poor thinking skills on his part. But I still don’t think merely using the word denial withouth making the Nazi allusion introduced the nazi allusion.
Brendan O’Neill complains about people wanting to ban free speech — in partcular speech denying climate. When complaining, he accusses people of something (treating it like other banned speech in Europe? Making a connection to the holocaust?) He has an “interesting” way of constructing sentences containing quotes that has a aura of demagougery about it. As far as I can see, O’Neil utterly fails to demonstrate that the word “denier” implies “holocaust”. If someone thinks so before they read the article, they are likely to continue to do so– but the way that article is constructed puts gets my spidey sense tingling and it says “probably totally spun”.
Owen
I believe you’ll find the same is true if you substitute “believer” for “denialist”.
JohnM–
I agree. There is a tremendous amount of symmetry here.
Rabett, you claim to use rejectionist but denier is much more common over at your website. Actually it covers your website like, well, peanut butter on a sandwich. There are hundreds of uses.
Usually you pull your usual third party trick and let others commit your misdeeds for you. But you still manage to get it in there:
Examples:
“Of course, the climate change deniers did not take this well and tried a ferocious pushback.”
“The December 29 editorial in the Las Vegas Review-Journal (RJ), “Global warming?” repeats the RJ’s past denial of manmade global warming.”
“Eli’s experience is that the separation is between those who have filled the trough of denial and those who, wandering by have supped from it. He would distinguish between the denialists and their victims, or if you wish, the ill-informers and the ill-informed, although the later contribute to the problem by infinite regression.”
Ad tedium.
A search of your website finds only three mentions of ‘rejectionist’ or ‘rejectionism.’
Funny, that.
Breaking news.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/27/ico-orders-uea-to-produce-crutem-station-data/#more-13981
David Irving brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. In her book, Denying the Holocaust, Lipstadt named Irving a Holocaust denier, falsifier, and bigot who manipulated and distorted real documents.
Irving claimed to have been libeled by the specific term “Holocaust denier”.
He lost.
This was 1996.
In 1997 the BBC program “Panorama”, a sort of UK 60-Minutes began to label people and organizations who didn’t buy into AGW deniers/denialists.
Here is a link to the text of ‘Greenhouse Wars’-1/12/97.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_01_12_97.txt
So Lucia, you will find that this term is a UK import, coined around the time of the Irving trial.
The somewhat infamous Nature editorial of 2009 contains the lines
“A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists’ conspiracy theories.”
“If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.”
“One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a ‘trick’ — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results.”
“After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Nature is the Journal in the UK which is most like Science, and has all the job adverts.
John M (Comment #78044)
June 27th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
I believe you’ll find the same is true if you substitute “believer†for “denialistâ€.
————————–
I agree.
Lucia,
You continue to deny the undeniable. Maybe time to rethink because when you’re in a hole it’s best to stop digging. Just because you take the position that no matter what evidence is put forward by anyone on this blog, there is no “Holocaust Denier = Climate Denier” link explicit enough for you to buy, doesn’t mean the -fully intended- transposition doesn’t exist.
Persisting along your line of reasoning would mean that Aesopus fables or Voltaire’s Candide and an entire body of litterature does not convey the messages they were meant to convey, just because that message wasn’t spelled out explicitly. So the ant is not the trifty one and the cricket is not the slacker just because that is [merely] the implication/message of the fable and the author doesn’t say so explicitly? And what about all the allusions and oblique but not-to-be-misunderstood political ideas in Candide? Well they got Voltaire’s message across. In spades. To the point where the book was banded across Europe as subversive.
Monbiot, Hansen, Gore, Mann and the all the many other smearers mean exactly what they imply,which is both denigrating, insulting and debasing. Precisely what they mean it to be.
I suspect that there are some who would deny that any warming has occurred in past decades and some who might attempt to deny that the physics of increasing GHGs in the atmosphere taken alone will lead to warming. Their denials may well be limited to those specific issues and I would consider them to be in error on those issues and certainly denying some truths of physics in the latter case. The word denialist would seem to be inferring a more general view or approach by a person given that label.
The misuse of words such as denialist and denying comes mainly in my view by throwing it at a wide group of people who could have very different views about something such as AGW. It is important to be specific in definition and who might fit that definition. There is a counter term as misleading as the use the term denialist and that is the term “member of the consensus on AGW” and how it is used. Without the specifics of what the consensus agrees upon and the uncertainties involved, the term consensus might be made totally useless by using a very wide range for bracketing agreement on levels of future warming, detrimental/beneficiary effects and the uncertainties attached to these quantities. On the other hand, if one drills down to the individual level the so-called consensus (and its usefulness to advocates) might evaporate.
tetris–
You continue to merely mistake your own bald assertions as evidence to support your view. Put forward some actual evidence of the that the word denier by itself alludes to the holocaust. You haven’t.
Oh? Hardly. I’m not saying people can’t ever or don’t ever make allusions. I’m saying you haven’t demonstrated this one.
Regardless of the origin of the term, and I am sure that not everyone who uses it is intentionally alluding to Holocaust denial, there can be little doubt that the use is motivated by hate and closed minded-ness.
Nyq Only (Comment #78003)-The categorization reminds of something. Oh yes, Masters of Deceit by J. Edgar Hoover! Who categorized “dangerous subversives” in five(!) forms:
1. The card-carrying Communist, one who openly admits membership in the Communist party
2. The underground Communist, one who hides his Communist party membership
3. The Communist sympathizer, a potential Communist because of holding Communist views
4. The fellow traveler, someone not a potential Communist or influential advocate for Communist views but who agrees with some of those views
5. The dupe, a person who is obviously not a Communist or a potential Communist but whose views serve to enable Communists. Examples are a prominent religious leader calling for pacifism or a prominent jurist opposing red-baiting tactics on civil liberty grounds.
The irony to see that the McCarthy lives on the left!
Hoover, J. Edgar (1958). Masters of Deceit: The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 1-4254-8258-9.
Lucia:
There is some consternation over the actual warming that is supposed to have taken place, please see:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/27/unknown-and-uncertain-sea-surface-temperatures/
I am at best a luke warmer, but there are some reasonable and serious complaints over the warming that is said to have taken place. This would appear to be at odds with your position that warming has occurred.
Am I denier because I consider these opposing positions? I am not sure, but they certainly warrant discussion.
Odd thing is that both McCarthy and Hoover were right about Soviet infiltration of the US Government.
The Venona papers show how deep the US was infiltrated.
Roy Weiler (Comment #78054)- positions that “warming has occurred” are more strongly justified for different time periods! for instance, “warming has occurred” since the last glacial maximum 😉 and to say otherwise would indeed be quite ridiculous! Likewise, to say that some warming has occurred in the last thirty years is uncontroversial among reasonable people, although the exact amount is uncertain. As far as the sea surface temperatures go, I personally think that it is indeed reasonable to wonder if they are good enough to get good estimates of trends over certain periods. Are the uncertainties large enough to wipe out all the twentieth century warming? I find that very doubtful. That aside it is entirely reasonable to believe that some warming has occurred since the Little Ice Age! Again how much is worthy of discussion.
DocMartyn (Comment #78056)-Yes, they were basically right, but it is still amusing that their methods and thinking have been adopted by the global warming movement!
Lucia
Just google he is a denier of
I think Europeans are more likely to attribute the term denier with the Holocaust.
The term denier will be forever associated with the Holocaust,because people will be forever claiming it didn’t happen.
I didn’t think there was so much disagreement with how “denier” is used. lucia is right that the word itself does not inherently allude to the Holocaust, and tetris’ recent response is over-the-top.
On the other hand, “denier” is used to allude to the Holocaust on a regular basis. I found over a dozen examples of such with a couple quick Google searches, and that’s just for the last few months. Not only do people use it as such, it is perceived to be used as such. I’ve seen this discussed by quite a few people, most recently by Colin Rubenstein (a political scientist specializing in the Middle East) who said:
On February 9, 2007, Ellen Goodman published an article in the Boston Globe in which she specifically made the comparison to Holocaust deniers (no link since it’s paywalled). This created a flurry of responses in which people were upset by the comparison. This even led some people to defend the comparison. Even amongst those who didn’t use the comparison, the allusion was well-known. A Newsweek cover article published the same year as Goodman’s article referenced this by saying:
Prior to 2007, there was no real controversy over the issue, and some people had used the expression without any Holocaust allusion (despite Tom Fuller having said otherwise). The reason those people hated being called “deniers” was the connotation of the Holocaust (remember, this was only months after the controversy erupted).
Newsweek published a cover article which showed an awareness of the allusion. Clearly, this is not just an issue of a few people making inconsequential remarks. It is not just that Hansen made references to death trains (which is arguably not an intentional reference to the Holocaust). The issue is simple.
The comparison to the Holocaust was intentionally made. This intention became fairly well-known. The fact people were offended by it became well-known. The fact some people use the word without intending to allude to the Holocaust doesn’t change the fact some people legitimately see the word as an allusion to the Holocaust.
By the way, I was going to provide more links to examples of things I mentioned, but I wasn’t sure how many links I could put in a message here. Oddly enough, this made me think of a useful question:
I think that’s a useful question to consider (and hopefully answer) for anyone who doesn’t think “denier” is tied to the Holocaust.
Sorry for triple posting, but I realized I forgot to mention an important point. When looking into the controversy around the word “denier,” you cannot just take everyone as a single group. The reason for this is the word is used (and perceived) differently in different areas. People in the United States seem less likely to perceive a Holocaust allusion than people in some other areas, and that makes sense since Holocaust denial has never been as large an issue in the United States as elsewhere.
From what I’ve seen, people in Australia seem especially likely to perceive a Holocaust allusion. Is there some historical reason that might explain that?
Denier is a very accurate word to describe the mentality of many people on both sides of the climate debate. I see no logical reason why being linked with holocaust denial is so much worse than being linked with climate change denial. The holocaust killed a lot of people. Climate change has a high chance of killing a lot of people (or saving a lot of lives – its all about consequences for agriculture which is a murky field at least as far as I can tell). Denial is not about killing people, it is a form of intellectual suicide committed by those who refuse to face up to facts.
Nolene–
I did:
The top start with
* “Arctic-gate: Harrison Schmitt, self-described “denier†of human …Feb 7, 2011 – As the above clip show, Schmitt is actually proud to assert that he is a denier ”
“TheSunniWay | The ruling for the denier of the Khilafa of Abu Bakr …
Jan 9, 2010 – If he is a denier of any necessity of faith, then he is a Kafir. Such as saying that Allah has a body or denies that Abu Bakr Siddiq ..”
“Watch: Denier James Delingpole admits he can’t do science …
Jan 25, 2011 – This guy has not made the attempt to understand the science, he is not ‘sceptical’ of the science, he is a denier of the science, …”
“Maimonides’ 13 Foundations of Judaism
And he who says that these verses or stories, Moses made them up, he is a denier of our sages and prophets worse than all other types of deniers [form of …”
“rafidis who deny the khilafah of abu bakr are kafir – Masabih …
9 posts – 5 authors – Last post: Sep 24, 2009
If he is a denier of any necessity of faith, then he is a Kafir. Such as saying that Allah has a body or denies that Abu Bakr Siddiq …”
Page 1: No holocaust.
Page 2: One holocaust ref! Others: Deny Jesus Christ, Judaism, the Trinity, Faith, Christ.
Brandon–
I am aware that people discussing with each other have convinced themselves that the ought to take umbrage. Their umbrage tells us absolutely nothing about the intention of those who use the term.
Quite a few people took umbrage at Tony Snow’s use of tar baby; Think Progress blogged the story.
Despite the umbrage expressed by a number of people, I did not conclude that Tony Snow the user of the phrase intended to make a racist allusion. I think he was totally unaware the possibility the word was used as a slur. (I was at the time. )
This is not to say that people who’ve heard it used as a slur have no right to note the use, suspect the slur and be taken aback. But their umbrage is not evidence of what Tony Snow intended when he used the term.
Brandon,
I’ve met anti-semites. I’ve never met anyone who denied the Holocaust. I know they exist– but I’ve never met any.
lucia, you say:
I mostly agree, but I have a caveat in regards to the part I made bold. If enough people are upset about something, it is reasonable to expect people to know it is offensive. “Tar baby” is rarely said anymore so it makes sense Tony Snow wouldn’t have known it’s history. On the other hand, I can’t imagine many people are unaware of the Holocaust connotation to “denier.”
Of course, there are people who are aware of the perception of “denier” but dismiss it. Those people don’t use “denier” to allude to the Holocaust, but they know some people will think they are doing so. In a case like that, I think it is appropriate for people to be offended. If someone knowingly uses a term which will offend a group of people, that group is justified in being of fended. This is especially true since “denier” is a pejorative anyway. It just seems cheeky to say, “I didn’t intend to imply that, but I knew they would take it that way.” If you know people are going to interpret something a particular way, and you say nothing to change that, you are (partially) responsible for making them take that interpretation (as long as it is a legitimate interpretation).
I’ve “met” a couple people who denied the Holocaust, but it was nothing more than a passing introduction in a group of people. Aside from that, the closest I’ve come is a guy who said the Holocaust was exaggerated. I think his central claim was casualties were only 60% of what history says or something like that. He did seem to have an impressive amount of knowledge, but since I didn’t have any interest in the issue, I didn’t get involved in the discussion. Honestly, I think the main reason for my apathy is when I’m talking to someone in person, I can’t do quick fact checks with Google/Wikipedia, so I feel so much dumber!
Brandon–
I think denier is offensive. But it doesn’t follow that it’s a Nazi allusion.
I can easily imagine many people have no idea that some people think “denier” it thought to have a holocaust connotation by some. Lots of people don’t spend bajillions of hours reading climate blogs; how in the world would they learn of this supposed connotation?
I think the death estimate was 6 million. 3.6 million would still be an awful lot of Jews killed. I have to admit to not having done any research to try to establish the fraction of people at which camps were gassed, killed through a combination of forced labor, food deprivation and illness, or died as a result of injuries sustained while being experimented on. I wouldn’t get into any arguments about this because I’d even mix up Treblinka with Auschwitz.
lucia –
Boston Globe syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman set this particular ball rolling when she wrote (Feb. 2007, back in the days when climate change was still more frequently called “global warming” in the MSM):
This was evidently in the context of a “reframing” exercise. In response, Tom Yulsman correctly noted:
I blogged about this very issue back in April: Of labels, libels and language launderers
As one who – in a previous incarnation, long before I’d ever heard of the “climate wars” – spent many years in the trenches of the newsgroup alt.revisionism [the primary posting ground of Holocaust deniers and other assorted anti-semites], it was certainly a shock to my system to find myself being labelled as a “denier”, merely because I had the temerity to ask a few questions!
“Nyq Only (Comment #78003)-The categorization reminds of something. Oh yes, Masters of Deceit by J. Edgar Hoover! Who categorized “dangerous subversives†in five(!) forms:”
LOL I’m wrong on the grounds of a confused ad-hominem argument about J. Edgar Hoover. What does that remind me of? Somebody bad I’ll be bound 🙂
Lucia: “Wow. I think you may need to be awarded a prize for demonstrating precisely why people who label others denialists are lazy, deluded, and insulting!”
Thanks, I’ll make myself a suitable badge.
However I’m afraid you appear to have wholly misunderstood my point. I was not making some simplistic strawman argument in which I advance silly positions on some group. My point was as I said it – denialist CAN advance contradictory psoitions and that this is an ADVANTAGE for them, not a demonstration of their stupidity or incompotence of whatever. This is part of what distinguishes denial from somebody who is simpy confused, poorly informed or just wrong.
The point is that contradictions don’t matter because the actual substance of the argument is irrelevant.
Of course if you orefer we can wander off into examples of people apparently supporting positions that I outlined (heck we cover the thermodynamics one just with Tim Ball promoting Slaying The Sky Dragon) – but that would be tangential to my point. For most people (right, wrong, stupid, clever, informed or misinformed) contray positions are problematic – for a denialist they aren’t and that this flexibility is a positive advantage to them.
General point:
I note some confusion about whether “denialism” etc are allusions to holocaust denial. Clealry the more general use *IS* a direct comparison with holocaust denial. To say somebody is an AIDS denialist etc is to compare them with a Holocaust denialist *BUT* the comparison is of a specific kind. It is not neccesraily a comparison to the morals, ethics, politics, ideology, style of dress, prejudices or likely companions of the holocaust denier. It IS a comparison to their mode of argument and their approach to what we might call their epistemology or methodology or their general way of dealing with the general issue of truth, fact and reason.
To call somebody a denialist is not (or perhaps should not) be a claim that they are Nazis, racists, anti-semitic or even neccesarily doubtful about the holocaust. It is, though, a claim that IF THEIR METHODS AND MODES OF ARGUMENT were applied to the issue of the veracity of the standard historical account of Nazi atrocities it could be easily used to defend the position of holocaust deniers. Consequently that is not a light claim nor can it be said to be a claim that is not provocative and potentially insulting. That the claim is emotionally laden does not make it false however.
In a number of countries of continental Europe, denying the Holocaust is in fact a criminal offenseâ€. However it does not automatically follow that the word “denier†implies “Holocaustâ€.
.
Well actually it does for precisely this reason .
At least for many languages .
In French the word is “négationniste” . If you google it , you will see that there is no implication , there is a direct link to Holocaust .
If you try to find a translation in english for “négationniste” , you generally find “denier” .
That’s why people opposing CAGW in French speaking countries are never called “négationnistes” (translate “denier”) , they are called “climasceptiques” .
Similar case in Germany .
I don’t know enough Chinese to make a very definitive statement but there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent of such a dilemma .
.
So for some strange reason there is a semantical inadequacy in one of the world’s languages , english .
It is perhaps more specifically applicable to the USA – I have already noticed that Americans react emotionnaly to symbols like swastika , nazism , communism , holocaust in a VERY different way than Europeans and specifically East Europeans do .
But for all other people there is either a word linking denial to holocaust (f.ex the French) or the problem is not even understood (f.ex the Chinese) .
As promised
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SovuPh1BrnM/TgmjOogudaI/AAAAAAAAACw/eTacK-l2FbI/s320/denialaward.png
“I’ve “met†a couple people who denied the Holocaust, but it was nothing more than a passing introduction in a group of people. Aside from that, the closest I’ve come is a guy who said the Holocaust was exaggerated. I think his central claim was casualties were only 60% of what history says or something like that. He did seem to have an impressive amount of knowledge, but since I didn’t have any interest in the issue, I didn’t get involved in the discussion.”
Are you sure you weren’t impressed by his “impressive amount of knowledge”?
“Their umbrage tells us absolutely nothing about the intention of those who use the term”
In this post-Modernist world we now have an official UK definition of racism. This was advanced in The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report and states:
“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”
So the usage of a term is offensive in itself if it is ‘perceived’ to be offensive by ‘the victim or any other person’.
I think you are missing the European dimension to the usage of the term, denier. The people who us it do not.
Tilo:
For pigeon holes you need pigeons. Thank you for playing
I am 100% sceptical of CO2-GW and do not care being called a denier. It’s a psychlogical projection. The believers are projecting their denial and I love it! Bring it on!
Lucia
Obviously you only read the first page.Try the 2nd and 3rd.It’s there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4733820.stm
For the ones arguing about what the deniers claim.
He should not have been charged in my view,free speech and all that.
We had a woman here in Tasmania who peddled her beliefs at markets and by letter drop.She had pamphlets made saying the Holocaust never happened,it was all a lie.Everybody ignored her,and she faded into obscurity.Why she did it I have no clue.Weird woman.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s191650.htm
lucia
The Anti-Defamation League observes:
Introduction: Denial as Anti-Semitism
It lists: Who Are the Deniers? Willis Carto Bradley Smith Ernst Zundel Ingrid Rimland David Irving Mark Weber IHR
One danger of “climate denier†vs Holocaust denier†is that it dilutes awareness of the danger posed by Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his quest to destroy Israel.
It is perhaps mainly a UK/European thing.
The 2 examples I gave were from the Independant – Johann Hari, and George Monbiot – Guardian…
They intentionally used it, reflecting on a very high profile court case about British historian David Irving, that brought the term into common usage in the UK, that makes its use in the UK deliberate and provocative and offensive to ‘climate sceptic’ lukewarmers’ alike in the UK.
As they are both using it at the same time as the trial and conviction of David Irving (2005 -2006), thus conscious act to link Holocaust Denial in the MSM media by environmental writers and activists which was all over the media as current news at the time of their writing it as the same as climate change denial..
An authoritative source for this opinion below?
The Oxford Online dictionary:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/denial
“Word Trend
In 1991 the British historian David Irving was convicted in Germany of Holocaust Denial – claiming that the mass murder of the Jews and other groups bythe Naziz in the second World War never happened. In 2006 he was imprisoned on a similar charge in Austria. Holocaust denial is not a crime under UK law, but the 21st century it is often considered taboo to deny the truth of certain concepts. After Holocaust, the commonest modifiers of denier in the Oxford English Corpus reflect some highly contentious issues: climate change, evolution and global warming. Refusal to acknowledge the existance of these things is now seen as so dangerous that some green activists have called for climate change denial to be made illegal”
Pretty definite link I think for the UK, considering my earlier links to MSM articles at the time, ie activists wanting the same law for climate change denial, as for the existing law for holocaust denial. I don’t find anybody calling for laws for evolution denial, or aids denial, etc, do you… The guardian commentors certainly get the connection, even when implicitly not said.
I do accept that this may not have the same useage elsewhere in the world though…
Additionally, the oxford dictionary definition of climate chane is also enlightening:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/climate+change
(as it minimises, excludes natural climate change) – sure newspeak )
ie it’s definition, begs the question, do we need a new word for climate change (natural) prior to the mid 20th century! as ‘climate change’ is taken to mean something else!!
Edim (Comment #78092)
June 28th, 2011 at 6:30 am
I am 100% sceptical of CO2-GW and do not care being called a denier. It’s a psychlogical projection.
————————————————-
One more example of why we need to retain the word “denier” – for appropriate situations just like this one. I think Edim hit it on the head – it is a psychological projection (and an attitude and a state of mind). Edim, I love the enthusiasm of your denial.
Monbiot and Hari were writing, linking holocaust denial and climate change denial, when this was fresh high profile news in the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4733820.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefarright
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-irving-an-antisemitic-racist-who-has-suffered-financial-ruin-467293.html
Just Google – David Irving Holocaust – & Guardian or Independent and see all the results.
and ask yourself did George Monbiot and Johann Hari know exactly what they were doing trying to charaterise climate change denial in the same light?
Tom
I speak some French, and my experience makes me think you can’t possibly prove what a word connotes in English by resorting to French/English translating dictionaries. But FWIW: Bable fish translates “négationniste†, to “holocaust denier” not “denier”. It tranlates ““denier†to “n. dénégateur, négationiste, denier (ancienne monnaie française; denier, mesure d’épaisseur “. This means that the dictionary user has to recognize which is the closest meaning– something one nearly always need to do when using a translating dictionary.
I said I don’t mind being called a denier. I don’t speak for others. But I would recommend this to other sceptics:
Don’t be too sensitive! It’s a projection and when you recognise it as a projection, you will love it!
lucia:
I’ve explained why I see interpreting it as a Nazi allusion is justified, even at times when the speaker doesn’t intentionally use it as such.
I was mostly thinking of the people participating in discussions about climate change, hence why I said. Now that you mention it, I can easily see how someone who isn’t very interested in global warming would be unaware of the issue though they wouldn’t be very involved in calling people “deniers.” Regardless, I misspoke.
I can’t remember if he was just talking about Jewish deaths or if he was including all the victims of systematic murder. Wikipedia gives an estimate of 11 to 17 million total casualties, and I have no idea how that range is determined. Either way, he acknowledged the Nazis murdered millions of people, and that was enough for me.
Hi Lucia, I may have messed up some links. Both Monbiot and Hari were writing making moral equivalences following a very high profile media news event about about the Holocaust Denial trial and conviction of the British historian David Irving in Germany/Austria.
In That context…..
In the Guardian 2006, George Monbiot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/21/comment.georgemonbiot
“Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.â€
In The Independant 2006: Johan Hari
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-shame-of-the-climatechange-deniers-508762.html
The climate-change deniers are rapidly ending up with as much intellectual credibility as creationists and Flat Earthers. Indeed, given that 25,000 people died in Europe in the 2003 heatwave caused by anthropogenic climate change, given that the genocide unfolding in Darfur has been exacerbated by the stresses of climate change, given that Bangladesh may disappear beneath the rising seas in the next century, they are nudging close to having the moral credibility of Holocaust deniers.”
Maybe you see more subtley than i do, nor a direct link only inplied.. This is not my experience in the UK, and he implication and commom awareness of the usage is quite clear to me. The average activist is not very subtle, but they got what George was saying
… and Brendan O’Neill was writing in this context, I hope that gives the background and clarifies a UK viewpoint more clearly.
hro001 (Comment #78076)
I have to admit, I’m impressed. That’s the most thoroughly thought out explanation of why you think “denier” connotes “holocaust denier”. But…. I still think it doesn’t. Yes: You can show some people have brought up the holocaust. Some people have tried to poison the well that way. I agree some lunatics think free speech should be banned and climate skeptics should be jailed. This is nuts.
But I don’t think they have succeeded in making the word “denier” imply “holocaust”. The word is still used with plenty of other non-holocaust things. In all cases, the phrase “X denial” uses “denial” in the sense of “being in denial”. “denying the obvious” etc. You can find “moon landing denial”. No one is trying to link denying moon landings with the holocaust. It’s the meaning of the phrase ‘in denial’ that is shared. The link isn’t “holocaust”.
And it appears I’m in good company: Judy Curry, Keith Kloor also don’t seem to think denier implies “holocaust”.
Nolene
There is no link to the 2nd and 3rd page. It ends with “”Of course it’s a question of freedom of speech… I think within 12 months this law will have vanished from the Austrian statute book,” he said. ” Why don’t you just quote the bits you think support the precise point you think you are making by telling me to read 3 pages on David Irving’s trial? As far as I can see, the article says nothing about the use of denier in climate. Nothing. But if you see a link between what it says and the use of the word climate, tell us what you think it is– in your own words.
I lived in Austria when David Irving was jailed. I remember the front pages of the Austrian newspapers and I remember thinking how ridiculous it was to be jailed for expressing an opinion. The frontpages and the whole situation reminded me of nacism.
On the cheery topic of government-sponsored murder, R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii coined the term “democide.” His website is devoted to the subject; here is a summary of the 20th century’s high scorers, from Rummel’s 1994 book (he’s updated some of these figures since then, I believe).
This climate change activist certainly got the Holocaust Denial is the moral equivalence of Climate change denial, David Irving connection!
Writing in the comments of a Guardian – George Monbiot article , just prior to Copenhagen, that the BBC should not give air time to climate change deniers, any more than they would David Irving, on their flagship Today BBC news program.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/6846208
“….Journalists have to make a choice about who they allow onto their programmes, with an understanding of the kind of perceptions the public will take away. The [climate] deniers don’t have some kind of divine right to prominent representation in the press and broadcasting any more than David Irving does…”
What of it…… some random activist….?
No.
Here he is proving that Tim Holmes (the one and the same person, writes for the Carbon Brief…..compare the photographs in the 2 links….
http://twitter.com/#!/timbird84/status/79224256172539904
timbird84 Tim Holmes
More debunking of Lord Turnbull’s errant nonsense by yours truly, on @LeftFootFwd & @CarbonBrief http://bit.ly/m0ppGh | http://bit.ly/iwEx0v
10 Jun
He got Georges moral equivalence message… and has rather a LOT of influence.
Tim gets to write articles, anonymously for the Carbon Brief, which get distributed to the worlds environmental media, as gospel, neutral, independant research resource for journalists.
Tim Holmes is a Climate Camp Activist (Articles in the Guardian as well)
http://climatesafety.org/author/holmes/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/aug/12/climate-camp-cymru-blog
Tim Holmes is the author of the Climate Safety Report with Tim Helweg-Larsen – of the – Public Interest Research Centre – PIRC.
This report is basically what the UK’s futrure energy policy is based on.
Tim Holmes – The Climate Safety Blog is funded by the PIRC – and Tim Helweh-Larsen is on the Advisory board.
Also on the advisory board of the PIRC is Christian Hunt – the EDITOR of the Carbon Brief
Tim Holmes is SO far to the left that he criticises Richard Black BBC for being to neutral about climate change.
Tim Holmes is a writer for the New Left Project, and a regular at Liberal Conspiracy – Facebook friends with Sunny Hundal (another hardcore lefty – also write for the Guardian)
As Tim has the Carbon Brief at his disposal, he can and has spouted this rubbish to the world’s media…along with the rest of the Carbon Brief’s work…. all anonymously (until now ;), isn’t twitter dangerous for keeping secrets.
Keith Kloor, you ask:
I’m not sure if you wanted this strange question answered, but since you asked… I was impressed by his (apparent) amount of knowledge. That’s why I called it impressive.
BarryWood–
He says both are stupid.
I get that all “X denial” words are linked in the sense that they are connoting that all share the trait of “denial”. Denial is a bad trait in and of itself. But the fact that denial is bad and that two things can be ‘denied’ doesn’t mean “X denial” and “Y denial” both share the trait “X”.
I also understand that people discussing denialism are going to bring up examples of “denial”– aids denial, holocaust denial, moon landing denial etc. This doesn’t mean that someone is saying all these things share the trait “holocaust”. The link is that all supposedly share the meaning conveyed by “denial”. That meaning is not good. But it’s a not good thing in and of itself , not merely because one of the things that associated with fantastical denial theories is the holocaust.
Lucia…
The issue is ‘climate change denial’ has the moral equivalence to ‘holocaust denial’..
thus, one would not sit down and debate on TV such a person……
Did you see, comment #78119.
If someone is considered the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier, then you ignore them, encourage others to ignore them, etc,etc.
I think, Hr001, earlier shows, this, as do my recent comments #78111 amd #78119.
So the issue is whether ‘climate change denier’ has been labelled the moral equivalnce of holocaust denial, thus such a person is to be ignored….
I’m sure we could continue to argue that denier, or denial does not mean holocaust, but that is not really the point…
It most certainly has this implication when the modifier climate, or climate change is used in conjunction with denier.
As the oxford dictionary definition demonstrates links above:
Oxford Online: “After Holocaust, the commonest modifiers of denier in the Oxford English Corpus reflect some highly contentious issues: climate change, evolution and global warming.”
Nyq Only (Comment #78078)-“LOL I’m wrong on the grounds of a confused ad-hominem argument about J. Edgar Hoover. What does that remind me of? Somebody bad I’ll be bound :)”
Wow, you completely missed the point! My point, to make it clearer to you, is that your reference to categorization of people you disagree with into different kinds of people who are wrong/bad/evil has been done before. It’s not wrong because Hoover did it. It’s wrong because it is a nakedly political tactic, and also because it engages in psychological profiling of individuals who you don’t know and can’t know in terms of their actual thinking. But if you are not capable of realizing, and/or being disgusted by what you have done, hey, at least you are in the good company of someone much better than you!
Barry
That’s “the” issue? I think you’ve just introduced a different issue.
Issue 1: Does the word “denier” automatically connote holocaust?
Issue 2: Has anyone every suggested there is a moral equivalence between thing X (holocaust denial) and thing Y (climate denial)?
These are not the same issue and you can’t force two different issue to become same issue by decreeign that issue 2 is “the” issue. Decreeing (2) “the” issue does not change the answer to (1). And point (1) is “the point” of my post.
So, do you want to stop arguing about point (1), or do you just want to keep insisting that you are right about point (1) even though it’s “not really the point”? And are you going to continue to try to support your view about your answer to (1) by insisting “the point” is (2), and suggesting that means the answer to (2) must someone magically be applied to (1)? That’s wrong.
Your dictionary definition doesn’t in anyway suggest that “climate denier” implies “holocaust”. It merely points out that various types of “x denier” constructions exist. All share the term “denier”. That doesn’t mean that “x denier” and “not-x denier” share the notion “x”, nor does it mean people using the phrase “not-x denier” are really, secretly, through some dog whistle mechanisms communicating “x”.
Climate deniers,
Climate Change deniers,
Global Warming deniers.
It should be obvious who the deniers are. It is AGW/ACC believers who deny climate change and global warming. No sceptic denies climate, climate change and global warming.
Believers are speaking Orwelian.
Sorry Lucia
Imm just trying to explain why I feel offended when some people use climate change denier at me.. When I know that some people consider me to be the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier, examples above
I of course,remain in denial about the number of calories in a chocolate bar and in denial about the size of my overdraft 😉
Barry–
The term is offensive. People suggesting moral equivalences between two different things is offensive.
THere ws a bit of a spat Telegraph /Guardain a while backabout this:
Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/nov/19/climate-sceptic-james-delingpole
“This is the offending letter sent in by “Lee Bidgood Jr of Gainesville, Florida” that Newsweek chose to publish:
Propaganda by global-warming sceptics and deniers reminds me of 1944, when as an army officer I saw living skeletons in striped pyjamas. Horror stories about Nazi concentration camps suddenly rang true. I wondered how intelligent people could commit such atrocities. History records the effectiveness of Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda. I hope Al Gore and others can prevail over today’s anti-science propaganda.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017475/climate-change-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-holocaust-or-911/
Lucia: did you try googling – climate change holocaust
Barry–
Ok– real questions:
1) That sentences uses the word “skeptics” too. So, is that evidence that the word “skeptic” implies “holocaust” too? Or is the inextricable link between “holocaust” only formed with the word denier? If the definitional changing magic happened only to the term “denier”, please explain how the auto-matic implication is formed and why it forms for the denier but not skeptic.
2) Are you continuing to discuss issue (2) and ignoring issue (1) and implying that by some miracle of insisting that issue (2) is “the” that suddenly changes the answer to issue (1)? Because it seems to me you are just ignoring my point and acting as if somehow, showing more and more and more information on relevant to issue (2) addresses issue (1). see lucia (Comment #78126)
Mind you: We don’t have to agree on this. If I see the distinction between 1&2 and you don’t, the distinction matters to my interpretation of the answer to (1), you continually trying to prove (1) by supplying evidence of (2) is not going to change my mind about (1). Heck, as far as I can tell, we already agree on (2), and have always agreed on (2).
So, before you post yet another article discussing issue (2), could you explain whether or not you see a distinction between issues (1) and (2)? Do you think the answers must be the same? If so, why do you think that? Because that’s where we differ in opinion.
I don’t know. I googled lots of things. Did you try googling, “holocaust hotdogs”?
Lucia, as a lawyer, I can give you a relevant concept from the law of defamation, “innuendo.” The law of innuendo holds that where there are 2 meanings of a phrase, and it can be shown that the harmful meaning is intended, the speaker is liable for the damages caused by the harmful meaning. So, in a situation where it is harmful to identify someone as gay, if the declarant calls someone a “fruit” the declarant can be held liable for defamation damages by virtue of the doctrine of innuendo.
Most warmists who use the term “denier” are using it in a cowardly and dishonest manner. They really intend the harmful interpretation, but they dishonestly and in a cowardly manner hide behind the comparatively innocuous meaning.
Personally, if Jews (who in my mind are the class of people whose suffering is being demeaned and minimized) don’t mind the use of the term, I would be happy to apply it to warmists. For instance, I think many warmists are confirmation bias deniers and scientific method deniers. However, once the use of the term would become commonplace, the warmists would need to invent another hateful term to express their contempt and hate for climate realists.
JD
Lucia
Perhaps I need to be more nuanced.
In many areas of debate to be one of the sceptics is to championed and looked on positively.
In the climate science it can be used both positively and negatively, but the advocates that use it negatively would be far too polite and would not make a crass deniar comment, nor in anyway associate it with holocaust denial
Similarly, in the wide world denial, deniars is negative but in no way means holocaust. Yet, i’m in no doubt, when people like Tim mentioned above, use the word that they do consider deniers to be as derogatory and the equivalence of holocaust denial. So does it mean holocaust when these environmentalist activist use it, yes. In the wider world of course not. Yet the public in the UK would probably recognise the attempt at equivalence (ie because of linkages made above)
Additionally, the Guardian editors for a time (they may have slipped recently) did undertake to stop using the word – Deniar – and use sceptic instead because they recognised it as a ‘fighting word’ and had recieved complaints from their own commentors –
As the George Monbiot Guardian article with the denial moral equivalence has been widely quoted and criticised
I think the Guardian climategate debate led to this, and the guardian journalist and editors meeting Steve Mcintyre in person felt in inapropriate and the generally good natured debate,
I’ll try and find the link to the guardian saying they would not use it (possibly via Bishop Hill)
a reasonable person, when found that they are offending someone inadvertantly would not use it. Most do, some persist
I think JD Ohio nails what is going on..
“It’s not wrong because Hoover did it. It’s wrong because it is a nakedly political tactic”
Your argument is a confused ad-hominem becuse it assumes Hoover’s classification was incorrect. Of the list you quoted only the 5th one is manifestly pejorative and wholly subjective. Was Hoover wrong to claim that there really were people who were opnely communists and that there were people who were secretly communist? No, both of those claims are true and yes there were also people who sympathised with communists. We might not like Hoover, we might not like his motives or his intent but your argument simply treated his categories as false on the grounds that he wasn’t a very nice person. Hence my saying your argument was a confused ad-hominem.
And in the end what are you saying? After all your argument can be applied to anybody who claims there are different categories of belief. Would you really wish to assert that any categorisation of belief amounts to some McCarthy-like witchunt? If not then you need to conisder which are legitimate and which are not.
Finally do you not see the irony in trying to link me with J Edgar Hoover on the grounds that you think pejorative politcal comparisons are wrong?
I’m sure you could probably turn your observation into a more cogent point but currently it is far too confused to adequately engage with.
March 2011: In response to Anthony Watts – The Guardain environment editor said this, as they recognised the issue with denier and holocaust conotations..
“We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to “climate change deniers†in favour of, perhaps, “climate scepticsâ€.
The editor of our environment website explains: “The former has nasty connotations with Holocaust denial and tends to polarise debate. On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence.
James Randerson: “Most if not all of the environment team – who, after all, are the ones at the sharp end – now favour stopping the use of denier or denialist (which is not, in fact, a word) in news stories, if not opinion pieces.”
Actually, It is I think well worth a re-read, at least the awareness at The Guardain, that deniers has had a holocaust meaning in a climate change context.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/sea-change-in-climate-journalism-the-guardian-and-the-d-word/
The article states Anthony’s position on ‘climate change’ that is all so frequently misrepresented..
Athony Watts: “My position has been that there is no debate that the earth has warmed over the past 100+ years, but that the magnitude of the measured warming and the cause(s) remain in debate. The question of whether such warming is beneficial or detrimental depends on who you ask. I’ll also point out that it took our modern society about 150 years of science and technology advances to get where we are now. Doing it cleaner and better won’t be an overnight solution either.”
If “denialist” is not, in fact, a word, then it ought to be–to denote somebody who goes out of his way to deny something, against all evidence and, perhaps, all logic as well.
If it really is not a word (yet), it cannot be associated with the Holocaust already, can it?
I would still suggest using it sparingly, to refer only to an individual’s attitude about a particular issue, and not to a group, movement or ideology. Even for individuals, I would only recommend it for truly egregious cases, the ones with whom, as Nyq pointed out above, no meaningful discussion is possible.
sorry above, should be March 2010:
JD-
I understand the concept of innuendo. But below, you are just making a bald claim about what is intended by use of the word:
I think most warmists who use the term do not in tend the holocaust interpretation and are not even aware that interpretation exists. So our disagreement doesn’t seem to have anything to do with understanding or not understanding a legal concept. It has to do with disagreeing about a fact.
JD==
I should add: the meaning I suggests is harmful and derogatory. The meaning Brandon suggests is also harmful and derogatory. So saying the users intend the harmful interpretation doesn’t distinguish between our views. The disagreement is about whether or not the term implies an accusation about “the holocaust.”
lucia, you say:
After David Irving’s trial five or so years ago, I find it hard to believe anyone in Europe isn’t at least partially aware of the connotation. The same is even more true for Australia seeing as it is discussed regularly there, including in the media. People in the United States seem less aware of it (many don’t even realize there are Holocaust deniers), and I don’t know about Asia.
As for “warmists” who use it, seeing as people complain about the Holocaust reference on a regular basis, how are people participating in these discussions remaining ignorant? Do you think they just never see or hear anyone complain about it?
Barry Woods (Comment #78152) June 28th, 2011 at 11:08 am “In many areas of debate to be one of the sceptics is to championed and looked on positively.”
Good point – but this also illustrates one of the other issues about the framing of this discussion. In other debates people associated with scepticism would be the people who de-bunk the “deniers”/cranks/creationists/etc.
So to some extent the introduction of “denier” was a reaction against the use of the term “sceptic”.
“Global warming sceptic” is a misleading term given the positive baggage the term “sceptic” has with regard to debates about science. I think there are very few people on the doubting side of the debate for whom “sceptic” is a good label – although the term makes some sense for the fuzzy, lukewarm middle.
Typically people claiming that the AGW hypothesis is probably false are credulous about SOMETHING rather than sceptical – that something varies depending on a pet-theory (Pacific osscillations or cosmic rays etc).
Of course that doesn’t make them “deniers”.
A neutral example would be the aquatic-ape hypothesis. Somebody who asserts that the major evolution break of humans from other apes was due to an aquatic stage in human evolution could be called a “savanah-theory sceptic”. However it wouldn’t be a good description of their position because really the issue is that the BELIEVE something else instead rather than them simply disbelieving. However, in turn, it would be clealry wrong to lump that person in with creationists even though they disagree with the consensus position on human evolution.
Lucia: “I think most warmists who use the term do not in tend the holocaust interpretation and are not even aware that interpretation exists. ”
No one can get into the minds of speakers. So reasonable people can disagree about what is intended. I stand by what I say, but understand your point of view.
However, I don’t think you can reasonably claim that those engaged in the climate debates have not heard of Holocaust deniers and the easy linkage between the concepts. Particularly when Hansen (ridiculously) evoked images of Nazi death trains in criticizing coal energy usage. See also, Pachauri’s criticism of Lomborg at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1223ClimateNaySayers1223.html who stated :””What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s? You cannot treat people like cattle,” Pauchauri stated it was taken out of context, but he didn’t directly disavow the words.
JD
JD–I didn’t claim “those engaged in the climate debates have not heard of Holocaust deniers” at all. People can be aware of holocaust deniers and be utterly unaware that someone, somewhere has advanced to odd notion that the word “denier” must imply “holocaust”.
As for pointing out that people — including Hansen– have brought up the holocaust in the climate debate, please scroll back and read the previous discussions. If you want to advance the case that the word “denier” automatically implies “holocaust”, you have to advance this specific thing. Denier and denial is used with aids, climate, holocaust, racism, alcoholism, heck, I found “diabetes denier” (the page mentions Paula Dean.) While “holocaust denier” does invoke the holocaust, and Paul Dean’s cooking may very kill, I don’t think every use of “denier” automatically invokes the holocaust.
Lucia,
I am not saying that denier automatically is intended to reference the Holocaust. I am saying that it is quite often used that way. If denier was intended to be a sort of value neutral way of describing those who are impervious to science, it would be commonly used to describe those who do not believe in evolution. It is not. Although used in other contexts, it is mainly used by warmists in climate debates as a tool to express hate and intimidate others. (I am mainly concerned about protecting young academics who might be afraid to publish realist research.)
Anyway, I have made my point and you have made yours. Personally, I don’t mind others calling me a denier — it just shows that they are irrational and uninformed. As I said before, if Jews don’t want ownership of the term, I am happy to use it in responding to others who invoke it first.
JD
JD
Well, then the evidence supports my point not yours because evolution denier isused. “Evolution denialist” is one of the examples in the article Barry showed me (see lucia (Comment #78010) ). The term is used at the “denialism blog”, and appears to be used pretty widely. See . see google
lucia (Comment #78112)
Thanks, Lucia 🙂 But … from where I’m sitting, the “denier” label is far more insidious than “poisoning the well”. It carries a whole slew of connotations (most of which have been mentioned by others throughout this discussion) which are quite aptly applied to Holocaust deniers; so that (as I wrote in my blogpost) in the words of Dennis Prager:
In my view, Prager was right on the mark. From everything I’ve read since stumbling onto the battlefield of the “climate wars”, the intervening years have shown his assessment to be quite correct.
As a (sort of amusing) aside – and just to show how utterly contorted this usage has become … around the time of the notorious 10:10 “No pressure” video disaster, I came across a dedicated activist blogger who chose the nym (and blogname) “watchingthedeniers”.
He, no doubt, truly believes that this is the dawning of of the age of “an emerging global catastrophe†(his words, not mine). Yet, in his “discussion” of reaction to “No Pressure”, he dubbed those who disagreed with his relatively benign view of the video, as “ALARMISTS” … and for good measure, demonstrated his complete ignorance of history by claiming that any who might have seen some similarity between the underlying message of the video and that of Nazi propaganda techniques, were “disparaging the memory of the Holocaust”. But I digress …
True, those who choose to denigrate their opponents by labelling them “deniers” (with or without the preface of “global warming” or the meaningless “climate change” or even more absurd “climate”) do not get to be the ultimate arbiters of language usage (unlike, it would seem, “climate scientists” who get to determine that a trick is not a trick, decline is not decline, projection is not prediction, etc.)
But how many of those who use “denier” with ‘plenty of other things’ are high-profile, influential people (think Gore, think Wirth, think Trenberth) who get considerable air-time in the MSM and/or distinguished fora to cast such aspersions on those who have the temerity to question the validity of their pronouncements?
Perhaps so. But, I do believe that Judith Curry, at least, has an understanding and appreciation of the implications and connotations of the label. And I hope that by the time this thread winds down, you will, too 🙂
O/T but slightly related … Lucia, I shared your joy in the ICO’s use of the English language in his decision against UEA. As I was reading this yesterday, I was reminded of Justice Gray’s superb demolition of faux-historian, David Irving, probably the most well-known Holocaust denier. Some day, when you have some spare time (hah!), you might want to read Gray’s judgement: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/judgement
Nyq Only (Comment #78157)-“Your argument is a confused ad-hominem becuse it assumes Hoover’s classification was incorrect.”
On the contrary, I think it was inappropriate not incorrect.
“your argument simply treated his categories as false on the grounds that he wasn’t a very nice person.”
Actually, again, I did not say his categorization was “false” I said it was wrong, but you seem to have gotten the impression I meant it was factually wrong. I meant it was in fact improper to use such a tactic in an effort to control the terms of debate and discussion. Rather than debate communism on it’s merits (it doesn’t have any, so there is no reason to avoid doing so) it’s advocates were demonized. The fact that they were wrong doesn’t make demonization appropriate.
“After all your argument can be applied to anybody who claims there are different categories of belief.”
If the claims are motivated by a desire to demonize those with whom you disagree, then well my argument should apply to them.
“Finally do you not see the irony in trying to link me with J Edgar Hoover on the grounds that you think pejorative politcal comparisons are wrong?”
I believe I noted the only actual irony already (prejorative political comparisons? I thought I was opposed to motivated categorization of people with whom you disagree!) But I suppose you could say it is quite ironic that you take umbrage to being compared to Hoover, while simultaneously praising his method of debate so you don’t have to give it up.
This kind of behavior does not foster legitimate intellectual discussion, but since you aren’t interested in intellectual discussion, I see no reason to apologize for giving you the great compliment of comparing you to J Edgar Hoover. No doubt that makes your skin crawl. That’s why I said it.
“I’m sure you could probably turn your observation into a more cogent point but currently it is far too confused to adequately engage with.”
If you can’t understand my point I don’t see why I should bend over backwards to spoon feed it to you.
Lucia, I’m not sure if I violated link-count or inadvertently used a banned word. Would you mind checking your spam-trap to see if my post of about 15-20 minutes ago might have landed there.
Thanks 🙂
Update: It has now appeared … sorry for the false alarm
hro001– I found it in the spamtrap. It’s released now.
I also liked the bits where he decided to use arithmetic to point out just how little data might possibly, even hypothetically, count as material that, that if, released might prevent anyone from profiting from their IP.
“Nyq Only (Comment #78169) June 28th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
A neutral example would be the aquatic-ape hypothesis.”
Thank you for that Nyq, a great example of what is an not is science and what is and is not a consensus.
Some parts of human evolution could be explained by our ancestors living in lakes/estuary’s.
The problem is that many other things could explain them.
So belief in estuary/aquatic ape is just that, belief.
There is no real testable experiment or postulate, just evidence to be weighed. However, because an hypothesis exists, people can test observations against this. Which causes the pendulum to swing one way or the other. Evidence is now running in favor at the moment, from an unexpected source, the appendix.
The appendix has evolved at least four times in different clades of marsupials/mammals.
All the anthropoid apes, gibbon, orangutan, chimpanzee and gorilla and humans have a vermiform appendix. But humans have a much bigger one than the rest of our cousins.
So why have a large appendix?
In 2007 and 2009 a remarkable hypothesis and analysis was presented for a role for the appendix:-
“The appendix is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example”.
Now if our ancestors when from cracking nuts to cracking shell-fish, they would get food poisoning every now and again. The enlarged appendix would be very useful.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm
Do we have any definitive evidence for estuary/aquatic ape ? No.
Do we have a consensus? No.
Do evolutionary biologists form an opinion? Yes.
Do they get involved in heated exchanges of ideas? Yup.
Do they accuse people who disagree with their opinion of being deniers? No.No.No.
Evolutionary biologists are as removed from their area of study by the same time temporal considerations as climate scientists.
You can be assured that they all agree we evolved, but the how, what, why, where remains to be fully identified.
The Multiregional hypothesis is dead, the about 4% Northern European DNA that originated in Neanderthal’s was a bit of a shock to 95%. So Erik Trinkaus was right and the VAST majority of evolutionary human anthropologists were wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22133/
No outcry, no finger-pointing, no press.
Andrew_FL (Comment #78190) June 28th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“If the claims are motivated by a desire to demonize those with whom you disagree, then well my argument should apply to them.”
So it would seem that your gripe is with my motive. Presumably if I had made the same taxonomic distinction with a sufficiently pure hear you’d be OK with it? In which case I owe you an apology – I suggested that your argument was fallacious on the grounds of being an ad-hominem argument based on Mr Hoover being unpleasant, whereas it was actually a more general fallacy of reasoning.
Even then you have misunderstood. Mr Hoover was attempting to identify groups who were apparently different but which, on his criteria, were substantially the same – i.e. each of his five groups present differently but underneath were all part of the imagined commie-threat.
I was saying the opposite – groups that are perceived to be the same, or as variations within a block, or as part of a spread of belief are NOT like that at all. In fact they are quite different at a fundamental level. Rather than saying somebody like Roy Spencer being a “fellow traveller” to somebody like Monckton, I am suggesting that despite apparently mixing in similar circles they are as alike as chalk-&-cheese.
As we seem to be on a theme of leftist radicalism we can imagine attending an anti-war rally during the US invasion of Iraq and bumping into (in turn) a Trotskyist, a Lew-Rockwell libertarian, a radical Muslim and a Quaker. They may each say superficially similar things about George Bush, WMDs and US military adventurism but to see them as being fundamentally the same would be just plain stupid. Too point out that each was actually quite different in their beliefs would be the opposite of demonising them as a group.
As for umbrage – be not afraid, I’ve taken none. I’ve been compared with worse things that J. Edgar Hoover 🙂
DocMartyn (Comment #78194) June 28th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
“Do they get involved in heated exchanges of ideas? Yup.
Do they accuse people who disagree with their opinion of being deniers? No.No.No.”
True but they can be very dismissive of them and some of the complaints of aquatic-ape theorists sound familiar (eg that they are shut out from publication, that is an academic bias against them, that there ideas are not given the serious consideration they are due).
[as an aside http://www.aquaticape.org/ is worth a visit as debunking of the hypothesis – personally I’ve always had a soft spot for the idea]
Also consider how heated discussion can be amongst more mainstream biologists over evolution – the long running feuding between Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould for example – with Dawkins essentially accusing Gould of providing fodder for the creationists.
The difference is that the “deniers” with regard to evolution are a more easily identifiable group and the aquatic-ape people are quite clearly distinct. Even so the intelligent design brigade (Behe, Dembski) have attempted to blur that distinction. Is it fair to call somebody like Michael Behe an “evolution denier” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe ) – a marginal case in my opinion. Dembski on the other hand is more clearly in the creationist camp, despite the fig-leaf of his information-theory inspired claims.
I don’t know if Barry Woods posted the same comment here but on Keith Kloor’s blog he said the following:
The Oxford Online dictionary:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/denial
“Word Trend
In 1991 the British historian David Irving was convicted in Germany of Holocaust Denial – claiming that the mass murder of the Jews and other groups bythe Naziz in the second World War never happened. In 2006 he was imprisoned on a similar charge in Austria. Holocaust denial is not a crime under UK law, but the 21st century it is often considered taboo to deny the truth of certain concepts. After Holocaust, the commonest modifiers of denier in the Oxford English Corpus reflect some highly contentious issues: climate change, evolution and global warming. Refusal to acknowledge the existance of these things is now seen as so dangerous that some green activists have called for climate change denial to be made illegalâ€
.
Pretty definite link I think for the UK, considering Monbiot/Hari MSM articles at the time, ie activists wanting the same law for climate change denial, as for the existing law for holocaust denial. I don’t find anybody calling for laws for evolution denial, or aids denial, etc, do you… The guardian commentors certainly get the connection, even when implicitly not said.
I do accept that this may not have the same useage elsewhere in the world though…
Additionally, the oxford dictionary definition of climate change is also enlightening:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/climate+change
(as it minimises, excludes natural climate change) – surely newspeak )
ie it’s definition, begs the question, do we need a new word for climate change (natural) prior to the mid 20th century! as ‘climate change’ is taken to mean something else!!
Google searches
Climate change denier 5.3 million hits
Climate change denier holocaust 2.3 million hits
Climate change denier political 2.8 million hits
Climate change denier energy 3.1 million hits
Climate change denier science 3.4 million hits
Climate change denier moon landing 200,000 hits 🙂
(make of this what you want)
It seems the climate change debate is as much a political, economic and moral issue as it is a scientific one. It doesn’t seem so extraordinary that from time to time people will mention the greatest moral and political events of the 20th century in order to give themselves some moral authority in this debate. The main attack on sceptics seems to be to label them either morally, intellectually or psychologically impaired, the shorthand for this is to label people denier.
The fact that this discussion is happening here suggests holocaust/climate chamge denier is at least part of the debate even if it’s marginal and limited at the moment.
Lucia 4:03 p.m.
You are right “denier†is used to some significant degree to discuss creationists. Personally, in my readings I had never come across it. However, if you Google climate deniers and Holocaust Deniers, there are many examples of people making the link between holocaust denial and “climate denial.†See http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=climate+deniers+and+holocaust+deniers&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=62342b24ba2124cf&biw=1013&bih=619
I still don’t see how you can claim that users of the term are unaware of the Holocaust Denial connection. If strong advocates for the position that CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change wanted to make their point in a non-hateful manner and avoid the Holocaust Denier connection, they could easily avoid the term “denier.†I would suggest “rejectionists†or “irrational rejectionists,†which conveys the illogical dismissal of science but gets rid of the Nazi baggage. They don’t do so because their intent is to express their hate and intimidate their opposition. (See Hansen, Pachauri and other statements in my Google url)
“Is it fair to call somebody like Michael Behe an “evolution denierâ€
Except that he believes in “evolution”. He just recognizes it’s limitations.
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206
Andrew
JD– I haven’t suggested the those who use denier aren’t trying to be hateful, they are. BTW: Above, Eli claims he uses rejectionist. A later commenter points out that crawling Eli’s blog suggests Eli is deluded when he claims this. Nevertheless, Eli claims he uses rejectionist.
Lucia & Eli,
To the extent that rejectionist is being used, I think it is a big improvement. Just caught Eli’s post and if I had seen it, I would have mentioned it.
JD
JD– I doubt Eli will switch to rejectionist. But we’ll see. Certainly, use of denier makes people angry and irrespective of our views on the holocaust association is denigrating. So, it should be avoided. But we’ll see if Eli switches.
Lucia says “Eli is deluded when he claims that he uses ‘rejectionist'”.
The very first sentence in the top post (dated June 24) on his blog begins: “One of the long time themes of Rabett Run has been how thin the rejectionist bench is…”
Lucia would seem to have made the serious accusation that Eli is deluded about the content of his blog with actually bothering to look at Eli’s blog.
Tim–
Please read Tom fullers comment
It’s true that Eli has used (present continuous) rejectionist and that he has done so recently. It may be that he will use it in the future.
But in a conversation where the context is whether or not one uses “denialist”, it is hardly fair for him to say he “uses” (simple present) rejectionist rather than “denialist”. It has been his habit to use denier and denialist
Eli is deluded if he really think he uses (present continuous) rejectionist in favor of “denialist”. And you are a bit confused if you think the fact that Eli uses “rejectionist” three times while using denialist constantly makes his claim that he remotely true.
Andrew_KY (Comment #78228) June 29th, 2011 at 7:06 am
Re: (me)“Is it fair to call somebody like Michael Behe an “evolution denier†(you) Except that he believes in “evolutionâ€. He just recognizes it’s limitations.
🙂 apparently – which is why I called him a marginal case. Note also that many creationists do accept some degree of evolution, i.e. “micro-evolution” within a species. Technically there are also people who could be described as “creationist” but whose belief in divine intervention in speciation is not incompatible with the broader notion of evolution (i.e. species change over time and new species arise from those changes) but is at odds with the theory of natural selection. There also people who could be called “creationist” because of a belief in divine intervention and guidance in the creation of species but in a manner not at odds with the theory of evolution by natural selction.
However apart from Behe, those sorts of intermediate positions aren’t particulalry vocal ones or influential ones and also avoid the bitter policy debate around science-teaching that has been running in the US for over a century (or tend to support the anti-creationist side who want science teaching to be science teaching 🙂 )
lucia (Comment #78232) June 29th, 2011 at 7:45 am
” I doubt Eli will switch to rejectionist.”
I understood Eli’s post explaining his use of the term ( here http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/04/beyond-denial.html ) to be saying that some people often called denialists are best called rejectionist. The examples he gave (WUWT, CA, Judith Curry, yourself, the Rogers Sr & Jr etc) were all examples of people who might be regarded as attempting some kind of middle-ground in the climate-debate (a very broad middle ground).
I can’t say I agree with his usage but it doesn’t seem inconsistent with him later describing the Virginian Atttorney General as “denialist”.
Nyq Only (Comment #78248)-It would have been nice if Joshy boy had seen fit to explain his usage of terms and when he considers which terms appropriate, but he offered no such qualification or equivocation, he flat out claimed, in a vary broad manner that he “uses” rejectionist. Without qualification, his statement is inconsistent with his practices as you interpret them. It is rather ridiculous though to pretend as though one means anything less insulting and close minded by using a different term. This focus on labeling and categorizing fails to meet the arguments in conversation on substance and ought to be frowned upon.
“apparently – which is why I called him a marginal case”
Nyq, Evolution Denier would be completely undescriptive of his position, so it would be just a political purposes label if used.
Andrew
Andrew_FL (Comment #78249) June 29th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“e flat out claimed, in a vary broad manner that he “uses†rejectionist.”
Arguably it is is disinegenuous but it is correct – he does use the term “rejectionist” and has explained in detail on his blog (which readers are hardly unaware of) the manner in which he has proposed using it. Nor was his statement “without qualification” – he gave a direct link to a post explaining in detail the use of the term in a general context. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/04/rhetoric-of-rejection.html
* Perversity: is claiming that any purposive action to improve something only exacerbates the condition one wishes to remedy
* Futility: is holding that attempts at transformation will be unavailing and will simply fail to make a dent
* Jeopardy: argues that the cost of the proposed change is too high and endangers some previous valued accomplishment
“It is rather ridiculous though to pretend as though one means anything less insulting and close minded by using a different term.”
The point is that REJECTIONIST means something different from DENIALIST. Somebody can be one and not the other or both or neither. Note I don’t agree with Eli’s usage as explained here: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/04/beyond-denial.html – I don’t think he is correct to use it for Judith Curry or Lucia. However in terms of the three categories above it is quite a good description of the thrust of much of WUWT’s content. “Rejectionist” really should be used about discussions around policy – I think Eli probably is stretching the term inappropriately to describe an attitude towards science.
Andrew_KY (Comment #78250) June 29th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
“Nyq, Evolution Denier would be completely undescriptive of his position, so it would be just a political purposes label if used.”
See my earlier posts – to say that he is a denier certainly would be pejorative (I’m not sure what you mean by “political” here). To call Behe a denier or denialist would be to say that he does not present his positions in good-faith. That certainly is not a neutral or purely descriptive claim about his position if that is what you mean by “political”. However it is not purely a rhetorical claim either – we can look at Behe’s various claims, the positions he has taken and the people he has supported and come to a rational conclusion that isn’t purely subjective. Personally I think the question is an open one as to whether he is somebody who had a genuine idea and has since found it difficult to back-away from it when it didn’t work out (cf Elaine Morgan and the aquatic-ape), or whether some of his public obstufication was more cynical, or the extent to which his involvement in creationist legal battles was naive or calculated.
Looking it less personally I think we can safely say his book “Darwin’s Black Box” taken as a thing in itself, describing an argument seperate from other things he may have said, is not “denialist”. It is a reasoned, credible argument that just so happens to be wrong both in fact and in the logical connection of fact.
Nyq Only (Comment #78251)-My reference to qualification of his claim was that his comment made no qualification. Explaining it on his blog doesn’t help those who can’t be bothered to wade through his ramblings. But fair enough, he has explained the distinction somewhere. Again, would have been nice if he’d explained it here but it matters little.
“The point is that REJECTIONIST means something different from DENIALIST.”
Not in a material way with regard to their use in debate: both are just slurs and colorful words for “enemy”, I don’t see how one can claim otherwise. Again, rather than engage arguments, it’s about labeling arguers. Not helpful.
We are now trying to discern what someone thought when they used the label DENIER, or what someone thought when they read the label DENIER. It is pointless to argue over intent or what people think.
It is also pointless to argue over whether Eli’s new label is better than Eli’s old label.
I agree with Andrew FL – labeling arguers (either side) is not helpful.
Andrew_FL (Comment #78253) June 29th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
“Not in a material way with regard to their use in debate: both are just slurs and colorful words for “enemyâ€, I don’t see how one can claim otherwise.”
By observing the facts of the issue – even if you regard them both as pejorative (and I agree that they are) Eli is clearly using them to tell you dIFFERENT things about his opinion. Note you don’t have to agree with Eli’s opinion to be able to follow his usage nor do you have to even agree with his usage.
It’s World War two, but at least we’re not Krauts but Tojos. I have it about right? Or maybe we’re the Krauts, but at least we’re not Tojos?
Lucia, on April 9 Eli posted that “rejectionist” was a better term than “denialist” and has used “rejectionist” rather than “denialist” in his posts since then. Obviously I have been confused by actually looking at his blog instead of relying on second hand reports of what is there.
“I’m not sure what you mean by “political†here”
Belief in evolution is not required to conduct one’s life. The only reason a person cares enough to label you based on whether or not you believed in evolution would be so they could classify you as a believer(or non). It’s interesting to see on climate blogs how this issue unrelated to climate is played politically.
Andrew
Tim Lambert (Comment #78304)
Before you jump to conclusions that I have not read Eli’s blog and rely on 2nd hand information, please note my much earlier comment.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/more-auto-complete-fun-not-a-river-in-egypt/#comment-78029
I read and commented on the post Eli linked. I had also read, but not commented on the April 9 post.
If you look at the time stamps, and process the information, you will realize I read this April 10 post before Tom Fuller posted what you refer to as “second hand information”. Since I already knew the true state of affairs regarding Eli’s use of “rejectionist”, vs. “denier”, and I could confirm Tom’s statistics in his “second hand information”, I knew what he said to be true. So, I conclude that if Eli thinks he “uses” (present continual tense) rejectionist instead of “denier” Eli is deluded.
Rereading Eli’s posts does not change my mind– nor does it change the statistics of demonstrating which words Eli actually uses.
Tim Lambert:
At least Tim’s aware he’s really confused. Baby steps.
Andrew_KY (Comment #78307)
June 30th, 2011 at 6:52 am “The only reason a person cares enough to label you based on whether or not you believed in evolution would be so they could classify you as a believer(or non). ”
That is tautological – obviously the reason for claissifying somebody as a non-believer is to classify them as a non-believer. Why somebody would bother to use classifications is to discuss a set of beliefs without discussing lots of named individuals. Imagine discussing creationist beliefs without the word “creationist”. What would one say? The beliefs of [insert enormous list of people]?
lucia (Comment #78314) June 30th, 2011 at 7:42 am
“So, I conclude that if Eli thinks he “uses†(present continual tense) rejectionist instead of “denier†Eli is deluded.
Rereading Eli’s posts does not change my mind– nor does it change the statistics of demonstrating which words Eli actually uses.”
And you’d be incorrect – or perhaps you are using a strawman by assuming that Eli was saying he has expunged “denier” and uses “rejectionist” as a synonym for “denier”. However his message here linked to a message where he explained his use of rejectionist as something OTHER THAN a synonym for “denier”.
As far as I can see Eli has followed the usage he explained.
Andrew_KY
The sentence is equally true if we make
X= “are a French citizen”, Y=”French”
X=”are a female homo sapien”, Y=”a woman”.
X=” homo sapien”, Y=”human”.
X=” a troglodyte”, Y=” a cave dweller”
I think I agree with Nyq. Your sentences is tautological.
I agree that people often use labeling inappropriately. Somethings they think applying the label is the same as advancing an argument. Sometimes they try to replace argument by applying inaccurate labels. (For example: calling someone who does not live in a cave a “troglodyte”.)
But this doesn’t mean labels are never useful. Sometimes, descriptive nouns result in more efficient communication than using generic nouns modified by strings of adjectives.
Nyq–
In context I think Eli is communicating he doesn’t use denialist. He does use it.
Friends, 🙂
The point is, in climate discussions on climate blogs, I’m not sure how relevant is someone’s belief in evolution or lack thereof. The topic is entertaining yes, but it has nothing to do with climate.
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment #78382) June 30th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
“The point is, in climate discussions on climate blogs, I’m not sure how relevant is someone’s belief in evolution or lack thereof. ”
Certainly if we look at prominent individuals with a scientific background there is no obvious connection. Australian geologist Ian Plimer (Heaven & Earth) is anti-creationist to a fault – he rather quixotically sued some Noah’s Ark crank once. Roy Spencer on the other is at least sympathetic to Intelligent Design – but I think Spencer is a more credible scientist on the issue of climate than Plimer.
However more generally a scientific belief should arise from a scientific methodology. To adopt modes of argument or views of knowledge that run contrary to science is problematic.
For example consider the argument the weak argument that climate scientists promote global warming as means of getting public funding. We could discuss the merits of it as a claim – but it isn’t hard to see that you really could apply to a whole host of academic claims. Likewise with a general claim that climate scientists, being academics, are biased to the left. The argument works on almost any academic claim that you might not want to believe. It isn’t even obviously false – particulalry in the humanities.
In a world with a consitent reality we can’t simply ring fence arguments and declare that it only applies when we choose it too.
No, “denial” doesn’t mean “Holocaust denial” and nobody is saying you are a “climate change denier”.
However: in a range, starting from “Shakespeare authorship denial” (the various claims, not advanced by reputable scholars, that Shakespeare was not the author of the “Shakespeare” plays), ranging up to “Warren commission denial” (the various claims, unconfirmed by the evidence, that President Kennedy was not assassinated by a loner with left-wing convictions), and Holocaust denial, share common features.
One is the reluctance to agree with the consensus of professionals who as members of organizations are loth to speak out outside of that organization. The Denyer prefers to present herself as a “voice, crying in the wilderness”.
However, she is seldom willing to pay the price of genuine dissent and for this reason has to formulate a theory, surprising on the face of it, that nonprofit organizations (the NOAA as regards climate change: major universities as regards Shakespeare studies: the United States and British army documentation teams as regards the Holocaust: the Warren commission, and so forth) are corrupt without a theory that would explain a conspiracy.
Now, in climate change specifically, this claim is associated with a rather innocent, but rather unattractive, faith in the reassurances of for-profit companies who, unlike the NOAA in the United States, have not only a provable interest in climate denial or your pose of grave lukewarmism, have also a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to promote the use of fossil fuels.
Whence the folksy, and oh so very Authentic pose of anti-GW bloggers. The ordinary person confronts, not nature red in tooth and claw, but society in the form of uncaring organizations and longs for a human voice, which the oil companies are only too anxious to fund.
It’s pretty obvious we’ve been scaling up as regards the use of fossil fuels even within my lifetime. My grandfather (you want folksy you got it) taught me how to saw wood. His skill is out of date because of the chain saw, which in all cases is powered by fossil fuels.
At some point this increase is sure to have global effects and the only question is when. Essentially, climate change denial (which you do not fully espouse) denies that this point will ever come. The deniers have not made their case, and if they are wrong, they already have blood on their hands.
“At some point this increase is sure to have global effects and the only question is when. Essentially, climate change denial (which you do not fully espouse) denies that this point will ever come. The deniers have not made their case, and if they are wrong, they already have blood on their hands.”
What global effects? No Orwelian speak and wiesel words please.
Regarding for-profit companies, they have all been on the Carbon Bandwagon big time. CAGW has been an enormous cash cow for everybody involved. Big Oil and Big Money loved it.
“Essentially, climate change denial…denies that this point will ever come.”
No, climate change denial asserts that no one is willing to disclose specifically where and how “the climate” has changed, so I cannot accept the assertion that it has. As a Denier, I believe climate change is possible, but there are no details. All I’ve seen so far is poetry.
Andrew
Annabell Torres/ Andrea/ Albert/ Laura Gonzales / Marie Deschamps/ Rebecca /Fulton,
I don’t mind anonymous posters. But please pick one pseudonym and stick with it. If you don’t, I’m going to have to go back to moderating all first commenters with “first” defined as the first time a “user name/ email” combination is used.