Media enable denier spin, part three

Please stop calling them 'skeptics'

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 10:28 AM on 11 Mar 2008

Read more about: climate | climate change skepticism

What name can we possibly use for the people who are working feverishly to convince the public to ignore the broad scientific understanding of global warming and delay taking serious action, action needed to avert a very grim fate for our children, their children, and so on?

I suspect future generations will call them "climate destroyers" or worse, since if we actually (continue to) listen to them, that pretty much ensures carbon-dioxide concentrations will hit catastrophic levels -- 700 to 1000 -- this century, as explained in part two. But what should we call these people in the meantime, while we still have time to ignore them and save the climate?

In this post I will explain why "skeptics" is certainly the wrong term, discuss why the current favorite among advocates (including me) -- "deniers" -- doesn't work (except maybe in headlines), and offer a new alternative. (Tomorrow I'll give you the reaction of a genuine skeptic to the new alternative.) For now let's call them "delayers," since that is their primary, unifying goal -- delaying action. As the NYT's Revkin explained about the recent skeptic denier-delayer conference in New York, "The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases." What unites these people is their desire to delay or stop action to cut GHGs, not any one particular view on the climate.

They Aren't Skeptical: Their Minds Are Made Up

The traditional or mainstream media still call them "skeptics," as in this NYT headline. As long as they do so, they trivialize the problem and render the word "skeptic" devoid of meaning.

All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto of the Royal Society of London, one of the world's oldest scientific academies (founded in 1660), Nullius in verba: "Take nobody's word." Indeed, as Wikipedia explains in its entry on skepticism:

A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

Skeptics can be convinced by the facts, but not the delayers. Skeptics (and real scientists) do not continue repeating arguments that have been discredited. Delayers do. Skeptics believe in science, in well-tested theories backed up by real-world observations, but delayers do not.

My personal experience is that no amount of scientific evidence can convince the well-known "skeptics." I have debated Lomborg and he is very well versed in the science -- he just chooses not to believe most of it. Indeed, if the overwhelming evidence of the last four years doesn't convince someone, then they simply aren't open to scientific reasoning, the basis of true skepticism.

The media -- and everyone else -- should stop using the term. It makes a mockery of the English language, it is an insult to real scientific skeptics, and it feeds the overall disinformation effort that makes humanity's self-destruction more likely.

They Aren't Anything Like Holocaust Deniers

I -- and many, if not most, other advocates for action -- have used the term "deniers" or "denialists" for these people. But the more I think about it, and the more comments I read from delayers, the more I realize that the term doesn't work, especially as a broad brush.

First, many delayers are clever enough that they don't issue outright denials that (1) the climate is changing and (2) humans play a role. They typically argue that humans play only a limited role and warming this century will be modest at best, and will perhaps even have some positive benefits. That view is in direct contradiction with our current scientific understanding, but it falls short of the kind of outright denial that was common in the 1990s (there are some classic deniers still around, like Bill Gray, but they are fairly marginalized).

Second, I see comments from a lot of delayers who intensely dislike being linked to "Holocaust deniers." They feel there is no way to use the term "denier" without people immediately thinking of that other group of disinformers. If the term were accurate, this objection wouldn't count for much, but in fact the delayers are nothing like Holocaust deniers.

"Holocaust deniers" are denying an established fact from the past. If the media, politicians, or the public took them at all seriously, I suppose it might increase the chances of a future Holocaust. But in fact they are marginalized, and are inevitably attacked and criticized widely whenever they try to spread their disinformation -- so they have no significant impact on society. The delayers, however, are very different and far more dangerous. They are trying to persuade people not to take action on a problem that has not yet become catastrophic, but which will certainly do so if we listen to them and delay acting much longer.

"Delayer" is a far more accurate term.

By calling them "deniers" we are making the focus of our response the climate science; we are fighting on their turf, so they still win. In fact, the science has long since passed the realm in which the delayers try to debate it. The key question for humanity today is not whether human-caused global warming does or does not exist -- it is not even whether human-caused global warming is a serious problem. It is already past a serious problem. The only serious question facing the human race now is whether we will act strongly enough and quickly enough to avert a catastrophe that is both beyond historical comparison and probably irreversible for centuries, if not millennia. Again, that is why I think "delayer" is better (though it can be improved, see below).

Finally, I see two different kinds of skeptics/deniers. One is the small "professional" class, the people who speak at conferences and whose job is to spread disinformation. I have called them disinformers. I may still occasionally use that term, since it is descriptive and better than denier. The second is the much larger group of people who question global warming because they are conservatives and libertarians who get their news from Fox, or Limbaugh, or conservative blogs and think tanks. So they are primarily exposed to the well-crafted disinformation, and believe it because it sounds plausible and it come from people they trust. Also, these people have a reflexive distrust of environmentalists, progressives, and "experts," and they intensely dislike the government-led solutions needed to stop global warming. They are predisposed to believe and repeat the disinformer talking points. I have given them the benign term "doubters" in the past, but the climate situation is simply too dire for niceties at this point. Even "misinformers" is too weak.

So what to call them? What is an accurate label that moves the debate to the ground it should be fought on? I believe the discussion/debate we need surrounds the most important climate question, the one you should ask anyone as quickly as possible before wasting a lot of time on pointless arguments:

If you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal and how would you achieve it?

If you can't get an answer, put them down for 1000 ppm -- and that brings me to their proper name.

They Want Delay, and Delay Is Fatal

What unites the delayers is the "deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases." From George Will to Bjorn Lomborg to Michael Crichton to James Inhofe, they believe strong action isn't needed, won't work, would cause more harm than good, or some combination of the three. Their beliefs were well articulated by science-fiction writer Michael Crichton in a 2006 New Republic interview:

If you just look at the science, I, at least, am underwhelmed. This may or may not be a problem, but it is far from the most serious problem. If you want to do something, [limiting emissions] is not what to do. We don't at this moment have good technology to do this, if, in fact, it's necessary to do it.

This is very similar to the Luntz/Bush/Lomborg playbook of "Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah." Frank Luntz, one of the best strategists and word gurus of either party, actually wrote a detailed manifesto for conservatives on how to win the climate debate, based on polling and focus groups. He concluded:

We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.

"Technology" and "voluntary" = delay, delay, delay.

"Delayer," though, while much more accurate than skeptic or denier, isn't strong enough and still doesn't drive the debate to its necessary endpoint.

And delay is, of course, sometimes good. Not in this case, however. As noted in part two, our current understanding, as expressed in the IPCC "consensus," which almost certainly understates how dire things are, is that if global emissions merely average 11 billion tons of carbon a year (11 GtC/yr) this century, we are going to 1000 ppm atmospheric concentrations. And that is the end of life as we know on it this planet.

Yet, we'll be at 11 GtC/yr around 2020 at our current pace. And just keeping emissions flat for several decades after that in the face of rising population and rising economic growth, especially in rapidly-developing countries, would still require those onerous GHG regulations that delayers hate.

So delayers are really "1000 ppm'ers," if not worse, since many don't just want delay, they want permanent inaction. That doesn't, however, get pronounced "trippingly on the tongue." So I'm leaning to "delayer-1000."

Yes, I realize that doesn't trip off the tongue too well, either: It needs definition whenever used, and the media won't ever use it. On the last point, I would just say to advocates the media won't use "denier" either. I'd say to the media you probably shouldn't be using any undefined labels -- and that goes most importantly for "skeptic," whose definition does not describe those you are labeling with it.

On the other hand, "delayer-1000" is accurate, descriptive, modern (like the Terminator-101), and gets to the heart of the matter. If if someone doesn't like it, then they have to explain what target they do support and what action they would take to achieve it. And that moves the debate to the ground it belongs on.

Tomorrow I will reprint a back-and-forth with a delayer-1000, which I think underscores all of the points made here.

UPDATE: I knew I would forget something. I think "delayer" works as a stand-alone, and I'd recommend that to most people. But I will still probably use "delayer-1000." Yes, it is "jargony," but over the next decade many if not most Americans will learn all about 280 ppm, 350 ppm, 450 ppm, and 1000 ppm. That's because CO2 ppm will become the single most important number in the lives of every human being on this planet and their children and so on. One reason I proposed the more unwieldy "delayer-1000" is that we need to accelerate the learning process as much as possible. I am aware of the virtual impossibility of changing widely used jargon -- almost everybody in the EV community hates "plug-in hybrid," but we just couldn't get all the key players on board to use another term. So realistically, this post is mostly a media critique to try to get them to stop using "skeptic" and an explanation I can link to for the terminology I'm going to use.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Media enable denier spin, part three
40 Comments | Post a Comment

More on Denialist

I still think denialist is a much better name. And I think denialist is more accurate than denier.

Denialist: one who engages in denial.

...of global warming, of the need for urgent action, etc.

More here:
Global Warming Denialist: What's in the Name?
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080310/global-warming-deni ...

David Sassoon, www.solveclimate.com

by David Sassoon at 2:18 PM on 11 Mar 2008

A rose by any other name

The Frank Luntz playbook is fascinating. Delayers are commmited to "making the right decision, not the quick decision." Anyone pushing for action now is a "global warming alarmist." From a political standpoint, and this is all politics now, I think Luntz has laid out effective strategies to manipulate the general public's strong preference not to treat anthropogenic climate destabilization as an immediate crisis. Thus, even though the scientific community now basically seems to be screaming crisis, the MSM balances its reporting by quoting "skeptics" and covering distractions such as the revelation that Al Gore lives in a big house and still relies on air travel to do his work.

Politically, the delayer/delayer-1000 crowd deserves to be isolated. The posts on this and other blogs suggest that there are two basic categories of delayers: ideologues and water carriers. Ideologues will defend beliefs to the point of societal collapse (e.g., they are modern equivalents of the historic Greenlanders who chose starvation over eating fish). Water carriers view regulatory efforts as a zero sum game and will represent their own narrow and immediate self interests to the detriment of everyone and everything else, including future generations. It's hard to see either ideologues or water carriers, once properly identified, garnering much public support.

The bigger problem, as Joe Romm has suggested in this series, is that the delayers are at least somewhat effective at working the refs. This delays public understanding and response to the scientifically accurate crisis message that the public needs to hear. In turn, absent a coherent, timely, and accurate public response to the information (which will still include the delayer response), the political response will also be imperfect and delayed at a time when we can least afford it.

by Hal 9000 at 2:30 PM on 11 Mar 2008

"They" are not some bloc

You write as if "they" are all one entity. I've spent 20 years getting to know those who doubt or deny humans are and will dangerously interfere with climate. They range from serious scientists who have an ideology different than yours to paid propagandists or political operatives.

That difference in ideology and worldview can strongly sway how honest people look at the same body of evidence. So while "skeptic" is absolutely not a label one can honestly apply to everyone in this variegated assemblage of folks, neither is "delayer" or "denier."

And that leaves headline writers in a tough position, absolutely. The cartoonish and clunky reality of headlines is yet another "tyranny" of the newsroom (see my Dot Earth posts on the constraints of journalism for more on this).

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com
As a courtesy, if your "part 3" is posted on Huffington as well, I hope you'll include this with it.

- Andy Revkin nytimes.com/revkin

by Andy Revkin at 2:50 PM on 11 Mar 2008

Andy,

You're right that it's a variegated assemblage -- any large group of people will be variegated. But there is something that unites them all, a reason they're considered part of a movement, a reason they're all going to the same conference: they all oppose strong government action to reduce carbon emissions.

I don't care what name that goes by, but don't pretend there's not a salient commonality.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 3:20 PM on 11 Mar 2008

What do they call followers of Milton Friedman?

by sunflower at 3:31 PM on 11 Mar 2008

Words of nuance, words of skill

"Delayer" is a term that many of them would wear with honor. It's not necessarily a negative, from their perspective.

How about "Hesitators"? "Do-nothings"? "Non-responders"? "Procrastinators"? "Too-little too-lates"? "Stallers"? "Impeders" "Shufflers"? "Jack-arounds"?

A thesaurus is a great thing.

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 4:15 PM on 11 Mar 2008

I'd call it 'denial.'

Re: "I see comments from a lot of delayers who intensely dislike being linked to 'Holocaust deniers.'" -- Joseph Romm

Re: "Politically, the delayer/delayer-1000 crowd deserves to be isolated." -- Hal 2000

I agree with Joseph Romm that "skeptic" is a little too flattering a term for the folks whom I would prefer to call "greenhouse deniers" or "global responsibility shirkers."

I understand that the folks who deny the reality of global warming, or who deny the validity of the greenhouse gas theory, or who deny the responsibility of humankind for the yearly surplus of greenhouse gases, must be mighty displeased to be called "deniers." This is for me not sufficient reason to use a "nicer" word.

Moreover, I disagree with Romm that the comparison with Holocaust deniers is inaccurate. There are different degrees of denial of the Holocaust, just as there are different degrees of denial of the three-step causal sequence "global warming caused by greenhouse gases caused by human activity." For example, there are Nazi sympathizers who try to push as much responsibility for the Holocaust as possible onto the Soviets. They don't deny that the most massive genocide in recorded history happened; they just deny that Germans were solely or even primarily responsible for it. The shrewdest (and most insidious) deniers in this vein are those who merely compare the Holocaust to other historical massacres and slyly suggest that it "wasn't so bad" by comparison. These deniers are not so very different from global-warming deniers who specialize in denying one or another link of the aforementioned three-step causal chain that is global warming theory as we understand it.

If we want to be really honest, then we can choose our words carefully. One denier may be a global warming denier, another may be a greenhouse-theory denier, and third may be a denier of human responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. A denier of one is not necessarily a denier of all three -- but one denial is enough!

So I say, let's call them deniers, and if they don't like it, tough beans! Their annoyance may be an indicator that we are on the right track. If you want to score political points, then you have to hit a few tender nerves.

As Hal 2000 reminds us, our goal is to ISOLATE global-warming deniers -- not to win them over.

by JakobFabian01 at 4:29 PM on 11 Mar 2008

Denier comparison to Holocaust Deniers

Don't think it is historically and unfair comparison. Many Holocaust deniers also don't deny outright the Holocaust happened. They deny it is was intentional: "those were work camps, not death camps: the deaths were from disease and malnutrition". Or: "OK some people were deliberately killed. It was not the overall intent of the camps, there were a few bad apples". Or even "Yes, they were death camps but the number killed was exaggerated, at most there were 2 million dead". And then there are still the complete deniers.

But is this really not pretty comparable to the lines the warming deniers take?

by Gar Lipow at 5:28 PM on 11 Mar 2008

Lost is the whirl of reposts

Joe Romm, David Roberts, is there some way you could work out an arrangement to have only one of Romm's posts get comments post? Grist is republishing so many posts that appear first on Climate Progress that it's becoming very difficult for readers to track the discussion -- where a comment appeared or where you saw a particular insight. This makes it difficult to follow the discussions and renders them less helpful than they should b. I know of many other blogs that allow these reposts from other blogs, but the reposting site turns off comments and appends a note saying "Comment over there."

Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

by JMG at 6:35 PM on 11 Mar 2008

Name Calling

I suggest your time would be better spent thinking up a new description for yourself that you will need when the earth starts cooling.

by StillSkeptical at 6:55 PM on 11 Mar 2008

New Description

Immortal?

by Hal 9000 at 7:06 PM on 11 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

Reputation

You also might want to do an operational risk management assessment on your reputation. Additionally, whatever you can do to prepare for cognitive dissonance would be helpful.

by StillSkeptical at 7:45 PM on 11 Mar 2008

Romm Put All His Money in AGW

Romm is really losing it...he invested in AGW and now it's falling faster than a leveraged sub-prime jumbo derivative.

Meanwhile, NGW is headed towards a 2:1 split.

Possibly the best Alternative Energy blog I read: New Energy and Fuel

by jabailo at 8:14 PM on 11 Mar 2008

Cognitive dissonance

Let's suppose for a moment that someday soon, most of the world's atmospheric scientists prove to be wrong and a tiny minority prove to be right. In this case, I'll be ecstatically happy with the state of the world and mildly disappointed that I was formerly mistaken in my opinions. I believe I can handle this kind of "cognitive dissonance," thank you.

But I pity the fool who today believes whatever he finds convenient (prevailing science be damned), delays actions that might have made our planet more livable, and someday soon has to cope not only with the incontrovertible fact that he was wrong, but also the knowledge that his inaction has only made things worse.

There's cognitive dissonance, and there's knowing that you're a victim of your own bullheadedness. Frankly, I'll take the dissonance.

by JakobFabian01 at 8:23 PM on 11 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

Old news

I have looked at several websites that trumpet the Manhattan Declaration as if it were the Fifth Gospel, but none of these sites provided the names of actual scientists (or actual residents of Manhattan, for that matter) who endorse the Manhattan Declaration. You'd think this would be their main feature!

Then I tried Wikipedia, and everything became clear. As I discovered here -- and as I believe most people reading this thread may already know -- the "Manhattan Declaration" was issued by the "Heartland Institute," a front organization for ideologues from Exxon and Philipp Morris.

But if you're not already aware of this, don't take my word for it! Check out the documentation in Wikipedia under the heading "Heartland Institute."

by JakobFabian01 at 5:42 AM on 12 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

Denialists of Biosphere Holocaust

I am German, so I know about that H word.
In my youth I often had to listen to and tried to debate folks from my grandparents' (and even +/-WWII born parents') generation who engaged in various forms of Holocaust denial (e.g. relativizing numbers or causes of deaths; see JakobFabian01 above).
Nowadays I often have to listen to and try to debate folks from my parents' generation who engage in AGW denial. The psychology is quite similar. Sometimes it feels like deja vu.

This is one reason why I stick with the denialist word.

The other reason is another parallel to Holocaust: Not denial after the fact, but the looking-away while it was in the making.

by 314159265 at 7:31 AM on 12 Mar 2008

Framing works.

While the term may be imprecise, "denier" is a much more effective term, precisely because it links the hacks and ideologues with racist holocaust deniers, nutty flat-earthers and other lunatic fringe groups. On a similar note, the term "climate change" should be studiously avoided and replaced with "catastorphic climate imbalance," "climate catastrophe," "climate crisis" or at the very least the tried-and-true "global warming."

This is war, folks. The fossil fuel industry is not going to give up their monopolistic profits and market entry barriers easily, the future be damned. As Dubbya infamously quipped when asked about how history would judge him: "History? We'll all be dead."

by Robco1 at 8:46 AM on 12 Mar 2008

In an attempt to clarify categorizations

Just to parse this a little differently:

These are some terms ascribed to people on the basis of their behavior. We need to look a little deeper at the underlying motives and methods of those behaviors and call a person to task for what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how they are doing it. In the case of skeptics this calling might be praise.

skeptic - calls the claim into question on the basis that it goes against previously accepted views or can identify logical/evidentiary holes in the reasoning leading to the claim. Needs additional information in order to answer questions. Questions are direct and targeted. Will seek information. Is intellectually honest, able to rescind skepticism when weight of evidence is sufficient and uses critical thinking skills to arrive at current, tentative conclusions. Example: "The claim cannot be shown to be true unless we observe phenomenon A".

doubter - cannot articulate a reason but merely doubts a claim because it seems to go against the person's current understanding of how thing work. Operates on intuition vs. analytical thinking. Does not use critical thinking to arrive at conclusions. Also needs additional information but is not likely to look for it. May continue to doubt if information is presented, but liable to doubt less and less as more positive information is presented. Not overtly intellectually dishonest, but not rigorous in pursuit of truth. Example: "I won't believe the claim is true unless somebody shows me the proof" (of course proof is a logical position not a scientific one). I believe this is the category into which a large portion of the population fits.

denier - proclaims the claim to be false. This person does so in spite of the objective truth of the claim because they have an ulterior, even if subconscious, motive for the claim to be untrue. Usually bases arguments on ideological stances rather than hard evidence or scientifically derived conclusions. Rationalizes reasons for denial - looks for reasons based on need to prove a position rather than looking for a position based on evidence and forward inferential reasoning. Backpedals when confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of the claim. Most importantly, always denies being a denier! Example: "That claim is false because it has never been true in the past. Besides the contra-claim is true because it always has been in the past."

propagandist - produces disinformation to confound and confuse the arguments for the claim. Has an explicit ulterior motive, usually ideological and/or financial, and believes that the claim may be true but hides this belief. A stronger belief (possibly subconscious) trumps whatever belief in the claim's truth exists. May be motivated by a belief in a supposed higher moral purpose and the end justifies the means. These types can and too often are impressively intelligent and creative in forming their messages, which is why they are dangerous. Example: "The claim is false because we have seen evidence that disproves it" (when the counter evidence is a lie). An alternative is to claim that the evidence for the claim is invalid or launch an attack on the evidence provider.

George

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

by gmobus at 9:21 AM on 12 Mar 2008

David Suzuki Article

This is about human foresight and our current rejection thereof, but it includes an interesting comment on the media's role in this trend:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/12/conserv ...

The article's consideration of foresight also suggests another set of descriptive words applicable to those who oppose the use of this uniquely human gift to address anthropogenic climate destabilization: the shortsighted, the narrow-minded, the biased and the prejudiced.

by Hal 9000 at 11:37 AM on 12 Mar 2008

Romm is Wrong about the RS

'All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto of the Royal Society of London, one of the world's oldest scientific academies (founded in 1660), Nullius in verba: "Take nobody's word."'

The Royal Society recently dropped that interpretation of the motto, seemingly in order that they could issue statements about climate change, and "deniers". If they're asking us to take the word of the IPCC, then they aren't asking us to take things on the "word of no one". "on the word of no one" and "respect the facts" are mutually exclusive.

And as it happens, it's quite easy to find problems with the "science" issued by scientific authorities such as the Royal Society.

---------------------------------
from http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/04/on-word-of-no-o ...

Nullius in Verba, the motto of the UK's Royal Society, usually gets translated as 'on the word of no one'. That's a pretty good motto for a scientific body, the message being that knowledge about the material universe should be based on appeals to experimental evidence rather than authority.

However, in the TLS, Robert May, erstwhile President of the Royal Society (and ex-Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK government), offers a different translation. Nullius in Verba 'roughly translates', he says, as 'respect the facts'. Indeed, 'Respect the facts' is the title of May's cover-story review of seven recent publications on climate change (although it is called 'The world's problem' in the online version). This also seems to be the translation preferred these days by the Royal Society itself.

[Continues]

by benp at 12:32 PM on 12 Mar 2008

In the taxonomy of scepticism...

In the light of Romm's statement - "The delayers, however, are very different and far more dangerous. They are trying to persuade people not to take action on a problem that has not yet become catastrophic, but which will certainly do so if we listen to them and delay acting much longer."

How would we classify the following passage? Is it denial? Is it "delaying"? Is it scpeticism?

Whatever it is, it contradicts Romm's language. And the problem for him is that the words are not from a sceptic, but a senior climate scientist. The reason climate alarmism has worked is because shrill language like "denier" and "catastrophe" doesn't bear scrutiny, and isn't supported by the science. Yet Romm asks us to take his word for it that it does. Inventing new language isn't going to help his cause.

--------------------------

over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of "catastrophic" climate change.

This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as "climate change is worse than we thought", that we are approaching "irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate", and that we are "at the point of no return".

...

Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science's predictions?

...

The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. It will not be visible in next year's global assessment from the world authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

To state that climate change will be "catastrophic" hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.

Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?

The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication or inducement for behavioural change.

...

I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.

by benp at 12:49 PM on 12 Mar 2008

Some dynamical systems physicists...

are going to be surprised that they don't count as talking the language of science!

According to benp, "The language of catastrophe is not the language of science."

But actually catastrophe theory and chaotic attractor basin jumping are part of science. So maybe you should restrict this claim to the more colloquial version of catastrophic events.

Oh yes. Martin Rees, James Lovelock, Jared Diamond, and more than I can name (or should have to) are going to be disappointed that they are no longer talking the language of science.

George

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

by gmobus at 1:10 PM on 12 Mar 2008

Dooooooom...

'According to benp, "The language of catastrophe is not the language of science."'

Nope, according to Professor Mike Hulme, founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research @ UEA. The text was from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

And mathematical catastrophe is distinct from human catastrophe.

"Oh yes. Martin Rees, James Lovelock, Jared Diamond, and more than I can name (or should have to) are going to be disappointed that they are no longer talking the language of science."

Martin Rees is a doomsayer like no other. "Our Final Century" is simple scare-mongering. They shouldn't simply feel disappointed, they should feel thoroughly ashamed.

by benp at 1:21 PM on 12 Mar 2008

The myth of the perfect label

The posts from Andy Revkin and George Mobus provide much-needed clarity about names and labels in the climate controversy. However, for climate activists and others attracted to the notion of framing, the takeaway message should not be that we need to find the one "right" label that will win the day.

Instead, it would be more productive to keep all these labels in play, using them to highlight and distinguish various tactics of adversaries in a specific situation. This could also help activists think more carefully about how communication tactics fit with larger political strategies and overarching goals--something that is central to George Lakoff's thinking about frames but largely ignored in much of the popular discussion of his work.

In the bigger scheme of things, focusing on labels is really small-bore, Luntz-ian thinking. The more significant communication issues are how to craft compelling narratives that motivate action, and how to adapt those narratives to different contexts and audiences.

~Steve

by Steve Schwarze at 1:39 PM on 12 Mar 2008

Or...

"how to craft compelling narratives that motivate action, and how to adapt those narratives to different contexts and audiences."

Narrative #1: The world is f**ked, and we're all gonna die.

Narrative #2: Unless you do as we say.

Narrative #3: Blame the failure of narratives #1 & #2 to achieve political success on an "industry-funded denial-machine".

Narrative #4: [Variant of #2, etc] ...

by benp at 1:47 PM on 12 Mar 2008

suggestion

"Lying swine" works for me.

by davedenali at 2:12 PM on 12 Mar 2008

Good Luck

"The more significant communication issues are how to craft compelling narratives that motivate action, and how to adapt those narratives to different contexts and audiences."

Good luck with that. Having worked up such a good rapport with the people you're trying to convince, I'm sure you'll succeed.

Not!

by StillSkeptical at 2:16 PM on 12 Mar 2008

Narrative #5

Gaia system tipped by hominid CO2 spill into doing chaotic attractor basin jumping driven by amplifying feedback.

Sounds not that catastropho-doomy?

by 314159265 at 3:31 AM on 13 Mar 2008

Sure of that are you?

benp: "And mathematical catastrophe is distinct from human catastrophe."

Or is human catastrophe an instance of the mathematical theory? Somehow, for me, math always was useful for describing real phenomena. I think it has been useful for many others as well.

And just to mention one other 'mathematical' theory that does a pretty good job of describing real systems (in my opinion, of course), check out self-organized criticality, a theory developed by Per Bak, et al, that nicely describes avalanches and other 1/f noise processes.

But benp will probably object that there is a distinct difference between real avalanches and the mathematical theory. I hope this time s/he provides us with an explanation of what that distinction is.

George

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

by gmobus at 8:13 AM on 13 Mar 2008

Hmm, tough choice

benp: 'Martin Rees is a doomsayer like no other. "Our Final Century"...'

Let's see. Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England, long, esteemed career vs. benp, a climate change denier with no visible publications. Tough choice on who to attend to, I must say.

BTW: it's "Our Final Hour" if you are referring to the book.

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

by gmobus at 8:18 AM on 13 Mar 2008

Questioning 'question everything'

It is funny that George points us to his blog, optimistically titled 'question everything', yet then determines the validity of an argument on the weight of publishing histories -- mine versus Martin Rees' -- afterRomm has told us about 'nullius in verba', which he translated as 'take nobody's word'. George isn't looking to 'question everything' at all, and wants us to take things on the words of someone, illustrating at least one fundamental inconsistency betweenRomm and Mobus.

He continues, "But benp will probably object that there is a distinct difference between real avalanches and the mathematical theory. I hope this time s/he provides us with an explanation of what that distinction is."

I would argue instead that there is a difference between humans and snowflakes. Do snowflakes panic about an imminent avalanche, or global warming, even when it's not likely? No, but humans do worry that the combined weight of their effects on the world will cause a precipitous change which is necessarily bad - when evidently, it is also good. Snowflakes cannot question anything, let alone everything. Have we fully questioned today's preoccupation with catastrophe? No. We take it for granted, and catastrophe has become the keystone of contemporary political discussions from climate change to the war on terror - all of which captured by Rees. But doom saying cannot be explained mathematically. There is something different about humans.

George pitches my publication record against Rees' (which I agree reveals no contest), but if he needs all arguments to rest on authority, he could read my previous posts more carefully. As MikeHulme said, 'to state that climate change will be "catastrophic" hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.' And in this battle between received wisdoms -- taking different people's words for it -- Hulme is a climate scientist, and Rees is an astronomer. I win.

But I don't win, because it was never my argument that scientific arguments can be settled by pissing contests about qualifications. I prefer to question things, unlike George.

It does not follow from 'the climate is changing' that 'there will be a catastrophe'. Our vulnerability to climate is not simply a measure of what the climate does. We can organise ourselves in a way that snowflakes can't - by responding to the ideas on this blog, for example and cutting CO2 in the hope of preventing climate change. On the other hand, we can see that different societies have adapted to similar and changing climates, with different levels of success. Where people are poorer, they are more vulnerable to climate, whether it is changing or not. Instead of taking George's mathematical determinism for granted, we could try questioning the logic of responding to the imperatives issued by 'mathematical' projections, on the basis that humans organised are not equivalent to predictable entities in a simulation. George wants us to organise ourselves according to the simulation, and this appears to be acknowledging on the one hand that humans can organise, but on the other that they are necessarily vulnerable to climate. The consequence of organising society on the basis that humans live within their 'ecological means' is (or would be) that they are necessarily more vulnerable to a changing ecology, and less able to escape it. George's mathematical determinism is a self-fullfilling prophecy; it is a way to guarentee ecological disaster as a consequence of our own, deliberate actions.

by benp at 10:20 AM on 13 Mar 2008

Or, perhaps, benp

Some of us who speculate about the possibility of catastrophe do so because we began to question the received wisdom of economists and politicians in the first place.

You have missed something incredibly important in the motives of those of us who study the science behind these issues. You assume we have a priori assumptions and biases (perhaps because you do yourself, I don't know). But the fact is that I am actively looking for alternative explanations. It's part of my job. It's called science. But when the evidence continues to point in a certain direction, and when there is growing convergence (not consensus mind you) of lines of evidence, it becomes pretty hard to not start drawing conclusions and raising the points.

You seem to be afraid of something like self-fulfilling prophesies. Well I think that is a valid point. But you need to show a plausible counter argument (one climatologist on one subject does not an argument make) and further demonstrate the vector by which people panicking will do more harm. You claim it, but don't actually demonstrate its feasibility.

George
PS. If it were only Martin Rees, I might agree. But it isn't just one astronomer (who, BTW: actually has done more than astronomy!) Also, authority has to be weighed when judging whether to use it or not. In other words it is legitimate to question authority. But when the basis of that authority can be validated because of the public works of that individual, especially in science, one might tend to put more weight on their claims than, say, those of a voice in the wilderness.

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

by gmobus at 10:47 AM on 13 Mar 2008

JakobFabian01's Wager

Ah, yes, Pascal said something rather similar once didn't he? Trouble is, when applied to AGW and what to do about it, Pascal's Wager is actually an argument for "doing something" regardless of the scientific evidence. It's a theological argument. Which is presumably why it is so popular with environmentalists - http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/02/blaise-lord.htm ... .

by stubl at 11:53 AM on 13 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

Catastrophism is Surrogate Politics

George says something interesting here.

'Some of us who speculate about the possibility of catastrophe do so because we began to question the received wisdom of economists and politicians in the first place.'

This seems to me to be a fairly bold indication that George's catastrophism is both political, and prior to scientific observation. Curiously, he then says,

'You assume we have a priori assumptions and biases (perhaps because you do yourself, I don't know).'

I don't think I have assumed it. It is there in black and white.

There are problems with politics and economics, of course. But it seems that you're looking to science to fill the vacuum that's been left by abandoning them. The problem is that now "science" is a stand-in for morals, values, principles, and politics and economics; it is being asked to determine a direction in the way that those things previously did. But it can't do it. That's why the science you seem to be offering needs catastrophe for currency and legitimacy. Without the narrative of catastrophe, questions about how to live, or what to live for, that go beyond mere survival emerge, but cannot be answered by scientism. Without "science" underscoring the catastrophic narrative with superficial plausibility, there are no moral imperatives, no emergency measures, and no urgency driving collective purpose.

Similarly, the only way you seem able to challenge economists and politicians is by appealing to disaster. But this does not reveal a sophisticated, principled objection to what politicians or economists are saying, or offering a way that things might reasonably improved. Environmentalists, for example, do not challenge the excesses of capitalism on the basis of fundamental moral problems with organising society according to the principles of lassez faire, but because "it doesn't work", according to "scientific" observations of the climate. And interestingly, the things which are regarded as failures, are in fact its successes - it's ability to deliver innovation, and cheaper products, and so on. In other words, the reason that capitalism is "bad" is because of all the things that are in fact otherwise morally good. The understanding of what is good and bad in environmentalism is determined not by the quality of human relationships, but by environmental "science".

George says that I need to show a 'plausible counter argument ... and further demonstrate the vector by which people panicking will do more harm'. But I'm not making an argument about the difference between two harms. He also says, "One climatologist on one subject does not an argument make", seemingly asking me to provide the names of some more researchers who have evidence that counters Rees and Lovelock, etc. The IPCC, AR4 report does not talk about catastrophe, as Hulme indicated it wouldn't. The language used in the blog post above, such as catastrophe, and "a very grim fate for our children", isn't in any of the IPCC reports, and so to legitimise their use, Romm has to say instead that the IPCC "understates how dire things are", and asks us instead to look at the work of just Hansen instead of the "thousands of scientists" that elsewhere on the blog, we're being asked to invest our confidence in, against the paid-off mavericks in the sceptical camp. Similarly, the language used by the alarmists you cite is not matched by the IPCC. The "consensus" position provided by the IPCC is different to the scenarios given by alarmists. That's not to hold the IPCC beyind challenge - I believe the reports are very changeable. It does however, show that the matter is much less clear than you, or Romm claim it is, and that the alarmists - Romm included - are as 'out there' as the wacky denialists. In this respect, it is the IPCC versus the alarmists, not Hulme versus Rees and Lovelock.

by benp at 2:05 PM on 13 Mar 2008

poor benp, you have no idea of science think

One classic questionable wisdom of economists and politicians is continuous exponential growth. They forget Earth is round (hence finite). Who forgets this steers toward disaster. Basic math/science. Period.

Science should be a tool of politics and economics, not replace them (for they are different realms).

PREDICTING DISASTER IS NOT APPEALING TO DISASTER.

Science is not about morals or values. But who disregards scientific principles has no real morals or values, for he does not care about the real world.

If science challenges economists and politicians by scientificly predicting disaster then this is a principled objection to what politicians or economists are saying. Science can offer ways how things might be reasonably improved, but the decisions (e.g. the money) lay in the hands of politicians or economists. Science is not technology.

First comes the objection, then comes the attempt to change (or research into how to attempt that). Without such objection (first cause of action) that would be meaningless.

----------------
And BTW, the IPCC "consensus" is the least common denominator of what everyone consider sufficiently solid scientific fact. Thus it is necessarily conservative. Meanwhile observations of e.g arctic ice have confirmed this: Catastrophe is way ahead IPCC "schedule".

by 314159265 at 8:52 AM on 14 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

Guardians of Evil

If we really want to get down to brass tacks, how about calling the deniers/delayers the "Guardians of Evil"? After all, what is it they're denying, in order to delay action? They're denying that human activities are about to make the planet uninhabitable through systemic disruption and destruction of the web of life.

And what are those activities? Well, they can be summed up as the Industrial Growth Society and its dependence on usury; a philosophy of otherness nourished through economic cannibalism; all founded on dominator control hierarchies that promise its sycophants they can enrich themselves at the expense of those others.

In my cosmology/ideology, anything that separates or disconnects people from each other, from other aspects of the natural world or their own inner nature, that doesn't support the prime activity of living systems -- which is to self-organize mutually supportive relationships -- is evil. So, those who espouse delay because it threatens the economic growth of their special interest masters are the guardians of evil.

Peace _on_ Earth requires peace _with_ Earth.

by dp87 at 2:25 PM on 18 Mar 2008

Another suggested term/title

Could we call them "enablers", as in "climate change enablers"? In a relationship where one partner has addictive traits or other mental health issues, if the other partner chooses not to deal openly and quickly with the situation, that person is said to be an enabler. Their lack of action enables the situation to continue to go from bad to worse. When we are dealing with people or institutions who are in denial about what is happening here, and why, their foot-dragging and attempts to confuse are enabling delays in response, and the damage to continue.

by Seonaid at 6:01 PM on 18 Mar 2008

delay = denial!

"Delay is the deadliest form of denial."

C. Northcote Parkinson

by hank at 1:39 PM on 29 Mar 2008

Remaining rationally skeptical

Wow! The name-calling and hot air rhetoric on this thread is getting out of control.

"The delayers, however, are very different and far more dangerous. They are trying to persuade people not to take action on a problem that has not yet become catastrophic, but which will certainly do so if we listen to them and delay acting much longer."

The statement is correct that AGW has not (yet) become catastrophic. The key fallacy is in the claim that it "will certainly do so".

Bring the evidence, not just hot air.

I remain rationally skeptical of this whole hysteria.

Max

by manacker at 1:15 PM on 02 Apr 2008

Skeptics can be convinced by facts

"Skeptics can be convinced by the facts."

One the one hand we have "tipping point" predictions (to be reached when atmospheric CO2 levels reach 450 ppmv?).

Arrhenius and Stefan-Boltzman tell us the increase from today's value to 450 ppmv will cause a whopping 0.16 degree C temperature increase.

On the other hand we have the fact that over the most recent 10-year period since 1998 there has been no linear trend of warming in either the troposphere (UAH record) or at the surface (Hadley record).
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

As a rational skeptic I can be convinced by the facts.

I just do not happen to believe that Hansen's predictions have anything to do with "facts".

Max

by manacker at 1:45 PM on 02 Apr 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.