.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

On speaking plainly or the political correctness of deniers at WUWT

Sou | 8:56 PM Go to the first of 8 comments. Add a comment

Deniers don't like to be labelled deniers. It makes them squirm and wriggle. They feign offence when someone writes that they are sick and tired of climate science deniers bagging scientists and peddling disinformation.  The are quite comfortable with the accusation they are bagging scientists and peddling disinformation, but they object to being called a denier.

Political correctness denier-style


For example, Bob Bolder, while proclaiming to one and all about how he rejects climate science and all evidence on which it's based, writes how he wants to disagree with a definition, but insists on changing the definition so that he can disagree with it:
July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm
C Lang says “I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.”
Who disregards, we disagree there is a huge difference.
Debating the conclusions is not denial its science, peer review does establish something as fact it establishes something as worth of debate and investigation. AGW is a theory that is being put forth to explain observations in nature. Almost no one here dismisses anything out of hand they investigate the data and the conclusions and challenge the results and the evidence is more and more on the this side of the debate anyway. AGW may prove out in the end but the models that the theory is based around and the conclusion derived there from clearly are at odds with observed fact.
I will and do listen to anything that AGW supporters say but more and more it is becoming dogma and not science and unfortunately the bias is all too obvious and this brings into question the motives of the these people and why they fear to be questioned and debated.
If you want to use labels on the subject choose balanced ones like Supporters of the theory and Non-supporters of the theory.

He prefers to be referred to as a "non-supporter of the theory". He likes euphemisms. He's striving for political correctness.

That's just one example. There are many more. It's weird, isn't it.

More denier word play


Then again, the average WUWT-er doesn't understand the difference between a prediction and a projection. For example, if I claim that tomorrow WUWT will post another denier article I'm making a prediction. If instead I said that, subject to the internet being alive and subject to Anthony sitting at his computer, he will post another denier article I'm creating a scenario. That's more like a projection than a prediction. If the requirements aren't met, then I reserve the right to change my claim.

IPCC projections are based on scenarios - or pathways as they are now. If we continue to burn fossil fuels as if they are going out of style, then certain things will happen - temperatures will rise by x degrees, sea level will increase by x metres over a specified time period etc. If we stop burning fossil fuels, then the projection is different.

A projection is like a prediction but has constraints. It's got "what-ifs" built in. Deniers don't like that because all they are interested in is trying to find fault with the science. If ice is melting faster than expected, then deniers can point to that fact and claim the science is wrong. AGW is happening even faster than the science predicted or projected. Well, that might be a bad example because I don't think I've seen any deniers use that particular argument.  You get the point though.

Deniers think that using the word projections is a trick that scientists use so they can avoid saying they were wrong about something. But that's wrong. A projection can be wrong.


Twisted reasoning, warped thinking - How Interesting.


I'll leave you with this comment from AlexS, who says:
July 19, 2014 at 12:57 am
C Lang “I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.”
Ah… so Einstein was a Physics denier. That would been very helpful.
And funny how suddenly being judgmental started to be okay.
But i see that you follow Lysenkism.

For some weird reason he's equating one of the world's most famous physicists with climate science deniers, who haven't contributed a thing to the field of climate science.

Next he complains about a straightforward definition implying a value judgement and he seems to object to the definition on those grounds. Where is the logic? What is his reasoning? Is he trying to argue that a person who disregards peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change is "not" denying the science? That somehow despite disregarding the peer-reviewed scientific literature they are actually taking it into account? Twisted thinking at its best.

The last two lines are good, too. It's judgemental to define as science deniers people who disregard science but it's not judgemental to accuse an individual of following "Lysenkism" (sic)?

I think "how interesting" would be the polite response, or perhaps "I hear what you say" :)

8 comments:

Matt said...

A more succinct, acceptable and 'crisp' term for deniers could be: "IPCC published p.87 95% of short term climate model projection disregard-er". But try fitting that on a t-shirt.

But seriously, I hope 95% of climate modelers adjusted their models after failing so miserably to project short term trends. Dionysus forbid we base long term carbon policy on short term climate projections that failed so hard they could ... er ... cut glass. (I ran out of snark. Feel free to insert more.)

But seriously (for real this time), I'm glad I found your blog again. I disagree with you at times (although you can be punishingly contemptuous), but I love reading your writing and following your critical thought processes.

Jammy Dodger said...

...adjusted their models after failing so miserably to project short term trends."

What? "Failing miserably" - is that a technical objective measure of failure that you can reference? And when did anybody (sensible) claim climate models projected in the short term? And what do you mean by short term?

Don Brooks said...

Climate models aren't meant to predict short-term trends. In fact they aren't even initialized with present-day observations.

Cugel said...

Irony alert.

Joe said...

Jeez Loueez...Tell us Matt what facts you deny...1. That CO2 has risen ~40% since 1850 due to humans and continues to rise. 2. That CO2 lets in UV from the sun, but keeps in some IR radiating from the earth. 3. That 1&2 has led t ~8X10~21 joules per year of additional energy being absorbed by the globe, resulting in increased surface temperature, increased OHC, decreased Arctic ice, declining Greenland ice and WAIS and (accelerating) sea level rise (currently at ~3mm/year). If we know what you deny, we can have a real conversation about science and stop playing games whereby you try to discredit science and scientists through misinformation.

Anonymous said...

"Deniers don't like to be labelled deniers."

I can't take their objections to be calling deniers seriously. Its all sounds suspiciously like trying to point score by insinuating that the wicked "warmists" are calling them Nazis.

There is a shipload of irony there, since a visit to WUWT will expose frequent calls for show trails of climate science on bogus fraud charges, demands for political purges of the bureaucracy of people who believe in CAGW and of course there is my favourite .

This all makes the wattie libertarian sound like a nasty little totalitarian bully. Maybe libertarian really means .

The Climate Ferret.

Anonymous said...

Ooops! The blog app escaped my punctuation.

is my favourite == the global conspiracy by climatologists to destroy the world economy ==

The Climate Ferret.

Jonnie said...

Crikey, nearly every article on this blog is some railing critique about Anthony Watts. Why is he so important in this debate? I think you afford him too much prominence, and he is after all just some weatherman, isn't he. Don't waste your time and effort debunking his baloney. There's more important thinks you could put your investigative talents to. Don't sink to the same level as many of the denier shills.

Best regards,

Jonnie