There is a good post over at Grist on the proper nomenclature for what are generally called ‘climate skeptics’ or ‘climate deniers.’ It argues that calling them skeptics is inaccurate, since they don’t actually treat information with skepticism:
Skeptics can be convinced by the facts, but not the delayers [the author's preferred term]. 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.
“Denier” is also problematic, both on its own and as a half-reference to Holocaust deniers. This is both because they don’t generally outright deny the existence of climate change and because their ‘denial’ concerns something ongoing, on which action must be taken, rather than something that has already passed.
The piece makes some good points about the state of the discussion:
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.
Despite the unambiguous nature of the science, that really doesn’t seem to be the understanding that is dominant within popular culture. It is not clear whether additional scientific evidence or reports would ever change that. As such, the kind of rhetorical arguments that this post is addressing have considerable importance.
In general, I see good reasons for using the term ‘delayer’ but, unless it catches on fairly widely, it will always be necessary to explain it. I plan to do so by linking back to this post.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
A section of a book I read today reminded me somewhat of the non-sceptical opposition you describe above, albeit in a different policy framework:
“Empirical evidence that might call into qustion the deterrence of Three Strikes will be of little effect in undermining support for the statute…The belief that penalties must deter because they are morally justified is very hard to shake with counterevidence because the subject wants to believe. Thus the belief can be maintained against a formidable assault…The doubts about Three Strikes are not resented because they may lead to political difficulties; they are in and of themselves a denial of the normative beliefs that supporters hold. It is heresy itself rather than what further harm it might accomplish that provokes the anger of Three Strikes supporters.”
Punishment & Democracy: Three Strikes and You’re Out in California, Zimring, Hawkins & Kamin p.221-2
Of course, environmentalists are sometimes guilty of the same problems, for instance in insistent defence of micro wind turbines and home solar panels across England, which generally produce minimal amounts of energy at substantial cost because they are poorly sited. Maintaining a sceptical, scientific attitude rather than basing judgements on some form of ‘accepted wisdom’ or one’s beliefs is a pretty unusual practice.
I think it is appropriate to have a third group for those who don’t know enough about climate change to make an informed judgment. After all, it should come down to a Bush-esque “with us or against us” dichotomy.
Chris Mooney: That’s not kryptonite after all
Does refuting deniers only strengthen and empower them?
I think it is appropriate to have a third group for those who don’t know enough about climate change to make an informed judgment.
If you (a) think climate change is a highly important issue and (b) feel you don’t know enough to take a position, it seems that you have a pretty clear obligation to educate yourself. The accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere does not pause to allow time for contemplation.
After all, it should come down to a Bush-esque “with us or against us” dichotomy.
Just because one unpopular president used that phrase once doesn’t mean that well-defended and honestly held positions should be abandoned in favour of wishy-washy statements about uncertainty.
Yes, there are uncertainties. We should definitely work to reduce them. At the same time, we should start taking action based on our best guesses about how the world really works.
We don’t have time to wait for certainty, especially given how true certainty can only arise from experimentation, and we only have one planet to work with.