Is Denialism a helpful term?
This question is prompted by a rather spirited exchange of views earlier today on Twitter. It was a discussion about climate change and global warming.
The discussion originated in the outraged reaction of a very eminent Bad Science blogger to a personal recommendation of a book for Christmas by a scientist on a science charity website.
The charity is Sense About Science, the co-ordinators of the Keep Libel Laws Out Of Science campaign.
(And here I declare my interest - I was another person asked to recommend a Christmas book on that same site: see here and scroll down past a more controversial choice to my more low-brow recommendation.)
The Bad Science blogger was very unhappy, for the book recommended by a scientist was Global Warming and Other Bollocks by Stanley Feldman.
It seemed that it was no business of a science charity to allow such a recommendation, for it was a Denialist book. And to carry this personal recommendation was in effect an endorsement. Someone somewhere at the charity, the blogger noted darkly, must have sanctioned such an endorsement.
At this point, I actually thought the blogger was joking.
Surely, it comes to a pretty pass when a science charity should censor personal recommendations of Christmas books on the basis of the correctness or soundness of the science, with Denialist texts to be summarily excluded.
I half-expected the Charity's Christmas cards to be the next target, perhaps for not showing a Snowman melting quickly enough.
But he was not joking; this was all deadly serious; it seems people should not to be allowed to know that this was someone's recommended Christmas book.
And this got me thinking.
For some time I have been troubled by the tone of climate change and global warming discussions, especially the use of the terms Denialism and Denialist.
As a layperson, I regard Denialism and Denialist as rather unhelpful terms.
Indeed, I would even propose a general rule.
Whatever the other merits of making an accusation of Denialism, it will usually tend to be a public engagement FAIL.
That is not to say that the term should be banned; I am not a banner. There may not be a public engagement context, or that context may not perhaps matter. And the term may well mean something important and precise to at least one person in the discussion and so may be preferred.
But for any layperson following the discussion, the accusation of Denialist can be problematic and off-putting. The important thing is to see whether someone is incorrect, and more emotionally-charged terms cannot not assist on this.
So returning to the Twitter discussion, my subsequent Tweets tell the story of how my mind started working:
"I do not like the way films and books are now trampled on as "denialist". It is a form of non-legal chill"
"For example, even I dare not ask critical questions about climate change as I anticipate endless bother. So I accept party line"
"So if it is so clear, why this clamour to stop access to the "wrong" stuff. It seems quasi-religious."
"Well, it makes an onlooker like me genuinely think you guys are trying to silence inconvenient truths."
So I decided to try and form my own view:
"Challenge re climate change debate: please someone recommend places where layperson can see evidence not contentions pro/anti"
"As a non-scientist skeptic, I want to see how far I can go to forming my own view without party-line, or being called denialist or whatever."
"Want to see info (a) climate change is happening, (b) it is man-made, (c) and if (a) correct (regardless of (b)), what can be done about it."
"I want to understand why the denialists are wrong. I am unimpressed by just getting them to shut up because they say unwelcome things."
"And until it is clear to a layperson what the evidence actually is, shouts of denialism seem inappropriate and counter-productive."
I added:
"I care not if someone is a "denialist". It is enough for me that they are incorrect."
(I then received dozens of links from many helpful people.)
Whilst I was typing these Tweets, I was also thinking about the recent revelations about the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. On this, I share George Monbiot's concerns.
I am afraid I am now uncomfortable giving environmental campaigners the usual benefit of the doubt.
This is not to say that they are necessarily wrong or discredited. And it is certainly not to say that the likes of Christopher Booker, whose journalism about legal issues and EU law is so demonstrably incorrect and ill-informed, can crow about some imagined victory.
Instead, I believe that it is appropriate for laypeople to form their own views, to try and evaluate the evidence, and to try and assess the policy options against that evidence.
No longer should laypeople be deterred from raising critical questions about climate change and global warming because of the risk of being dubbed a Denialist. It may well be that they never should have been deterred; but I for one was, and I know of others.
And those proponents of climate change and global warning should no longer rely on the Denialist weapon. We all need to understand why the supposed Denialists are wrong, not just be told that they are so and for their books to be banned from even being recommended by a science charity for me to read at Christmastime.
So I have embarked on a layperson's journey, to see what I can grasp of the evidence for climate change and global warming, and the policy implications of this evidence. My conclusions may well have no wider significance; but at least they will be my conclusions, and not ones imposed on me.
I will Blog from time to time on this journey. My first task is to understand the evidence for there being climate change and global warming; I will then seek to comprehend whether any evident change and warming is man-made, and indeed whether it matters if it is; and finally I will form a view on what, if anything, should be the political response.
I shall do this sincerely, and I do not knowingly have preconceptions.
Unlike other areas where Denialism is used in political discourse, I am not aware of having already strong or final views. (On HIV/Aids, I am strongly prejudiced against Rath et al, not least because of following the lawsuit against Ben Goldacre; and on the Holocaust, I regard Richard Evans's book as a sheer historical masterpiece.)
And so, undeterred by the risk of being called a Denialist, I am looking forward to what I hope will be a curious intellectual adventure....
ADDITION
5 December 2009: I have started an entirely new Blog to chronicle this adventure: Jack's Climate Quest .
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous posts will be published: always use a name (even if there is no url) as it enables reference by others.
Pages
The Jack of Kent Blog
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(80)
-
►
August
(11)
- Cranmer's Cabinet of Horrors
- The Story of Hackgate, Part 1
- Jack's Diary - 21 August 2011 - a couple of things...
- Social media and legal neutrality
- Jack's Diary - 15 August 2011: Riots, Without Prej...
- The riots and lawlessness
- Let's not bring in the army
- Privacy law: black and white and shades of grey
- Predicting a riot
- Jack's Diary - 5 August 2011
-
►
August
(11)
COMRADES
- Adventures in Nonsense (Simon Perry)
- Bad Psychics
- Bad Reason
- Bad Science Blogs
- Ben Goldacre and Bad Science
- Carmen Gets Around
- Charon QC
- Crispian Jago
- Dave Cole
- David Colquhoun's Improbable Science
- Deserted Vastness (Jon Treadway)
- Dr Aust
- Dr Petra Boynton
- Gia Milinovich
- Gimpy
- Graeme Archer at Centre Right
- Graeme Archer's Personal Site
- Heresy Corner
- Holford Watch
- House of Comments (podcast)
- Joanne Cash
- Jourdemayne
- Little Atoms (podcast)
- Nick Cohen
- Pod Delusion (podcast)
- PodBlack Cat
- Richard Wiseman
- Righteous Indignation (podcast)
- Simon Singh
- Skeptic Zone (podcast)
- Skepticat
- Skeptics with a K (podcast)
- The Lay Scientist
- The Quackometer
- The Rather Friendly Skeptic
- Vagina Dentata
- Zeno's Blog
Search This Blog
Followers
Subscribe - Jack of Kent
Posts
Comments
Google Analytics
48 comment(s):
This measured, thoughtful approach is very welcome in the current debate. Like you, I've come to feel uneasy about the way the "denialist" argument is shut down summarily rather than debunked. The science ought to be able to do that and, if it can't, shouldn't a "denialist" at least be able to open a conversation without accusations of thought crime?
I look forward to reading about your exploration of the topic.
w.r.t Surely, it comes to a pretty pass when a science charity should censor personal recommendations of Christmas books on the basis of the correctness or soundness of the science, with Denialist texts to be summarily excluded.
I think the alternate side to that point is that the charity is not censoring personal views, but instead it is actively choosing to give them a platform, audience and even an authority that they wouldn't normally have.
As such that is a power they have to use responsibly.
I have no issue at all with the book recommendations because I know little of the book in question and that it a good thing for skeptics to check themselves for group think occasionally.
But I can see the complaint, even though I consider it very minor.
Asking questions? Fine. Forming opinions? Fine. Writing books that represent myths and plain untruths as fact? Not fine.
That there is the line between denialism and criticism.
Criticism is healthy, of course, it ensures that those (rather large) bodies of people in agreement with each other have to work to "prove" to the public what they've already proven to themselves.
Denialism isn't healthy, it does exist, and should be a term used for some people in these types of debates. Denialism introduces non-facts in to the arena with enough gravitas to completely sway individuals that simply don't have the time or experience to work out how to weight that information against all the rest that is out there, or how to rank it.
So I fear your journey is going to make the experiment redundant from the start, the fact you intend to go and find things out for yourself is several steps further than the REAL "layperson" wishes to invest in doing. No doubt you'll come up with your own opinion, and others will agree and disagree...it won't change the fact that high-publicity bad science can detriment the view of, what is a universe by comparison, good science.
That said, if you manage to pull a few people through, from either side of the debate, to consider realities for themselves rather than second hand from a politician, celebrity or businessman with a vested interest in where the policy goes, then all the better they'll be for it.
This debate has done the rounds in skeptical circles too, a lot of people are uncomfortable with it, however I maintain that context is all important. If someone is genuinely asking for information on a subject or is not fully informed, merely shouting 'DENIER!' is of course unhelpful. However, in my experience that's not usually what happens, and there's still the perennial problem of what term to use; sometimes you do need a term to describe a movement.
They like to call themselves 'skeptics', but that's not really appropriate for those of us who consider ourselves skeptical thinkers. It's very difficult to come up with a term that isn't unsatisfying in some way; it's always going to be at the very least a bit generalistic.
This is particularly true where this debate originated; on Twitter with its 140-character limit.
Personally, I don't use the word 'denier', but not because I think it's an inaccurate term. I simply avoid it because it allows the other person an easy route out and a way of turning the debate to "Oh, you're calling me a denier, eh? Like I deny the Holocaust!".
The essential problem is that we're talking about people who propose a theory which already doesn't have a catchy name; people who oppose the scientific consensus that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change. They call us 'warmists'. What do we call them? Unwarmists? Coolists? It gets slightly absurd.
Ultimately the key is not to get hung up on the term; if someone is using the term to shut down debate then criticise them for shutting down debate; the term is merely shorthand. Yes, it has connotations and can be misused, but...well, what do you propose as an alternative?
I saw the book linked to the Sense for Science list myself before I read this blog post and was bemused. I checked out some reviews of the book on Amazon which were not favourable. Apparently, it is full of poor science and other nonsense, and easy to debunk. I couldn't understand why someone linked to "Sense about Science" would advocating such a thing.
Otherwise, the collapse of the Global Warming debate into "Believers" and "Deniers" is unhelpful. It turns what should be a serious discussion about cold facts into the realms of the religious.
By the way, if you want the clearest explanation of the scientific debate surrounding Global Warming, check out the Global Warming videos made by science writer 'Potholer54' on YouTube. YOu won't find anything better than those.
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
Of course people should be able to say what they like without fear of being branded in any way. I hate silly labels or dismissive arguments.
However it isn't generally scientists doing this, it is lobbyists and they live in a different space.
I would like to make a strong distinction between the science, and the way that scientific truths are arrived at, and how they are presented and debated in the wider world.
Within science there is a well defined methodology based on the scientific method and approval by scientific peers in which peer reviewed journals play an important part. It is important that this is about approval from peers rather than from anyone outside of science. This is a strong system for discovering truth and weeding out falsehood. It allows for previously accepted ideas to be corrected and ejected. It attempts to deal with the ego's, subjectivities and eccentricities of individual scientists and arrive at an objective truth.
In the wider world we have lobbyists, media, politicians and the public. Here things are much more messy. There are not the same controls in place. There are agenda's, ego's and all sorts flying around. Of course this space is important because it sets the agenda and gives the public their only chance to decide what they think. It is unfortunate that pretty much everyone who plays in this space exaggerates, name calls, misleads etc and there is no objective process (apart, sometimes, from the law) to call them to account. Anyone of any opinion has plenty of reason to point the finger at others.
I like the idea that scientists should be able to make a case that lay people understand, but that isn't what scientists are trained to do and it isn't how scientific progress is made; it isn't how relativity or quantum physics became accepted. Maybe scientists should be better communicators but that is actually irrelevant to the science itself. Scientific truth isn't about what the public believe, it is about how nature presents itself; in contrast policy based on science does depend on the public perception and understanding of the science.
I think the only way to make sense of the issue is to go back to the science. This requires some trust if you are not able to judge the science for yourself, and there is no reason to assume that you should be able to. In that case you need to rely on the journals and, I think, the IPCC process. One thing which strikes me strongly is that there is a large amount of material, including many computer models, which concur with the IPCC reports; there is nothing equivelant showing an alternative view, no computer models which match recent and historic observations which do not include the standard assumptions behind man made climate change.
In summary, science lives in it's own world and has it's own very effective methods for determining truth. Outside that Greenpeace, political parties, concerned members of the public and even scientific institutes that want to make a public statement are working in a different space and it is here that your criticisms of name calling carry weight. However they do not effect the science, nature is the same no matter what anyone says about anyone else.
I would suggest having a read of the Wegman Report, http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf then have a read regarding the evidence for "treemometers" to determine temperatures over the past 2000 years: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/ and also take a look at climateaudit.org (regarded as skeptical). These outline why some scientists are skeptical that the current warming is not unprecedented and why the hockey stick graph in the IPCC report is under attack.
I am greatly cheered by what you have written regarding udergoing a laymans journey to see what you can grasp etc. It sounds like a good idea. I shall have to return more often.
My main interaction with people about climate change has been online*, with all the possibilites for poor communication and bias that suggests. However I rarely see cases of people who exhibit sense about asking critical questions, indeed most seem to leap straight into denialism. Moreover there are hordes of people who are convinced that it is all a government plot to raise more taxes (I argue that the gvt would use any excuse they like anyway) therefore the science must be ignored/ wrong/ belittled. Which is in itself a complete failure of sceptical thinking.
There are on occaision those who accuse others of being denialists when I think they simply sound uninformed and have not taken the time to educate themselves. So as you say some people can feel put off from asking questions. On the other hand I and many others have toiled to answer questions about the topic, complete with mini essays, links to further information etc etc, often to no immediate purpose. But at least once I've had someone post just to say how useful they found all the links I posted.
*Although there was one case on a course a couple of years ago where the other guy was saying things like "But Al Gore is going to make money out of it" and I pointed out I never paid any attention to Gore and managed to argue him round to the science and got him thinking again.
Very grown up of you to simply say 'I don't know, please teach me without bias'. A bit of a rarity on these 'tubes.
A human overview
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
This link maybe of interest and of sone considerable use:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
A selection of quotes from:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position"
and
"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
They could be wrong of course. But they are the people who do the research and understand the topic better then anyone...
If this research is correct and the scientific consensus is so overwhelmingly pointed towards AGW then it begs the question where is the "climate scepticism" evidence going to come from?
It should be an interesting journey and I'm looking forward to following your progress (wherever it leads)!
I sometimes use the term "denialist" in relation to climate change.
That is not to say that anyone who asks critical questions about CC is automatically a denialist. Far from it.
I use the term to mean "someone who believes global warming isn't real, and whose mind cannot be changed no matter the evidence you provide them with".
A "skeptic" (and from reading your blog you come across as one) is someone who questions claims and ideas but if a reasonable level of evidence for the claims or ideas were presented to them they would see it as perverse to not accept the claims or ideas, at least until new evidence comes to light.
I am sure a legal expert such as yourself can think of better definitions than the above, but I hope you get my point.
Why is the term "denialist" so prominent?
I would say that the internet draws out both the most extreme and loudest voices. So you are more likely to scoll through the comments section on Comment is Free and see people dubbing CC a conspiracy by scientists and so on, than perhaps you might find in real life. And I would also say that in works in the other direction to: the internet draws out those people who feel most strongly about CC and so are more likely to make a more liberal use of the word "denialist".
My point is that on the internet, in forums, prominent blogs and comments sections etc, it is hard to find people who are "skeptics" and don't believe in CC. And I would say that this also doesn't help the skeptics who DO believe in CC, since if they keep getting into arguments with "denialists", how to often to you get good constructive debate about some of the smaller issues on CC?
So I think in real life, most people are skeptics, and could be persuaded to change their mind. But they aren't prominent, and so all you get are "denialists" and those who are already convinced.
Just to be clear, I am perfectly happy to call Melanie Phillips or James Delingpole "climate change denialists", because I don't think anything could change their mind.
I should finally point out, that there is at least one term in the opposite direction - alarmist.
Could you maybe please post your 'reading list'?
I don't think anyone is suggesting these books be banned from anything. The claim was, if I read it correctly, that recommending and profiting from an anti-science book is at best a really dumb move and at worst a piece of profitable cynicism when it is done by a body whose stated aim is to promote the understanding of science. They should be allowed to sell these books but choose not to.
As a layperson in the field myself, there are big chunks of climate change I don't pretend to understand. It's not my place to raise questions in books or on blogs; instead, I ask questions to people likely to know the answers (or, more often, trust that an answer exists and get on with my life). Raising a question to which an answer exists, but not providing that answer, damages the public understanding, whether done out of genuine interest or an ulterior motive to create the illusion of debate.
I'll be interested to see what you conclude on your Adventure, but one possible outcome might be that the only really convincing evidence requires years of experience to understand. If so, where does that leave the layperson? Is it still appropriate for him to form his own opinion, though it will inevitably be wrong, and does democracy truly demand that we legislate according to what he reckons over the established scientific consensus, in matters of such grave importance? (And if so, of what use is climatology?)
If you want some idea of the reasons why pro-science folk use terms like 'denialist' of the folk who've been denouncing scientists as frauds over global warming for years, you could do worse than to read Josh Rosenau's post "Stolen emails, climate change, and the practice of science" on his 'Thoughts from Kansas' blog.
Here's the URL, easily severable in case you don't like URLs posted in comments: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/11/stolen_emails_climate_change_a.php
The test to diagnose a denialist is to see how they respond to evidence.
If their opinions are science-based, they will be equally critical about convenient and inconvenient evidence. And, good evidence will change their opinions, even if it is inconvenient.
If their opinions are ideology-based, they will be asymmetrically critical about convenient and inconvenient evidence. Convenient evidence will be accepted without any critical thought about relevance or risk of bias or error or fraud. And the validity of inconvenient evidence, no matter how strong, will be denied with accusations of irrelevance or bias or error or fraud. Thus, no evidence can change their opinions.
I am eagerly anticipating your posts about your journey of discovery through the stormy waters of climate change studies.
Bon voyage.
I'm looking forward to the rest of your journey and won't publicly comment on the content of this blogpost but I do have one request - When you appraise the scientific evidence can you link to the original scientific paper, and if not explain why? I'm sure people will be happy to provide any paywalled papers on request.
You may have noticed that popular media coverage of climate issues, from all sides, rarely links to original papers so it can be hard for the layperson to assess the accuracy of the interpretation.
As an atmospheric scientist, I thought it might be useful to give you a first stop on your journey...
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publish all their reports in full on line. WG1 is where all the science is assessed. The summaries at the beginning are very good. Enjoy!
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Jack, I have long been an admirer of your work on this site but, I must admit, I find myself treating your latest inquiry with a certain scepticism.
As noted by endless psych above, the evidence is of overwhelming consensus among climate scientists for global warming and for the cause of that warming being, at least in part, the product of human action.
As a former med-neg lawyer, I appreciate how easy it is to find enough people in any area to constitute a "respectable body of opinion" to oppose a consensus view. The remarkable thing in the case of global warming is that there seem to be so few opposed to the consensus among the scientists actively engaged in studying the possibility of climate change.
Pro or anti, I accept that those engaged in active study of climate change must have a degree of expertise in the area considerably beyond that of the intelligent layperson. While I have 4 science A-levels (back from the days when A-levels were tricky *harrumph*) and a general interest in matters scientific, I do not believe I am in a position to judge the science being put before me with any degree of expertise. Accordingly I believe my acceptance of the consensus view on global warming as the best available scientific opinion has to be a sensible position.
What concerns me is what your qualifications are for judging the merits of the arguments for and, such as they are, against anthropogenic global warming? As a non-scientist, with only a portion of the evidence available to you, which you will study at best part-time, why should I - or, indeed, you - regard whatever view you may come to on this subject as better than the scientific consensus?
I cannot help but suspect that you are eager to find some sort of "hole" in the theory of anthropogenic global warming. I am fully willing to accept that there may be one - or, indeed, many - and that the search for holes in the theory is both urgent and necessary. What I am inclined to doubt is whether this exercise is any more sensible than a layperson trying to decide the truth of string theory, Einsteinian relativity or the theory of evolution for him- or her- self.
I look forward to reading your posts.
My guess is, though, at some point you are going to have to trust what the scientific concensus is on other related subjects, because you won't have the time to become an expert in every subject required. E.g. One study may require you to be an expert in "Infrared phototronics" (yes, I made that up), and that may require you be an expert in "Quantum Wave interaction" (made up too) and so on and so on. If those other subjects are not controversial, it is likely that that is because they are esoteric an no one has vested interest in "denying" them or is even aware of them.
Additionally, this will only be a personal journey. Everyone will need to take the journey themselves, because after the exercise you will only be another expert, and Jill of Kent can't just take your word for it. I know that you know that, but I get the impression that a lot of your twitter followers may take the short cut of just accepting what you end up saying. (see "What the Tortoise said to Achilles" by Lewis Carol for a better explaination of my point - http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html)
As others have indicated, the term 'denialist' does have its place: it's for people like Lord Lawson, who have clearly made their minds up that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax or a myth, and will not be dissuaded irrespective of the evidence.
The difficulty with the denialist stance is that it is self-perpetuating. As laypeople, we don't understand the science ourselves, so we have to trust received opinion. That opinion, for the last 20 years and more, has been that man-made global warming exists. Denialists would accept that the majority scientic view states this (hence the occasional appearance of arguments like: "The consensus isn't always right: remember Galileo?" which I saw just yesterday in a climate change thread).
So, to seek evidence that goes against the orthodox view, one must actively seek it out to the exclusion of the predominant evidence, because there isn't that much of it. In other words, one must in a sense begin by deciding not to believe the orthodox view.
This denialist stance usually comes from some ideological or selfish interest. Perhaps the denialist is an oil man, fearful for his business; or a right-wing adherent, distasteful of government interference in business; or just anti-green.
So for the disinterested skeptic, like yourself, this poses a problem. You will never find any 'evidence', pro- or anti-, which is not vociferously challenged, by counter-claims which sound equally plausible. You will most likely end up more skeptical and undecided than ever, if a little bit more confused and exasperated than before.
You said that you are seeking "evidence not contentions pro-/anti-" - but I fear this will be an impossible task. As a lawyer, you know that evidence brings conclusions in its train. Raw data is indecipherable to a non-scientist and the interpretations of raw data, which we rely on, are by definition contentions.
The basic science of climate change is not in doubt.
1. The atmosphere contains CO2.
2. CO2 raises the atmospheric temperature.
3. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere enhances this effect.
4. Mankind's activities result in a net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
The question is to what extent the pattern of warming that has been observed can be attributed to man-made emissions.
For my part, I am happy to accept the views of the Chief Scientist of the Met Office, the Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, and the President of the Royal Society, who provide a joint statement here.
Good luck.
Half a hundred years ago I read a book called "Straight and Crooked Thinking". The people who use the word "denialist" in good faith mean the equivalent of "Crooked Thinking".
Its a pity this particular word gained currency in this sense because crooked thinking is crooked thinking whether you are denying something or asserting something and whether you are for or against a perceived orthodoxy.
The people who use the word "Denialist" lazily or in bad faith are themselves indulging in an example of crooked thinking: the "thought terminating cliche" sometimes coupled with "the appeal to authority"
Jack,
Very laudable to seek you own evidence rather than rely on the voices whose other opinions generally align with your own. However, if at the end of your journey, you have unearthed suitable evidence to convince yourself of man-made climate change, will you be happy to apply the term denier to those still unwilling to accept it?
Hats off to Tim for mentioning the potholer54 videos on YouTube. I've watched a couple of them and they're terrific. Rigorous, unsentimental and balanced. These may be all you need.
"Instead, I believe that it is appropriate for laypeople to form their own views, to try and evaluate the evidence, and to try and assess the policy options against that evidence."
I believe this is, sadly, borderline impossible for 99% of the population. Not because they're stupid, but because this kind of scientific enquiry is far more technical and arcane than any legal topic, and because of the vast body of literature. People have lives and they don't have a decade to burn getting up to speed.
I really regret that science has moved so far from the intellectual sphere of non-scientists, but nothing can be done about it.
For a very interesting treatment of these issues, try Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" or (for something a bit chattier and more climate-change specific) "Cool It".
Lomborg is often painted by his detractors as a denialist, but in fact he usually just accepts the figures provided by bodies such as the IPCC. His focus is on whether the proposed actions, such as Kyoto, are economically justified, and he often finds they aren't. And if an expensive action against climate change is useless then it is worse than useless since the money could have been better spent dealing with the effects of climate change instead.
Cheers
Tom
I detest what appears to me to be an ever-widening use of the term "denialist". It is surely no coincidence that the prefix "ist" is specifically designed to be associated with words such as "racist", "sexist" and everything associated with those labels.
The whole thing degenerates into a race to land a label on an opponent to effectively trump their arguments with a single move. I saw this in my youth, where the label "fascist" was used in precisely this way, often with little regard to the original, and specific, meaning. It still hangs on in certain quarters way - witness Steve Fuller's recent attempt to label the recently deceased Norman Levitt as a "cyber fascist".
When it is finally boiled down to the basics, the "denialist" label is largely part of a polemical approach to argument. It is part of that process that seeks to close down arguments. It's not as if there are not better alternatives. Many who are described as "denialist" are often better described as obdurate, irrational, deluded or plain stupid. I think that there is the danger of reating "denialist martyrs". It might even be worn ironically as a "badge of honour".
Just about the only time I might countenance the term "denialist" is for something that is an incontrovertible fact, with absolutely overwhelming evidence. For instance, those who argue that the Holocaust didn't happen. But even then I get a little uneasy.
None of this means that there can't be valid and robust criticism of some of the more outlandish counter-science claims. But disagreeing with a scientific consensus is not being a "denialist" in my sense - a consensus of opinion is rarely an incontrovertibel fact.
To take the climate argument (where this comes up so often), it certainly seems to me that the evidence for anthropogenic warming is very strong. However, what is not so strong is the degree of this compared to other, natural, factors. The modelling of the climate, with multifarious variables and feedback loops, is horrendously complicated. The accuracy of such models can only really be tested by calibration against past experience. Of course, as any mathemetician can tell you, if you have enough variables, you can fit a curve to any number of points. It's wide open to issues of spurious certainty in its forecasts. It is also true that the speed of current warming is not unprecedented - there have been times in the past when climate has changed much more repidly than it is now. The sense in which climate is naturally stable is a common misrepresentation.
Jack in your investigations keep in mind the old question cui bono. Particularly in modern times of the scientific consensus a climate scientist makes no great name for themselves helping build the consensus and advance understanding of AGW. In such a situation you get fame by dissent, to do that as a scientist you come up with the killer experiment and data that prove everyone else wrong. Yet the consensus holds.
On the other side the 'deniers' include few indeed active scientists. Some retired professors and lots of engineers professing to be scientists. Look at those who are funding them and ask what they benefit from their activities.
Ask also where their original research is, or do they just critique what others do?
Even if AGW is wrong, we will benefit from moving towards a sustainable economy with non polluting energy sources that are not dependant on fuels from unstable places with unsympathetic regimes. The big petrochemical companies can still function making and distributing biofuels and processing plant based organic chemical replacements (yes, you can make plastics from plants remembering that they form oil and coal anyway).
@John Self "Hats off to Tim for mentioning the potholer54 videos on YouTube."
Thanks John. Yes, I can't stress enough how good they are. The ongoing series on Climate Change is so essential, I'm almost at the stage where I refuse to discuss the issue until the other person has viewed them.
Potholer clearly explains the science behind Global Warming and why climate scientists believe what they do about Global Warming. He explains the debate between scientists, and takes issue with both Al Gore, and the anti-global warming media.
They are also very pertinent to this discussion, as Potholer immediately discards the labels "Global Warming Believer and Denier".
The first video of the series is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
People asking for a clear unbiased account of the debate MUST watch.
Those who deny are not just those denying global warming, but also those denying a lack of the same. A rule of thumb you can use is that the moment you hear someone using the word denialist, you can be sure that someone is thoroughly partisan and a 'denailist' too.
As a scientist, in a field far from climate science I find two sites most interesting.
"Real climate" http://www.realclimate.org/
which is written by informed scientists and talks about science. Often dissects good and bad papers in the recent literature. It keeps clear of personalities and focuses mostly on content- despite a robust comments section.
http://www.desmogblog.com/about is more of a campaigning site. It talks about funding of the anti-change groups, as well as the social networks. This might be much closer to your way of doing things- legal analysis and such. I think we need more of this, scientists are not made to talk to the press, and push the correct buttons... There is a book
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259688043&sr=8-1
which I have on command. The amazon preview looks interesting.
Great work for Singh, by the way!
I was quite disturbed by some of the Twitter comments you received, particularly those which seemed to suggest that you shouldn't pursue your personal education in the subject because you are not already an expert in it. As I said on Twitter, if you find it an important subject on which to hold an opinion, then not only are you justified in pursuing a personal education in it, you are obliged to. Otherwise you are restricted to reading media or other layman interpretations of the data and choosing a 'side' based on what may be biased or mis-reported. It is ALWAYS better to read the source material yourself if you want a genuinely informed opinion, but of course it is not always practical, and to the individual it is not always desirable.
If you find media reports on global warming and its causes to be unconvincing, then of course you should go and look at the source data yourself. If you find that you don't have the scientific training to interpret the data, then you would obviously acknowledge that and find a source which interprets the data in a way that you understand, but that isn't spun for layman consumption. You would do this for all sides of the debate, obviously.
But for anyone to suggest, as was seen on Twitter, that you should simply accept what you're told without question, or not to bother pursuing your own learning in this topic (or any other by extension) is horrifying. Ivory tower bullshit, that science is for the scientists.
I have no interest whatsoever in learning about climate change. I am happy to acknowledge that my opinion on the matter (that global warming is a problem, it is partly man-made, and there's nothing we can do to reverse it) comes from a conversation with a climate scientist - an appeal to authority, but the authority knows more than I. Further to that I have no interest in pursuing it, and if someone asks me my opinion on global warming I will tell them the above and also that my opinion is utterly worthless in this matter because I haven't done my homework. Instead I will say "if you want a non-scientist's opinion, go ask Jack of Kent, he's done all the required reading".
"It is surely no coincidence that the prefix "ist" is specifically designed to be associated with words such as "racist", "sexist" and everything associated with those labels."
Yes, anybody describing someone as a word ending in "-ist" must be trying to associate them to the words "racist", "sexist" etc.
I guess this also rules out the use of the words "scientIST", "physicIST", "climatologIST", "biologIST" among many many others:
http://www.morewords.com/ends-with/ist/
Don't forget "alarmist", "warmist" etc.
You should also be prepared for this to take many months, if not years. Many parts of the science are complex and hard to understand.
As for denialist, I make no apology for using it on people who deny the evidence that is presented to them, or deny what they have read themselves and subsequently twisted to suit. But all labels get changed and overused over time, thus it gets up peoples noses eventually.
You should absolutely read all the material you can about the subject. The more you learn, the more rigorous you can be in forming your opinion.
Many of the best resources have already been mentioned.
www.copenhagendiagnosis.org is an attempt to summarise the current state of affairs and also has copious references at the end.
@Neal Asher
I have been known to call people "deniers" with regard to evolution, AIDS, the Holocaust etc. Which apparently makes me a non-holocaust denier and a creationism-denier.
I don't hold these positions ideologically, they are simply the best fits for the evidence.
We may as well have a word for those who refuse to change their opinion in the face of massive evidence, although I don't really like "denialist" as it makes it sound like a hobby. "Denier" works OK.
There must be a good word out there somewhere. Maybe we can steal one from the Germans, they have all sorts of useful words for stuff we don't.
Further thoughts:-
A major part of the green mouvement is as problematic as the anti-change
people. The solutions that are pushed are constraining, and almost entirely impossible. Impossible because they require rebuilding most of the UK, to cover it with "renewable" sources, or inventing a "Good Life" dream world.
A solution requires detailed calculations of options. It has been done and published in a readable non-technical format
by David MacKay at Cambridge University.
Sustainable Energy – without the hot air:-
http://www.withouthotair.com/
Solutions are possible, and are given explicitly- better building codes, heat pumps, nuclear power and others. Many "green" solutions
are shown to be useless.
I will confess to some unease at the notion, suggested by Tracy King among others, that you should give equal credence to "all sides of the debate" before making up your mind.
Why? Isn't this a little like George Bush's 'teach the controversy' approach to Intelligent Design? (This led to a cartoon which I wish I could find online right now, which suggested additional 'teach the controversy' approaches in schools - astronomy v astrology, neurology v phrenology etc.)
Not all sides of a debate deserve equal attention. We know, for example, that the majority of climate scientists accept that man-made global warming exists and is taking place now. We also know that oil companies have been behind some climate change denial 'science'. These facts alone mean that we should treat denial claims with greater scepticism as a matter of course.
As to the use of 'denialism' (or, as Stephen Bain says, 'denier' - I've never actually heard the term 'denialist' used outside this discussion), it's a shorthand I suppose for 'piss off you time-waster' - a little like the exasperation which Douglas Adams shows in this comment about atheism v religious belief:
"I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid"-then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all."
And I suppose those scientists trying to combat climate change probably feel as frustrated as cancer specialists did when tobacco companies continued to deny that smoking caused cancer until about 10 years ago. A little dismissiveness is not, in those circumstances, out of place.
@John Self
"As to the use of 'denialism' (or, as Stephen Bain says, 'denier' - I've never actually heard the term 'denialist' used outside this discussion)"
You don't get out much do you? There are about 98,000 hits on Google for "denialist" compared with 322,000 for denialism (a significant ratio). Articles and comments on denialism very frequently use denialist as well, often in the most trenchent arguments. The reason is simple - it's a polemical device association denialism/denialist with racism/racist, sexism/sexist, facism/facist and so on.
That's the heart of what this argument is about - whether it is appropriate to try and marginalist or shut down debate through the use of labels like this. A mere "denier" might just be viewed by some as a person with a contrary view about the truth of something. In contrast, denialism is clearly and evil system, and the denialist practitioner to be suitably vilified.
None of this has anything whatsover to do with treating conflicting arguments with equal merit. What it has to do with is the approach taken to dealing with contrary arguments, however ill-founded. If anybody doubts that in areas of scientific uncertainty that polemical devices, and other mechanisms to win arguments are important, then it's worth looking at the recent "climategate" leak of emails. Not so interesting because of the use of evidence, but very revealing over the way that some approach dealing with contrary views. That's maybe inevitable - the "softer" the science, the more room there is for political interpretation. Evolution is a fairly "hard" science subject, but climate science is inherently mixed up with social, cultural, moral and ethical matters in a way that, say, quantum mechanics is not.
@Alex
I am an atheist and proud to be called one. So you can take your half baked ideas and keep them to yourself, they are wrong as a universal rubric.
Steve Jones: 'You don't get out much do you? There are about 98,000 hits on Google for "denialist"'
Actually I do get out much Steve - that's why I don't have time to google for it! ;-)
I take your point; I just had never heard the word (whether in climate debates or elsewhere) before Jack of Kent raised it on Twitter the other day.
I can certainly understand why people might resort to 'shutting down discussion' tactics, if that's what calling someone a denialist means. If someone repeatedly comes back with the same arguments, because they're not interested in understanding but just in undermining, then it's not unreasonable to want eventually to say, "Oh shut up, I don't want to talk to you any more." I'm not saying that that is what's happening everywhere in climate debate, but in certain circles (mainly comments sections of news sites, or YouTube videos etc), it is.
I mentioned earlier that people on the anti- side of the debate may sometimes have ideological reasons for their stance which precedes the evidence. That may go for those on the pro- side too, including me (although I like to think that the evidence as I understand it, is the reason I came to my view in the first place). For example, I believe strongly that we should move away from reliance on fossil fuels, which are finite, and increase our reliance on renewable energy. This net result - a reduction in carbon emissions - just happens to coincide with the climate change aims. If man-made climate change were proved tomorrow to be a myth, I would still want us to move onto renewable energy supplies. (Others would state energy security, oil based in unstable regions etc as a corollary objective instead.)
OK Jack how do you recommend we deal with people who cherry pick and downright falsify data?
Any argument which begins "the world has cooled since 1998..." is usually by someone who is a denialist. 1998 was an outlier and in any case such arguments confuse (deliberately) climate with weather.
And finally, it would be nice to have an update of your progress sometimes. If there is something you are stuck on you can always ask.
If you are using denialist as a term for anyone who expresses uncertainty over a particular issue like global warming then the term is being misused.
However, I don't think this is how the term is generally used. In my experience it is a term typically reserved for ideologues who employ a specific dishonest strategy when examining and presenting evidence. This strategy is summed up quite adequately by the term 'denialism' as it essentially equates to finding any means possible to deny what the evidence suggests.
This typically involves anomaly hunting, appealing to fringe authorities and accusing opponents of being stooges for some form of conspiracy to silence the truth. We see this in creationism, we see this in holocaust denial, we see this in aids denial and we see it in global warming denial.
I agree with Tracey that seeking to become better informed on a topic is always a good idea. However, I think those who are cautioning that without the relevant expertise or a sufficient amount of free time there is a limit to how informed you can become also make a valid point.
Looking into the evidence for global warming doesn't make someone a denier. It's the tactics they use to support their position that does that.
Good hunting anyway!
I would like to offer a slightly different perspective on "climate change" if I may. First to comment on your original request to the public: (a) is definitely happening and always has over the millenia; (b) is the real question - what science has successfully shown is that a certain amount of warming will be catastrophic, but we don't know for sure that we are actually heading that way; (c) should not be only about what can be done about anthropogenic global warming, because - and here is my point - that is but a possible symptom of a far greater problem.
To focus on global warming is like trying to treat a person for depression when he's dying of cancer. The cancer is the depletion of natural resources, the destruction of ecosystems, the exhorbitant extinction rates and I could go on. This IS happening regardless of global warming and in fact global warming is only a possible consequence of the root cause.
So, whilst I appreciate and value your quest to differentiate between denialism and criticism for global warming, I ask only that perspective on the real issues at hand is maintained.
Have a look on wikipedia but remember just this one simple number : 0.
Zero is the total number of scientific academies or institutions or journals in the entire world that dissent from the scientific consensus on Climate Change, Global Warming, AGW call it what you will.
Zero, None. None at all. Not one.
You are a lawyer not a climate specialist and you are going to need 20 - 30 years of hard study before you can make a proper judgement on the merits of the case.
If you don't fancy putting in the decades of hard work you can look at the track record of strong settled scientific consensus being almost always right and reassure yourself that it is almost unthinkably improbable that something so widely researched, investigated and corroborated could be wrong in an major detail.
According to Steven Pinker there is an old Yiddish saying that applies here and with other conspiracy theorists; "The whole world isn't crazy".
Go look it up on wikipedia, browse through the realclimate.org site, have a look at the Royal Society website, Nature magazine, the New Scientist. The evidence is overwhelming that those who do know what they are talking about say the evidence is overwhelming.
Also remember Goldacre's Law : there is no statement or claim so fuckwitted that you cannot find somewhere in the world someone with a PhD who will support it.
Thank you all for your comments, useful links, and helpful insights!
I have now started an enitirely new Blog for you to follow my interesting adventure in this new area: http://jacksclimatequest.blogspot.com/
Best wishes, Jack of Kent
Post a Comment