Especially ultra-Warmist Eric Holthaus
Words matter, and in journalism, what the Associated Press says matters the most. Thousands of publications around the world use its style guidelines, so last week, when AP announced it was scrapping the terms climate deniers and climate skeptics to refer to those who don’t accept human influence on climate change, the decision immediately became controversial, and for good reason.
Instead of denier or skeptic, the news outlet now prefers the term climate doubters, or, for the long-winded: those who reject mainstream climate science. The problem is, while this terminology is well intentioned, this change is a step backward. And the choice ofdoubters, specifically, is wrong.
As Denise Robbins, a researcher for Media Matters for America, a progressive science advocacy organization, pointed out on Twitter, the people who deny climate change “are NOT doubters. They are VERY certain that human-caused global warming isn’t happening.â€
Wow. Who new that Media Matters is now a “science advocacy organization”? But, yes, we are very certain that mankind is not mostly/solely causing global warming. The argument is not over warming, but causation. As I’ve said many times, and, heck, you’re welcome to check my Twitter feed from the past couple days, those who say there has been no warming since 1850 I’ll refer to as deniers, or, better yet, idiots. There has been warming.
Most of the Republicans running for president are opposed to any effort to slow America’s emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Climate-denying conservatives have tried for decades to deliberately change public perception on the issue while at the same time raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. This is not “doubt.†This is vested interest. (ThinkProgress has a good overview of the background of the AP’s decision, and Science magazine has a roundup of other reactions to the changes including, notably, praise by noted climate science deniers Anthony Watts and Marc Morano.)
Vested interest, eh? The COC has tens of billions on the line yearly. They receive massive funding from government, NGOs, left wing orgs, etc, not mention all the glowing support from government and the media. Yet, for all that, they still haven’t proven that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the current warm period, in part or whole.
Doubters is a better term than Denier. Denier is a bullying term to stiffle dissent, by trying to associate AGW skeptism with the Holicost.
This is quite low. Many who use the term Denier know very little about AGW, but simply believe the media press releases without fact checking.
They speak with certainy but cannot answer the most basic questions on the topic. Anyone who fact checks, would say if they were sincere and had integrity, that there is room for doubt on AGW. They may still believe in it, but they would know it is not as confirmed as the media implies.
Therefore, AGW proponents and doubters are better terms. Warmers is not nearly as bad a term and I do not think that Warmers take offense to this but I may be wrong. If so, AGW Proponents would be better.
Why yes, this is what people do when they’re so sure that science is on their side-they get the vapors over what term to call the opposition. What dorks.
So Teach et.al. If not CO2 then what DO you think is causing the temps to go up?
The Sun ? Nope sorry but the Sun is slightly cooler now than since 1960
I myself like the term climate truthers
This week the six largest banks in the USA issued a joint statement affirming that climate change is real and caused by man
I guess they too have now joined the giant conspiracy to economically enslave Teach by restricting his God given rights to burn cheap carbon
“what DO you think is causing the temps to go up?”
Oh I dunno. Perhaps the fact that almost all US temp models use estimated or altered data.
Uh, maybe:
ENSO
Ocean Oscillations
Ocean Currents
Volcanoes
Winds
Water Cycle
Sun
Galactic Cosmic Rays
Milankovich Cycles
CO2
Water Vapor
Clouds
But the correct answer is, we don’t know.
But we have a pretty good idea. And scientists have ruled out:
ENSO
Ocean Oscillations
Ocean Currents
Volcanoes
Winds
Water Cycle
Sun
Galactic Cosmic Rays
Milankovich Cycles
Water Vapor
Clouds
as potential causes of the current period of rapid warming.
So “scientists” rule out things they can’t explain.
Got it.
jeff,
As I have said before, exact parallel with the cholesterol issue. Once it was pointed out the most people who had MI’s did not have elevated cholesterol, they changed the normal values for cholesterol. Then when lowering those levels did nothing, they started on particle size. Exact same folks at work on both issues, or at least their types. And yes, I hate academics who have no idea what is happening and can be bought. So that makes me a racist.
dp,
They rule out mechanisms and causes that have no scientific rationale or support.
If you believe that the phenomena you listed is causing the current rapid warming present the supporting evidence.
Guess “they” ruled this out too.
Oh, wait. “They” didn’t know.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/new-discovery-surface-of-the-oceans-affects-climate-more-than-thought/
Contrary to your belief the “science isn’t settled”.
dp,
Science is never settled.
Let’s discuss whether ocean surface-generated isoprene (2-methyl-1,3-butadiene) is causing the Earth to warm rapidly. Watts describes this as a “new discovery” but “they” have published articles on isoprene for decades. The “new discovery” took seawater to the laboratory, exposed it to light and measured isoprene.
Can you explain briefly why isoprene might be important? (Hint: When Mr. Reagan claimed trees were the biggest air polluters, he was talking about isoprene). What does isoprene do in the atmosphere?
from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329203226.htm
After being released by plants and algae, isoprene reacts with molecules in the atmosphere to produce ozone. It can also prolong the lifetime of methane in the air. Both ozone and methane are potent greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. Conversely, in certain conditions, isoprene can undergo chemical reactions to form aerosols that can increase cloud cover leading to cooling of the Earth.
In general, don’t trust Anthony Watts.
Total misinterpretation of both the Watts article and the 2010 Science Daily article.
But that is to be expected.
Do you understand what abiotic means?