"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Monday, March 1, 2010

Guardian on Language - Use of Denier is OK ( for Climate Nazis)

David Marsh writes a seemingly reasonable article on the correct journalistic use of ephithets to be directed at sceptics. In the role reminiscent  of "when did you stop beating your wife" he mentions all the names to call sceptics and then says you shouldn't use them - just use denier (as in  Holocaust denier)

The Guardian's environment editor argues: "Sceptics have valid points and we should take them seriously and respect them." To call such people deniers "is just demeaning and builds differences". One of his colleagues says he generally favours sceptic for news stories, "but let people use 'deniers' in comment pieces should they see fit. The 'sceptics' label is almost too generous a badge as very few are genuinely sceptical about the science but I think we have to accept the name is now common parlance."

Another member of the team has written: "I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can't think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause … We badly need a new term for general use."
There is no shortage of suggestions in the blogosphere, ranging from "contrarians", "climate ostriches" and "climate cuckoos" on one side of the debate, to "rationalists" (lining up against what sceptics regard as "dogmatists") on the other.
I think that skeptics don't mind  the word "deniers" to indicate their opposition to the Climate Nazis who insist on so naming them.  We will probably find in the future it will be a matter of some pride that we were some of the original AGW deniers when the scam is fully exposed.

No comments:

Post a Comment