We’ve known for sometime that there’s an underlying, sometimes overt display of hatred towards climate skeptics. However, it generally never made it into science publications. Unfortunately, the editors of the journal Nature Climate Change just made one of the ugliest decisions ever with the publication of the Bain et al letter. One wonders though, if this were a study about… say, attitudes about racism, would the Nature Publishing Group allow things like the “n-word” in the graph and text? I think not.

Lest you think this is just one entry, read on:

Nature Climate Change | Letter

Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1532Received 03 October 2011 Accepted 16 April 2012 Published online 17 June 2012

A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change1, 2. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally3, 4. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions5, 6. An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important. People have strong interests in the welfare of their society, so deniers may act in ways supporting mitigation efforts where they believe these efforts will have positive societal effects. In Study 1, climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development. Study 2 (N=347) replicated this experimentally, showing that framing climate change action as increasing consideration for others, or improving economic/technological development, led to greater pro-environmental action intentions than a frame emphasizing avoiding the risks of climate change. To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.

According to wordcounter.com “denier” is used 41 times in the full letter, seen here.

Here are your results…

Word Frequency climate 92 change 88 denier 41 action 32 study 21

Further down in the list, “believer” was used only 12 times, about a 3.5 to 1 bias.

One wonders if any of the peer reviewers or even the editors of Nature Climate Change raised any questions about the use of the term? I wonder if any of them even broached the subject at all, or if they just accepted the word without thought? Did any of them suggest “skeptic” as a more acceptable replacement? Clearly the authors of this study didn’t think twice about the word. I’d love to see the peer review notes for this one.

In case anyone thinks the word isn’t rooted in offensiveness, I’ll remind you of the syndicated column that gave the use of the word the big push:

I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate” on the Wayback Machine here

Comically, one of the worst offenders of use of the word, Sacramento environmental advocate Dana Nuccitelli, doesn’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot:

dana1981 Submitted on Submitted on 2011/09/24 at 5:42 pm Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”

REPLY: On this we agree, folks please stop using it. Now Dana, would you agree to stop referring to people here and elsewhere using that other distasteful WWII phrase “deniers”. You’ll get major props if you announce that. – Anthony

Of course, we’ve stopped using “SS” (another well known reference to Nazi Germany) to refer to the website Skeptical Science, but proving himself a hypocrite, Skeptical Science contributor and editor Dana Nuccitelli has not returned the favor, and continues to be snipped here at WUWT for using the word. The word also continues use at Skeptical Science on a daily basis. It seems this is a common problem with AGW advocates, they have no sense of fair play, only dogma and thinly veiled hatred for people who disagree with their position.

Bishop Hill tipped me off to this story and has decided to send a letter to the editor of Nature, Dr. Rory Howlett, which I’m reproducing below:

Dear Dr Howlett I have written a blog post on the Bain et al paper you have recently published. I found it quite surprising that a reputable journal would publish an article that contained so much offensive language. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/18/potty-mouthed-nature.html I was wondering if you would care to comment on your decision to publish the article in this form. Did the editorial team consider asking the authors to use less incendiary language? Do you view your journal as having a role in encouraging civilised debate? Do you have policies on offensive language? Thanks for your attention.

I think writing to the editor of Nature Climate Change to ask why he found the use of the offensive word that describes about half the population today (according to polls) acceptable, is an excellent idea. Here’s the details, from:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/about-eds/index.html

Chief Editor: Rory Howlett Rory graduated in zoology from the University of Oxford and was awarded his PhD in ecological genetics from the University of Cambridge. Rory joined Nature in 1987 and was for 20 years an editor with the journal, where he developed wide-ranging interests in the biological and physical sciences and their interfaces. Between leaving Nature in 2008 and rejoining the Nature Publishing Group, Rory spent three years as Media and Communications Officer the United Kingdom’s National Oceanography Centre in Southampton.

The Nature Climate Change team is headquartered in the London editorial office:

Nature Climate Change Editorial Team

Nature Publishing Group

The Macmillan Building

4 Crinan Street

London

N1 9XW

UK

e-mail: nclimate@nature.com

When sending email, please be respectful and to the point.

Here is the letter I have sent:

=============================================================

Dr. Rory Howlett

Chief Editor

Nature Climate Change

Nature Publishing Group

The Macmillan Building

4 Crinan Street

London, N1 9XW, UK

Subject: Bain et al paper

Dear Dr. Howlett,

I was shocked to learn that Nature has apparently endorsed the use of the word “denier” which is deemed offensive by many people in the climate debate due to it being associated with Holocaust denial thanks to a widely syndicated opinion column in 2007:

I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate” on the Wayback Machine here

I run the most viewed blog on climate change and global warming in the world, and have written an essay questioning Nature’s apparent endorsement of the use of the word in scientific literature, seen at: http://wp.me/p7y4l-h7K

I question whether the peer review process even broached the subject of the use of this word. We know from experience that Nature does not allow other offensive words describing groups of people or minorities in their scientific literature, so I and many others wonder why this exception was made?

I would hope that Nature would realize that this word is offensive to many people, and ask the authors of this paper to substitute a less offensive term, such as “skeptic” or “contrarian”.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Best regards,

Anthony Watts

www.wattsupwiththat.com

Chico, CA USA

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...