{"id":385256,"date":"2010-03-03T07:31:42","date_gmt":"2010-03-03T12:31:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prisonplanet.com\/?p=35755"},"modified":"2010-03-03T07:31:42","modified_gmt":"2010-03-03T12:31:42","slug":"sea-change-in-climate-journalism-the-guardian-and-the-d-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/385256","title":{"rendered":"Sea change in climate journalism: The Guardian and the D-word"},"content":{"rendered":"

Watts Up With That?<\/a>
\nMarch 3, 2010<\/p>\n

As we all know, the debate over global warming<\/a> is contentious, often vitrolic. Labels are often applied by both sides. One the most distasteful labels is \u201cdenier\u201d. I\u2019m pleased to report that the UK<\/a> paper The Guardian has taken on this issue headfirst.<\/p>\n

\"Sea<\/a><\/p>\n

In a recent email exchange with the Guardian\u2019s James Randerson, where he discussed an outreach opportunity to climate skeptics via a series of stories on the Guardian website, I raised the issue with him.<\/p>\n

\n

From: \u201cAnthony Watts<\/a> <xxx@xxxx.xxx>
\nDate: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:13 AM
\nTo: \u201cJames Randerson\u201d <xxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx>
\nSubject: Re: Guardian: CRU emails<\/em><\/p>\n

Hello James,<\/em><\/p>\n

Thanks for the response.<\/em><\/p>\n

If the Guardian truly wishes to engage climate skeptics, I do have a piece of advice that will help tear down walls. Get the newspaper to go on record that they will never again use the label \u201cdeniers\u201d in headlines or articles.<\/em><\/p>\n

For example:<\/em><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk<\/a>\/environment\/cif-green\/2010\/feb\/15\/climate-science-ipcc-sceptics<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk<\/a>\/environment\/2009\/mar\/09\/climate-change-deniers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

And there are many others I could cite.<\/em><\/p>\n

That simple, single act, recognizing that the term is erroneous, distasteful due to its holocaust<\/a> denier connotation, and unrepresentative of the position on climate change<\/a> of many who simply want the science to be right\u00a0 and reasonable solutions enacted would be a watershed event in mending fences.<\/em><\/p>\n

There\u2019s no downside for the Guardian to do so that I can envision. It would\u00a0 elevate the paper\u2019s credibility in the eyes of many. The Guardian can lead\u00a0 by example here.<\/em><\/p>\n

Thank you for your consideration.<\/em><\/p>\n

Best Regards,
\nAnthony Watts<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yesterday I received an email from him. It is my impression that he sent the suggestion out to other staff members and there was a discussion about it, which was written about here:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk<\/a>\/commentisfree\/2010\/mar\/01\/climate-change-scepticism-style-guide<\/a><\/p>\n

I excerpt the relevant paragraphs here, highlight mine:<\/p>\n

\n

We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to \u201cclimate change<\/a> deniers\u201d in favour of, perhaps, \u201cclimate sceptics\u201d.<\/p>\n

The editor of our environment website explains: \u201cThe former has nasty connotations with Holocaust<\/a> denial and tends to polarise debate. On the other hand there are some who are literally in denial about the evidence. Also, some are reluctant to lend the honourable tradition of scepticism to people who may not be truly \u2019sceptical\u2019 about the science.\u201d We might help to promote a more constructive debate, however, by being \u201cas explicit as possible about what we are talking about when we use the term sceptic\u201d.<\/p>\n

Most if not all of the environment team \u2013 who, after all, are the ones at the sharp end \u2013 now favour stopping the use of denier or denialist (which is not, in fact, a word) in news stories, if not opinion pieces.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Guardian\u2019s environment editor argues: \u201cSceptics have valid points and we should take them seriously and respect them.\u201d To call such people deniers \u201cis just demeaning and builds differences\u201d. One of his colleagues says he generally favours sceptic for news stories, \u201cbut let people use \u2018deniers\u2019 in comment pieces should they see fit. The \u2019sceptics\u2019 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I applaud the editorial staff at the Guardian for taking this step, and even more so for having the courage to put it to print.<\/strong> I thank James Randerson for bringing the subject to discussion. I hope that other editorial staff and news outlets will take note of this event.<\/p>\n

On that note let me say that we could all (and that includes me) benefit from the dialing back of the use of labels, and we should focus on the issues before us<\/a>. There\u2019s really nothing positive or factual to be gained from such labeling.<\/p>\n

I call on readers of WUWT to reciprocate this gesture by The Guardian by refraining from labeling others they may disagree with here and at other web forums.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s all dial back and treat others with the same respect in conversation as you might treat dinner guests having a discussion at home.<\/p>\n

My position has been that there is no debate that the earth has warmed over the past 100+ years, but that the magnitude of the measured warming and the cause(s) remain in debate. The question of whether such warming is beneficial or detrimental depends on who you ask. I\u2019ll also point out that it took our modern society<\/a> about 150 years of science and technology advances to get where we are now. Doing it cleaner and better won\u2019t be an overnight solution either.<\/p>\n

There are also other pressing environmental issues which have been swallowed whole by the maelstrom of this worldwide climate debate and are getting the short shrift. The sooner we can settle it, the sooner we can get on to solving those.<\/p>\n

UPDATE:<\/strong><\/p>\n

In related news, the nastiness of debate caused one long time blogger to close his discussion forum.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.timesonline.co.uk<\/a>\/tol\/news\/science\/article7043753.ece<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Possibly Related Posts:<\/h3>\n