Legitimate scientific skeptics object to calling science deniers "skeptics." Here's a suggestion: "lying, stinking buttwipes"

The mascot of the Australian Skeptics. Climate-science disinformers don't qualify as "skeptics," say these 48 prominent scientists and thinkers, because they aren't interested in evidence -- just denial.

"Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration."

-- from a statement signed by 48 fellows of
the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

by Ken

The Republican War on Science isn't exactly news to readers of DWT. It remains a continuing source of astonishment, this unrelenting hatred of and crusade against everything related to reality, truth, knowledge, and the attempt to understand the world around us, but not news.

It's always heartening to witness a bit of pushback by people who really do care about reality, truth, knowledge, and the attempt to understand the world around us. So I was delighted by ClimateProgress's Joe Romm's report on the statement signed by 48 fellows of the Committee for Sketpical Inquiry "urging the media to 'Please stop using the word ‘skeptic’ to describe deniers' of climate science." The signers, Joe notes, "include such luminaries as Nobel laureate Sir Harold Kroto; Douglas Hofstadter, Director of The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition at Indiana University; physicist Lawrence Krauss, Director of The Arizona State University Origins Project; and Bill Nye 'the Science Guy.' " (The full list, he notes by link, can be found at the end of the posted statement.)

The scientists and journalists were motivated by a Nov, 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” that referred to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” They note that same week, NPR’s Morning Edition called Inhofe “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” The signatories note, “These are not equivalent statements” and the two terms should not be conflated.

“Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims,” the letter reads. “It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.”

The scientists and journalists point out that Inhofe’s assertion that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is a very extraordinary claim of a “vast alleged conspiracy.” They note that true skepticism is embodied in a quote often repeated by Carl Sagan: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But Inhofe has never been able to provide even ordinary evidence for his absurd conspiracy charge. “That alone should disqualify him [Inhofe] from using the title ‘skeptic’.”

The continued endurance in a position of public prominence of a pile of utter filth like James Inhofe remains one of the great shames of our time. It's revolting to have to keep coming back to it (as cases in point, see Howie's July 2008 post "What's Wrong With James Inhofe?" and my July 2009 post "Would you believe that scientists looking into Jim Inhofe's bogus global-warming "Minority Report" find it "not credible"?"), but here we are.

Joe proceeds to quote the final two paragraphs from the statement, but I'm going to give you the entire statement, with those final grafs boldfaced:

Deniers are not Skeptics

December 5, 2014

Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.

As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”

As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.

We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word “skeptic” to describe deniers.

EVEN "DENIER" STILL ISN'T QUITE RIGHT

Joe goes on to explain, as he notes he has "many times in the past," "why 'denier' is not a perfect term." He prefers "disinformer."

There are no perfect terms. Years ago I tried to coin the terms “delayer” and “disinformer” for those who make a living spreading disinformation about climate science in order to delay action — and I still use the term “disinformer.” But coining terms is nearly impossible, and the fact is that almost everybody has embraced the term “deniers” – including many, many disinformers.

Not least among the problem with the term "denier" is that many of the hardest-core disinformers happily use the term to describe themselves, making it sound as if it's an intellectually sustainable, even honorable position, rather than just a cynical crock of you-know-what.

Joe notes further that, stuck as we apparently are with the term "denier," he would like to see "climate change denier" replaced by "climate science denier" -- "because many deniers say they accept that the climate is changing, while denying the overwhelming evidence that humans are behind it."

The media doesn’t write about “tobacco science skeptics” or even bother giving equal time to people who deny the dangerous health consequences of cigarette smoking. And yet as the American Association for the Advancement of Science — the world’s largest general scientific society explained in a March report: “The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases.”

“Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts and others all agree smoking causes cancer,” the report said. “And this consensus among the health community has convinced most Americans that the health risks from smoking are real. A similar consensus now exists among climate scientists, a consensus that maintains climate change is happening, and human activity is the cause.”

But one thing they clearly aren't, these creeps who intentionally trick masses of ill-informed people into swallowing their poison, is skeptics. And stripping them of this fig-leaf cover would at least be a start.

#