Terminology | 2010.03.09
Mind your language | David Marsh
The style guide editor on … taking the heat out of the climate change debate
Scepticism, according to Diderot, is "the first step on the road to philosophy". For the American educational reformer John Dewey, scepticism was "the mark and even the pose of the educated mind". The OED defines a sceptic as "a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions".
Now consider this headline from the Express: "Snow chaos – and they still claim it\'s global warming". Yes, the recent cold snap in the UK apparently demonstrates that the notion that climate change is happening at all, let alone as the result of human activity, is one big confidence trick.
With due respect to the Express\'s scientific rigour, is it appropriate, do you think, to dignify such claptrap as climate change scepticism? Or dare I use the D-word? I\'m talking about D for denier, as in one who denies (to those looking for fashionable hosiery who have been directed here by typing "denier" into a search engine: you are in the wrong place).
We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics".
The editor of our environment website explains: "The former has nasty connotations with Holocaust 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 \'sceptical\' about the science." We might help to promote a more constructive debate, however, by being "as explicit as possible about what we are talking about when we use the term sceptic".
Most if not all of the environment team – who, after all, are the ones at the sharp end – now favour stopping the use of denier or denialist (which is not, in fact, a word) in news stories, if not opinion pieces.
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\'m reluctant to lay down strict rules in such a sensitive area, at least before taking further soundings both within the Guardian and among our readers. But some tentative conclusions:
• Rather than opening itself to the charge of denigrating people for their beliefs, a fair newspaper should always try to address what it is that people are sceptical about or deny.
• The term sceptics covers those who argue that climate change is exaggerated, or not caused by human activity.
• If someone really does think that climate change is not happening – that the world is not warming – then it seems fair enough to call them a denier (and I\'d love them to explain to me why comma butterflies are flying north to Scotland, for the first time in history, as fast as their jagged little wings will take them). A final quotation, this time from George Jean Nathan: "The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of scepticism." Let\'s hope no one\'s burned down the forest to build a motorway or drill for oil.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/[...]-change-scepticism-style-guide
