Matt Nisbet has a recent post in which he suggests that using the term "denier" in debates over climate change is not useful. He links to a ten-minute segment on Public Radio International's The World, in which host Jason Margolis explores some reasons why referring to those who call themselves climate change skeptics as climate change deniers could give the skeptics (or deniers) a rhetorical advantage they don't deserve. (Click on the black arrow below to listen to the show.)
Why would calling someone who claims that climate change isn't happening or that humans have not contributed significantly to climate change in the past century a "climate change denier" give them a rhetorical advantage? Well...
Why would calling someone who claims that climate change isn't happening or that humans have not contributed significantly to climate change in the past century a "climate change denier" give them a rhetorical advantage? Well...
The argument comes down to this: calling someone a denier labels them for what they're against, not what they're for. In the case of climate change, those who doubt that climate change is real or that humans have a large influence have taken on the rhetorical cloak of a long, respectable philosophical tradition in their name. The skeptical tradition traces its roots to ancient Greek philosophy, to Plato's Academy if not before. By attacking their doubt, we are made to look like dogmatists wedded to a position we are unwilling to question. By attacking their doubt, we make their character (their "skepticism") the issue rather than the evidence and the policies that might follow from it.
Or at least that's how I understand the argument.
On the other hand, we have John Holdren, who published a piece in the Boston Globe last summer arguing that we ought to call those who doubt the reality of climate change climate change deniers. As he put it in a sentence that didn't appear in the op-ed,
Well, I'm not a communications expert, but I like playing offense better than playing defense. Let's give those who deny that climate change is happening, who deny that humans have a large influence on climate, and who deny that some action is necessary a label that they will have to defend. Let's give them a label that describes what they're for, not what they're against.
And what might that label be? Well, to describe someone who is for doing nothing suggests to me that we call them a
Climate change couch potato
If you have other ideas, please share them in the comments.
Or at least that's how I understand the argument.
On the other hand, we have John Holdren, who published a piece in the Boston Globe last summer arguing that we ought to call those who doubt the reality of climate change climate change deniers. As he put it in a sentence that didn't appear in the op-ed,
We should really call them "deniers" rather than "skeptics", because they are giving the venerable tradition of skepticism a bad name.So which is it? Call them deniers or not?
Well, I'm not a communications expert, but I like playing offense better than playing defense. Let's give those who deny that climate change is happening, who deny that humans have a large influence on climate, and who deny that some action is necessary a label that they will have to defend. Let's give them a label that describes what they're for, not what they're against.
And what might that label be? Well, to describe someone who is for doing nothing suggests to me that we call them a
Climate change couch potato
If you have other ideas, please share them in the comments.
Leave a comment