Label creep: a gradual broadening of a category, often changing its meaning.

Partisan vigilance encourages label creep. We are not them. They are our adversaries. We must purge them from our ranks. We must have nothing to do with them, because they are beyond the pale. They are the devil. We must become better at identifying the devil. What are the signs of the devil? The devil is a devious sort who often hides behind a veneer of reasonableness. In fact, reasonableness may be a sign of the devil. Hah - got ya!

Yeah, kinda overblown but I think I'm capturing something real.

Take the case of climate change "denier". Originally, a denier was simply someone who disagreed with, or was skeptical about, the "scientific consensus". The scientific consensus being: climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities. That's it.

But within certain activist circles it seems like "denier" has come to mean anyone who:

  1. isn't willing to say humans are mostly responsible but accepts that humans are at least partly responsible for climate change;
  2. isn't too worried about climate change;
  3. doesn't believe hypothetical worst-case scenarios should dictate climate change policy
  4. thinks the challenges of climate change will be manageable and effectively dealt with as they become apparent
  5. favors market-friendly policies to reduce GHG emissions;
  6. assumes a "wait-and-see" stance
  7. is against a carbon tax;
  8. is against a large carbon tax
  9. takes a cautious and incremental approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation
  10. accepts fossil fuels as part of the world's energy mix for the foreseeable future
  11. is against regulations, taxes, or policies that would harm economic growth
  12. is concerned about the effect of regulations, taxes, or policies on economic growth
  13. thinks cost/benefit analyses should be applied to proposed climate change policies, regulations and initiatives
  14. calls climate change activists "alarmist"
  15. stresses that the magnitude and effects of climate change are uncertain
  16. is critical of green rhetoric, such as the overly broad use of "denier"

I'm not making this up.  Just check out Motherboard's "Guide to Climate Change Deniers in Congress", which starts out well enough:

"For the purpose of this survey, we defined climate change deniers as those who deny the existence of anthropogenic, or human-made, climate change."

But then proceeds to cast a much wider net:

Senators and representatives who called themselves "skeptics" were also included, because enough empirical evidence exists for them to make an informed decision on whether people are influencing the climate. To the argument that voting against climate change bills is not the same as denying it exists: the many species, ecosystems, and people already seeing its effects can no longer wait for Congress to debate the merits of addressing climate change right now.

Actually, senators and representatives who do not call themselves "skeptics" are included on Motherboard's list of denier-politicians. Voting against climate change bills appears to be enough to warrant their denier label. Or, apparently, voting for bills like the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 910), as did many on the Motherboard list.

What was wrong with H.R. 910? To quote from the bill itself, H.R. 910 "excludes GHGs from the definition of 'air pollutant' for purposes of addressing climate change." Note, though, that the bill also supports implementation/enforcement of vehicle emissions/fuel standards, renewable fuels programs, climate change R&D, and monitoring/reporting of CO2 emissions, as well as confirming "there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system." But here's the rub:  H.R. 910 "urges Congress" to develop climate change "policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment." 

So what we have here is a difference of opinion on policy priorities: the extent to which economic effects should be taken into account when drafting climate change bills. In other words, something that can be vigorously debated both as a matter of principle and on a case-by-case basis. But to debate policy issues, you have to engage those with whom you disagree - not dismiss them out of hand by labeling them deniers. 

Labels matter. The value of a label is in its use and effects. The label of denier undermines the process of collective problem-solving. It should be used sparingly.

Next: Why labels can be stupid, continued: Norwegians are leading the way on cutting GHG emissions even though most are not sure human activity is the main driver of climate change.