Around a year ago, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) published “The Toxic Ten”, in which CCDH accuses ten websites of sowing climate change skepticism by producing producing “deceptive or misleading content” that:
Undermines the existence or impacts of climate change, the unequivocal human influence on climate change, and the need for corresponding urgent action according to the IPCC scientific consensus and in line with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement;
Misrepresents scientific data, including by omission or cherry-picking, in order to erode trust in climate science, climate-focused institutions, experts, and solutions;
Falsely publicises efforts as supportive of climate goals that in fact contribute to climate warming or contravene the scientific consensus on mitigation or adaptation.
CCDH used a Boolean query to identify articles that use words or phrases typically associated with climate denial. The report explains “articles containing the phrases “climate denial” or “climate denier” were excluded by the query in order to remove articles that used climate denial terms in the process of analyzing or debunking them.” Here’s the query:
(climate OR “global warming” OR “climate change”) AND (alarmism OR alarm OR alarmist OR fraud OR hysteria OR hoax OR panic OR climategate OR realism OR hypocrite OR hypocrisy OR cult OR scare OR manipulation OR manipulated OR scam OR lie OR marx OR marxism OR soros OR “solar minimum” OR “agenda 21” OR “climate lockdowns” OR “agenda 2030” OR “new world order”) AND NOT(“climate denial” OR “climate denier”).
CCDH indicated they manually removed articles that did not promote climate denial from the query results and came up with a final sample of 6,983 articles featured in Facebook posts. They don’t say what criteria or process they used to remove query results. That the process was “manual” doesn’t cut it. Did they actually read the articles?
Here’s the thing: a lot of climate change writing is alarmist and manipulative. That includes any climate change article that refers to the “business as usual” scenario without explaining that the phrase refers to a highly improbable hypothetical that was developed as a modeling/research tool and was never meant to depict a realistic picture of current trends. See, for example, “Business as usual” could lead to catastrophic global sea-level rise, says new study (which was later retracted, btw) or 'Because Business as Usual Is a Death Sentence': Youth Climate Strikers in Their Own Words. And for a great discussion of the business as usual scenario, see Explainer: The high-emissions ‘RCP8.5’ global warming scenario Zeke Hausfather/Carbon Brief, August 21, 2019.
I want to know about studies that are reassuring as well as alarming. I don’t need to be a true believer unwilling to question articles of the faith to be very worried about climate change. So why should anyone else?
With that, I’m going to end with post from 2018, titled Label Creep: The Case of "Denier" :
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:
isn't willing to say humans are mostly responsible but accepts that humans are at least partly responsible for climate change;
isn't too worried about climate change;
doesn't believe hypothetical worst-case scenarios should dictate climate change policy
thinks the challenges of climate change will be manageable and effectively dealt with as they become apparent
favors market-friendly policies to reduce GHG emissions;
assumes a "wait-and-see" stance
is against a carbon tax;
is against a large carbon tax
takes a cautious and incremental approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation
accepts fossil fuels as part of the world's energy mix for the foreseeable future
is against regulations, taxes, or policies that would harm economic growth
is concerned about the effect of regulations, taxes, or policies on economic growth
thinks cost/benefit analyses should be applied to proposed climate change policies, regulations and initiatives
calls climate change activists "alarmist"
stresses that the magnitude and effects of climate change are uncertain
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 - in other words, something that can be vigorously debated. But to debate policy issues you have to engage with those 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.