A long long list of Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry are urging the news media to stop referring to climate deniers as “skeptics.” Pass it on.
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.
Tell everyone you know.
It’s probably fairly safe to assume that anyone who begins a rejection of a scientific claim with the words, “I’m not a scientist, but…” is probably a denier, not a skeptic.
The real test of this is when it’s applied to nominal skeptics who swerve into denier territory over certain topics, such as Penn Jillette. I know he’s changed his opinions on that some but, last I checked, it hasn’t really been dissimilar to how all such deniers have in recent years.
It seems to me that “denialist” and “skeptic” have the same denotation (they reject a claim) but the connotation is about the reasonableness of rejecting the claim. I notice that they have to keep qualifying skepticism with “proper” and “true.”
By a News organization calling someone a “climate change skeptic” they are suggesting that it is reasonable to reject the claim, giving the position credibility.
Any individual can mask their personal denialism as skepticism. Jillette is a perfect example: a committed Libertarian/Randroid, he has an a priori handicap against using his intelligence around issues where the One Great Truth has been decreed by Rand. Just for his television show this included:
Global Warming/environmentalism
Second hand smoke
Addiction/Alcoholism
And the rape and harassment deniers are absolutely swarming around the Atheist community.
I understand the confusion, given the sexism-denial, racism-denial, etc. of so many self-described “skeptics” (or “sceptics” across the pond). As other commenters note, the most prominent “skeptics” frequently veer into denialism.
This is great!