Changing language use marks the shift from scientific debate to ideological assertion of power

Reading a fairly robust assertion of the climate skeptic argument in It's Climate Alarmists Who Remain in Denial by Marc Sheppard. You get used to polemists on both sides using their different strategies. This is primarily a contest for power, not an argument about truth and that is reflected by the fact that each side uses primarily the rhetorical strategy most conducive to "winning" the argument and neither side spends much time arguing the merits.

Climate alarmists tend to focus on a supposed (but nonexistent) consensus, rely heavily on ad hominem attacks, as well as relying heavily on fear mongering. Much of their argument orients around seeking to suppress debate. Those are their tools for "winning".

Climate skeptics tend to focus on the facts but are prone to presenting only those facts which support their interpretation. They also tend to indulge extensively in mockery. Those are their tools for "winning".

Of course the most legitimate argument is that which seeks to present all the facts and test multiple interpretations of those facts. Something both sides tend to shy away from.

But in his polemic, Sheppard mentions:

Notice how in the ten years since liberal journalist Ellen Goodman introduced the term into the debate, "denier" has all but replaced "skeptic" and "realist" in the public lexicon. Don't believe me? Just Google "climate denier" and see for yourself.

No, I hadn't noticed that a specific person initiated this very clever rhetorical dodge but I had noticed its increasing use as a term of abuse. It is a very clever because it rebrands scientific skepticism as scientific denialism. Yet, of course, that is not what is happening. Most skeptics want to argue the facts and the interpretation for facts while most climate alarmists simply want the argument to go away. Using an ad hominem slander is a nifty, though dishonest, dodge.

But Sheppard's question does deserve an answer. It appears to me that alarmists are relying on the climate denier charge to a greater extent than they have in the past. Is that true?

Here are the results comparing Climate Denier and Climate Skeptic in Google Trends since 2004 in the US.



Goodman may have intended to shift the debate by using a novel rhetorical dodge by introducing climate denier in 2009 but it took a year or so to catch on. From the first records in 2004, the preferred term by far was "climate skeptic", generally by a ratio of 3-6:1. In February 2011, for the first time, "climate denier" exceeded "climate skeptic".

Things rocked along in this fashion from February 2011 to September 2016, more than five years, with skeptic leading denier some months and denier leading skeptics in others. However, the tide turned in November 2016 and ever since, the term "climate denier" has been the heavily preferred term of opprobrium ever since by a factor of 2-4:1.

What happened in November to change the tenor of the dialogue? Oh, yeah.

Which reinforces the view that the entire discussion is about winning power rather than finding truth.

But that's just the US. What about the rest of the anglophone world not anchored in American political contests for power? What have been the trends there.

Something funky is going on at Google Trends. Google Trends says that Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia only use the term climate denier (or don't have enough information). Which is rubbish. Having lived in Australia I know that their debate is not dissimilar to ours in their use of both terms.

For the UK (where I have also lived) Google Trends has a different trend pattern.



Climate skeptic was the most common term used almost without exception up until April 2014. From April 2014 until August 2016, the two terms were used about equally. As in America, since November 2016 the derogatory term "climate denier" has become the dominant choice of wording.

Basically the British conversation was much more civil for longer but in the US and in the UK, with the advent of Trump in November 2016, the language has shifted the tone from civil to derisive marking a shift from argument to rhetorical ad hominem.

The shifting language use seems to mark that this is a political and ideological debate rather than a debate about facts and the interpretation of facts.

In that respect, it is an acknowledgement of the effectiveness of "climate denier" as a rhetorical technique.