Given that this is called the “Climate Denier Roundup,” there’s little question on where we stand, and have stood for years, on the issue of naming and shaming deniers. We’ve mentioned here and there the Freudian roots of the term, of the psychological defense mechanism that locks out unwelcome thoughts. But now Peter Dykstra has laid it out nicely in a piece in Scientific American that tells climate deniers they’re deniers, and to “Deal with it.”
It’s well worth the read, particularly if you’re gun-shy about using the word or reluctant to use it to describe the current administration, which is full of deniers.
Though this nomenclature issue is by no means the most important part of defending climate science, it’s not unimportant either. After all, at this point we all know that presenting people with facts is not enough to motivate change. The information-deficit model is insufficient, due to the politicization of the issue, there needs to be a more culturally relevant response. There needs to be a certain appeal to emotions and rhetoric to break through the din and actually leave an impression on someone--in other words, science communications needs the humanities. So be accurate: don’t give deniers the benefit of the doubt by calling them doubters or skeptics.
As anyone who has even glanced at a denier’s blog knows, this is not a lesson they need. From photoshopped pictures of a firebreathing Al Gore that accompany all too many blog posts to the much-repeated tenant that greens are part of a secret communist conspiracy to steal your steak and SUV, they need no reminding of the power of rhetoric.
And yet, we noticed a (very) obscure blogger named Adam Piggot who attempts to do just that, offering a post on the fine art of climate trash talking. It mostly implores deniers to forget the facts and focus on lobbing insults at alarmists--as though that hasn’t been their M.O. for decades.
Piggot’s recommendation for how to deal with us pesky alarmists did ring true, though. He suggests the use of ridicule to attack hypocritical ideology and (as we hope you’ve noticed) we are always partial to “adding a rhetorical flourish at the end to finish him off like a metaphorical shiv.”
But that’s as far as our commonalities go. A couple of clicks on his blog reveal just how much of a pig Piggot is (or at least pretends to be online). He offers such sage wisdom as “a woman who uses bad language is not of marriageable quality” and that giving women the right to vote is “a mistake as women vote with emotion as compared to logic.”
He even has a list of 28 traits of the modern man. While none are quite as galling as suggesting that women should be disenfranchised, his second quality is that a modern man shaves every day. Why? Because in The Intern (spoiler alert!), a dapper Robert Di Niro gets the girl.
Yes, that is literally the very logical and not at all emotional example he gives. But we remain beard-positive and unconvinced.
So from those of us here who have the never-ending pleasure of falling down the rabbit-holes of denial, often filled with manboys longing for the approval of the clean shaven Di Niro-esque father figure they always failed to impress: Happy International Women’s Day!