CATEGORY: WordsMatter

Words Matter: a “denier” is someone who denies, nothing more or less

CATEGORY: WordsMatterThe English language can be confusing, absurd, and infuriating all at the same time. Words Matter is a new occasional feature where S&R authors deconstruct how English words, phrases, and colloquialisms are used and misused.

to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of (Source)
one who denies [deniers of the truth] (Source)

As part of my climate and environmental reporting, I come across the term “denier” all the time, as in “climate denier,” “climate change denier,” “global warming denier,” and “industrial climate disruption denier.” And there are a lot of people identified as deniers who claim that the term is an attempt to place them on the same moral level as those individuals who claim that the Holocaust didn’t occur, aka Holocaust deniers. While there are certainly some who intentionally make that implication, the implication has nothing to do with the word “denier” itself. “Denier” means nothing more than a person who refuses to accept the existence, truth, or validity of something.

The definition of a denier is completely neutral. The definition doesn’t include any guidance about the values, ethics, morals, psychology, beliefs, or experiences of anyone who qualifies as a denier, only that the person is denying something. The definition also doesn’t define whether the thing being denied actually exists, is true, or has validity, only that it’s existence, truth, or validity is being denied. What’s being denied can be literally anything – evolution, that Han shot first, the existence of God, vaccine safety, that Picard was the best Star Trek captain, HIV as the cause of AIDS, that Shakespeare authored his plays, or even 2 + 2 = 4.

Since the definition of “denier” offers no guidance as to motivations or moral equivalencies, any good or bad properties associated with the term are necessarily a function of the term’s context, not of the term itself. In the context of a Sunday church service at a fundamentalist Christian church, someone being an evolution denier is unimportant. But change the context to a high school biology classroom and suddenly that denial may matter greatly. Similarly, a vaccine safety denier may well be harmless if he or she refuses to get the annual flu vaccine, but put that same denier in the context of child immunizations and public health ramifications of a pertussis outbreak and his or her denial may well be a serious concern.

But even in the case of vaccine safety deniers, their denial doesn’t mean they are necessarily immoral. They may simply be so afraid of vaccine side effects that their usual rationality is clouded by their own biases. Or they may not have the mathematical skill to realize that they’re actually making their children (and others) less safe by refusing to vaccinate. Their denial doesn’t mean that they’re stupid, either – everyone’s rationality is occasionally clouded by biases, emotions, and/or ignorance. It’s when someone knows that vaccines are safe and yet claims they aren’t for some other reason that vaccine safety denial becomes immoral. Of course, we tend to use different terms for these kinds of people – terms like “liars.”

It’s true that sometimes cultural context can mean that value-neutral terms can develop values that are partially independent of the term itself. A good example of this is the difference between “ethics” and “morals.” In philosophy they mean the same thing, but in the United State we tend to use “ethics” when we’re talking about professional behavior and “morals” when we’re talking about personal behavior. It’s possible that “denier” did originally have the cultural context of morally repugnant Holocaust denial, but even if that was the case years ago, it’s not the case any more.

Google is an occasionally convenient way to gauge the culture of the United States – search for something and the things that people are most interested in show up in the first few pages of results. When I did a search strictly on the word “deniers” earlier this week (1/14/2013), I found the following:

  • Links to definitions of “denier” were ranked #1, #6, and #17.
  • The Wikipedia disambiguation page was ranked #2.
  • A reference to the French denier coin came in at #27 and a reference to the denier as a unit of fiber measurement came in at #33.
  • The first Holocaust denial link was ranked #56, on page 6 of the results.
  • The first mention of Holocaust denial was in the “Searches related to deniers” options at the bottom of first page. The alternate search terms were “deniers definition,” “evolution deniers,” “climate change deniers,” “climate deniers,” “aids deniers,” “famous Holocaust deniers,” “Holocaust deniers claims,” and “Jewish Holocaust deniers.”

Every other link up to #56 was to a website or blog post or news article related to the denial of industrial climate disruption. It’s probably fair to say at this point that calling someone a “denier” is less likely to invoke Holocaust denial than it is to invoke climate disruption denial.

So why do people who deny one thing or another generally dislike being labeled as “deniers?” It’s probably not because of the spurious connection to Holocaust denial. Instead, people who take umbrage at the term do so because no-one likes being labeled negatively. We psychologically prefer to view ourselves in positive terms than in negative ones, and the term “denier” is a strongly negative term.

Furthermore, in most cases the term “denier” simply and accurately describes what the people so labeled are doing – they’re denying some aspect of objective reality. Vaccine safety deniers deny the reality that vaccines have repeatedly been demonstrated to be safe and that the risks of vaccination are much lower than the risks of going unvaccinated. HIV/AIDS deniers deny the reality that HIV causes AIDS. Evolution deniers deny the reality that species evolve and that God is not a necessary condition for the existence of humanity.

In my opinion, however, there is another aspect to the complaints about the word “denier,” one that goes to the heart of why so many industrial climate disruption deniers claim that “denier” is meant to imply Holocaust denial. I think that some deniers dislike that such a simple, value-neutral word as “denier” can be used to accurately describe them and would prefer that some other term be used instead (we’ll cover euphemisms and misnomers like “climate realist” and “climate change skeptic” another time).

There are over a dozen synonyms for the verb “deny.” Converting them from the verb form to a noun that describes the person doing the action generates the following list of alternate terms that could be used in place of “denier:”

contradictor, disaffirmer, disallower, disavower, disclaimer, disconfirmer, disowner, gainsayer, negator, negativer, refuter, rejecter, or repudiator.

With the possible exception of “rejecter,” however, each of the terms is more confusing than “denier.” How many people would know what you meant if you wrote “Holocaust gainsayer” or “HIV/AIDS disavower” or “industrial climate disruption disconfirmer?” Most people would become confused by the unknown word, lose track of the point you were trying to make, and then give up and move on.

The word “denier” is value neutral and it says nothing about the motivations or ethics of a person who is described as such. It’s only through context that “denier” can be given a moral or ethical dimension. While it’s possible that it was once culturally tied to Holocaust denial, that cultural connection is minimal now, and it probably has been ever since “denier” became so firmly attached to climate change/global warming/industrial climate disruption. Nowadays, “denier” merely means someone who rejects the existence, truth, or validity of something. Any other implications are strictly in the minds of the person calling someone a denier, and in the mind of the person being called one.

Words matter – use them carefully.

9 comments on “Words Matter: a “denier” is someone who denies, nothing more or less

  1. There’s also the point that “denier” had the same dictionary definition before 1939. *If* there was a period of time during which the word was connotatively linked to Holocaust denial to any significant degree, that period of time was limited. (Indeed, it’s probably limited to a few years in which a few vocal Neo-Nazis were prominent in the news, and at that only due to shorthand by journalists.)

  2. There are instances of environmental journalists explicitly linking ‘climate denial’ with ‘holocaust denial’. Journalist have a big voice via the platform they are elevated to and should be more careful with their words.

    As someone sceptical regarding the claims made by some climate scientists and advocates of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, the thing I mainly object to when called a denier is the fuzziness of whatever it is I’m supposedly in denial of.

    ‘Climate denier’. What? Who denies there is a climate?
    ‘Climate change denier’ Eh? I’ve never denied the the climate changes. In fact I frequently remind people that the climate changed a lot long before anyone set fire to coal.
    ‘Industrial climate disruption denier’ Huh? Is there a scientific definition of that?
    ‘Anthropogenic global warming denier’ Well, I’m sure we’ve warmed the planet a bit, but the whole debate is *how much* compared to natural variation. In my view, having considered the science carefully, I conclude “probably not much”, and, “Since we don’t know the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere to an accurate enough value (+/-3.6W/m^2 on a good day when the instruments are behaving themselves) to separate the alleged co2 signal from the noise, it’s an open question.”

    So tell me do, just what ‘truth’ is it am I supposedly in denial of?

    • Tallbloke, I happen to agree that journalists should be more careful with their words. That’s why I don’t personally like or use the phrase “climate denier” or even “climate change denier.” However, both terms are rhetorical shorthand for “someone who denies that the existing increases in the global mean temperature are dominated by human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels and the corresponding accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, and that the evidence for human activity being the dominant factor is overwhelming.”

      As for “industrial climate disruption,” it’s the term I use instead of “anthropogenic climate change.” It has the advantage of being scientifically and and technologically accurate (accumulating CO2 is already disrupting climate and will continue to do so, and the dominant source is human industry, especially electricity generation) while being less confusing and less clunky than either “anthropogenic” or “human-dominated.”

      And having reviewed your website, you are absolutely an “industrial climate disruption denier” because you do deny the overwhelming scientific evidence that human industry is responsible for climate disruption. However, this is not the thread to discuss why that is. This thread is to discuss the definition of the word “denier” and it’s associations, not science.

  3. Pingback: Words Matter: industrial climate disruption is not a religion | Scholars and Rogues

  4. Pingback: Roy Spencer calls climate scientists and activists “global warming Nazis” | Scholars and Rogues | Progressive Culture

  5. Pingback: Roy Spencer attacks Anti-Defamation League for denouncing his use of “global warming Nazis” | Scholars and Rogues | Progressive Culture

  6. Pingback: Liability fears drive psychology journal to retract climate study | Scholars and Rogues | Progressive Culture

  7. Pingback: Tom Harris’ recent commentaries rife with errors and illogic | Scholars and Rogues | Progressive Culture

  8. Pingback: Peddlers of climate change deceit have significant advantages over climate realists | Scholars and Rogues | Progressive Culture

Leave us a reply. All replies are moderated according to our Comment Policy (see "About S&R")

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s